The Crisis in Cosmology

The search for a single number,
the Hubble constant,… …the rate of expansion of our universe,… …has consumed astronomers for generations. Finally, two powerful
and independent methods… …have refined its measurement
to unprecedented precision. The only problem…
is that they don’t agree,… …and it’s causing to question… …some of the most basic assumptions
about the universe. In 1929, Edwin Hubble…
discovered the universe. He gave us
our first incontrovertible proof… …that there are galaxies
outside the Milky Way,… …by measuring the distances
to the spiral nebulae They were many millions
of light years from us,… …far outside the Milky Way,
and so must be galaxies in their own right. Combined with the Doppler shift
velocity measurements of Vesto Slipher,… …Hubble revealed that the galaxies
are not only receding from us,… …but they are receding at a rate
proportional to their distance. An impossibly vast universe
had been discovered beyond the Milky Way,… …and at the same time
that universe was revealed to be expanding. The galaxies appear to be racing away from us,
because the intervening space is expanding. We encapsulate the expansion of the universe
with a single number, called the Hubble constant. H-naught (H0) It tells us how fast the galaxies appear to be
retreating from us, dependent on their distance apart But, more fundamentally, H0 tells us
the rate of expansion of the universe… …in the modern era. Ever since Hubble’s great discovery,… …the search for H0
has been the all-consuming obsession… …of thousands of astronomers
across the generations. And, understandably,… …the rate of expansion of the universe,
combined with the gravitational effect… …of the matter and energy it contains,… …can be used to determine
its entire expansion history,… …from the Big Bang to its final fate. And it’s fundamental for interpreting
our observations of the distant universe,… …whose light has traveled billions of years
through this expanding cosmos. You can imagine the alarm
when the two most powerful methods… …used to measure this fundamental parameter,
the Hubble constant,… …gave different results! But before we get to that, let’s talk about
the great quest to measure the Hubble constant. Until the new millennium, the best we could do
was to estimate H0 within a factor of 2,… … somewhere between 50 and 100
kilometers per second per megaparsec. These strange units
warrant some explanation. Km/s, that’s for
the recession speed of a given galaxy. Megaparsecs is for its distance,… …with 1 megaparsec being
around 3.3 million light-years. If the Hubble constant were, say,
75 km per second per megaparsec,… …then for every 1 mega parsec distance,… …we’d expect the galaxy to be retreating from us
at an additional 75 kilometers per second. Historically,
measurement of the Hubble constant… …meant measuring the recession velocity and distance
for as many galaxies as possible. The velocity part is relatively easy. Just do as Vesto Slipher did,
and measure redshift. This is the lengthening of the wavelength
of light from that galaxy,… …which was stretched as it travels to us
through an expanding universe. The distance…
that’s tricky. Hubble used Cepheid variables,… …giant stars,
during the last phases of their lives. They pulsate with a period… …that’s related to their true brightness,
as discovered by Henrietta Leavitt. Measuring Cepheid periods in other galaxies
gave Hubble their true brightnesses,… …as though undimmed by distance. Cepheids became what we call “standard candles”,
objects of known luminosity,… …whose observed brightness, therefore,
tells us their distance. But this calculation
involves assumptions and uncertainties. For one thing, the Cepheid
period-luminosity relationship… …first had to be calibrated,… …based on nearby Cepheids,… …whose distances can be figured
using stellar parallax Tracking their tiny motions on the sky,
as Earth orbits the Sun. This stepwise determination of astronomical distances
is called the cosmic distance ladder. With each step on the ladder,
uncertainties compound. Add this to our uncertainties in the behavior and observation of Cepheids themselves,… …and the precise measurement
of the Hubble constant… …has been a slow laborious process. As larger telescopes
and more expansive surveys were completed,… …we gradually whittled down
the errors in H0. An important advance was
the development of new standard candles. Cepheids are good, but can only be seen
out to a certain distance. Supernovae can be seen much further,… …and type 1a supernovae are the key. These result when white dwarfs,
ancient remnants of dead stars,… …absorb too much material
from a binary partner Runaway fusion
causes them to detonate. The resulting explosion
has highly predictable brightness,… …making them
excellent standard candles. In the 1990s,… …astronomers were using these supernovae
to better nail down the Hubble constant. They inadvertently discovered… …that the expansion of the universe
is actually accelerating,… …revealing the existence of dark energy. One of the Nobel Prize winning researchers
behind this discovery is Adam Riess. Riess has continued the quest… …to refine our measurement of H0
to ever greater precision. A big part of his work is to improve the calibration
of type 1a supernovae as standard candles. Riess’s Supernovae H0 for the Equation of State
project, – SHOES -,… …uses the Hubble Space Telescope
to match old supernovae observations… …with new, more reliable Cepheid variables. By improving this run
on the cosmic distance ladder,… …all past supernovae distances
also improve. Recent teams have now narrowed down the Hubble constant to 73.5 ± 1,7… …kilometers per second per megaparsec That 2%-ish uncertainty… …is a hell of a lot better
than the old factor of 2 uncertainty. So, where’s the crisis? Well, in order to fully believe
a measurement like this,… …we prefer it to be made
through independent methods. The SHOES project measures the recession of galaxies
up to around 2 billion light years away. So it’s a more or less direct measurement
of the CURRENT expansion rate. But there’s another way to go. What if we could measure the expansion rate
of the universe at the very beginning? Then, we could figure out what its current expansion rate should be, given our best understanding… …of all the gravitational influences
that affected that expansion since the Big Bang. So, we’d better hope
that it does give the same result,… …or there is a big problem,
with either our supernova measurements… …or with our understanding
of how the universe evolved. Spoiler: …
there IS a problem. There’s another reason to try to calculate H0 from observation of the early universe It’s that that observation I’m referring to
is far more reliable than Cepheids and supernovae. I’m talking about the
Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, the CMB. This is a topic we’ve been over,
so, for now, just the TLDR. The Cosmic Microwave Background is the remnant
heat glow of the universe’s initial hot dense state. Released around 400,000 years
after the Big Bang,… …when the universe had finally cooled down enough
to become transparent to light. We still see it today,… …now stretched by a factor of 1,100
by its near 14 billion year journey… …through an expanding universe. This is the map of the CMB across the entire sky,… …created by the Planck satellite. The speckles are
tiny differences in temperature,… …corresponding to tiny
differences in density. The blue regions are a factor of 100,000
cooler than the red regions,… …and also slightly more dense These over-densities… …would go on to collapse into the vast
clusters of galaxies of the modern universe. So,… how can the CMB
tell us the Hubble constant? The key is
the sizes of those speckles. In the era just before the release of the CMB,
matter and light were trapped together. Matter wanted to collapse
under its own gravity,… …while light generated a powerful pressure
to resist that collapse. These counteractive forces
produced oscillations,… …really vast sound waves
that rippled across the universe. These are
the baryon acoustic oscillations,… …and they occurred
on all different sized scales,… …sloshing between high and low density,
over those 400,000 years. Then,… …the release of the CMB meant that light and matter
were no longer coupled together. And so those oscillations stopped. The state of the oscillations
at the moment of that release… …is imprinted on the CMB,
in those speckles. We usually show
the distribution of speckle sizes… …with what we call a power spectrum,… …which basically shows the abundance
of speckles of different sizes. The location of these peaks… …tells us which oscillation modes… …just happened to be at their peaks… …at the moment the CMB was released. This, in turn, depends
on the density of matter and radiation,… …as well as the expansion rate
of the universe in that early epoch. So, how do you get the Hubble constant,
i.e., the current expansion rate, from all of this? Well, first you figure out
what starting cosmological parameters… …could give the power spectrum
observed by Planck. Those parameters include the starting combination
of both dark and light matter, and radiation,… …as well as the initial expansion rate. And then,… …you figure out how the universe
described by these parameters… …should evolve to the present day. This sounds involved,… …but the Planck power spectrum is so rich
with information, that the Planck team… …claim to have calculated H0
with even better precision than SHOES. The problem is,
the results don’t agree. The Planck H0 is 66.9 ± 0.6
kilometers per second per megaparsec,… …compared to the supernova result
of 73.5 ± 1.7. Now, they’re actually
remarkably close,… …given we figured them out
from data at the opposite ends of time. But they also seem
irreconcilably different,… …3,7 sigma different in fact. Which means a 1/7000 chance… …that that level of difference
could have happened through random errors. This is the crisis in cosmology. This discrepancy first emerged in 2016, when
Riess’s new calibration of the supernova-derived H0… …revealed it to be in real conflict
with the Planck result from a couple of years earlier. Since then, calibrations have been improved,
results have been rechecked,… …and independent methods have been used
to calibrate the supernovae as standard candles. The difference is real,… …and, in fact,
the error bars are only getting smaller. Okay, before we declare
all cosmology broken,… …let’s think about the two main possible sources
of this discrepancy. First: there are unknown
systematic sources of uncertainty… …in either the supernova
or Planck measurements. Biases, that are driving one or the other
to be too high or too low. Perhaps we don’t understand
Cepheid variables like we thought,… …or perhaps gravitational lensing alters the
Planck speckles differently to how we thought. Ongoing efforts are ruling out
systematic errors one by one,… …but it’s possible there’s still something
we haven’t thought of yet Second: there’s some unknown physics… …that needs to be taken into account
for the CMB calculation. This is the most exciting possibility There are a few options. So let’s start a new list. One: A new type
of very fast-moving particle. Insufficient numbers could skew the energy balance
of the early universe, and mess up the calculation. That particle could be
the sterile neutrino,… …a hypothetical, non-interacting neutrino,
that isn’t part of the standard model. Two: Dark matter particles
behave differently to how we thought. Perhaps dark matter interacts more strongly
with matter and radiation,… …which would shift the sizes
of those CMB speckles. Three: Dark energy isn’t constant. The current calculations assume that dark energy
is described by the cosmological constant,… …which, by definition,
doesn’t change. But if dark energy increases,… …that could explain why we observe
a higher H0 in the modern universe… …than is predicted by extrapolating
from the early universe. The answer will depend on whether the more
correct measurement of the Hubble constant… …comes from Planck or SHOES. New observations and new telescopes
will refine these numbers even further. Independent methods, like using
gravitational lensing, or gravitational waves,… …will weigh in on one side or the other. Perhaps the uncertainties will be refined,
and the two results will converge. That’d be cool. The near centennial quest to measure
the expansion rate of the universe will be concluded. Or perhaps the discrepancy will persist. That would be even cooler We’ll have a new tool… …to investigate the mysterious physics
of dark energy, dark matter,… …or of unknown particles
beyond the standard model. For now, we continue
our obsessive quest for H0… …and for what it’ll tell us
of the origin and fate of our expanding space-time. In today’s comment responses,
we need to catch up on 2 episodes. First, it’s our journal club
on Dr. Jamie Farnes’ paper… …about negative mass dark fluid… …as a unifying explanation
of both dark matter and dark energy. Then we’ll get to comments
on our CPT symmetry episode. So, a friend of a friend
of Dr. Farnes’ chimed in. Leo Staley’s friend says that Dr. Farnes
doesn’t necessarily believe the claims of his paper,… …but rather its purpose
was to spark interesting ideas among physicists. Well, okay. I totally respect that motivation
to publish even quite fringe ideas,… …and he certainly
sparked a conversation. I mean, look,
I’m still talking about it. Andrew Paulfreyman points out that… …the gravitational lensing measurements
of dark matter… …will give the exact opposite results
if dark matter is due to this negative mass fluid… …than if it’s actual,
positive mass matter. And my intuition tells me
that this is right. Gravitational lensing
is the bending of light by a gravitational field. We see it in the warping
of images of distant objects,… …due to the gravitational fields
of more nearby galaxies. We can use that warping
to measure masses. And yeah, those measures tell us
that dark matter has positive mass I’d need to do the simulations,
but I have a feeling… …that we wouldn’t even see
this sort of strong gravitational lensing… …if the effect of dark matter
was due to this dark fluid. Marik Zilberman’s
distaste for negative masses… …is that they produce perpetual motion machines
and paradoxes left and right. Exactly what I thought. When a theory leads to these – sort of –
pathological predictions, it’s a big red flag. And we’re actually going to do
a challenge question episode,… …to explore these paradoxes. Stay tuned. Okay, let’s move on to our episode
on the ultimate symmetry of nature,… …the simultaneous reversal
of charge, parity, and time. First up: a few of you asked questions
about time reversal, so I want to clarify. The T in CPT symmetry
isn’t a literal rewinding of the clock. It’s best thought of
as a reversal of all motion,… …both linear and angular momentum. Everything reverses direction. If the universe has
this sort of T symmetry,… …then, if you reverse all motion,… …the universe will evolve exactly backwards,
to its initial state. Turns out that’s not the case,… …as demonstrated by the different forward/backward reaction rates in certain quantum interactions. But the universe IS symmetric
under full CPT inversion. Now, a CPT inverted universe
is not the same as this universe,… …but the laws of Physics are the same. The point is that you can’t tell
which of the two you’re in. TinyFox Tom asks whether mass
would be inverted under CPT symmetry. And I guess you’re referring to the idea
that time-reversed energy has its sign flipped. So, the simple answer is no,
because the T in CPT isn’t a true time reversal. But in the case of a true time reversal,
the answer is, essentially, yes. And a negative mass particle,
moving backwards in time,… …is mathematically the same as a positive mass particle moving forward in time That notion makes sense in the math,… …and is used in, for example, Feynman’s
path integral formulation of quantum mechanics. But it’s not so obvious whether this idea
corresponds to anything physical. Rishit Vora asks how a T inversion
would affect a black hole? Well, a true time reversal
that included the interior of a black hole… …should transform it into a white hole. Everything that ever fell in
would come rushing out,… …and presumably reassemble itself into
the stars, spaceships, monkeys,… that originally fell in. As to the motion reversal symmetry
of the T in CPT,… …frankly, I’m not sure, because we don’t know
the state of matter in the black hole. But, at any rate, remember
that T symmetry is broken. Both the T of CPT
and true time reversal symmetry. So a rewound black hole shouldn’t revert exactly
to whatever it formed from. That doesn’t mean
information is lost. Just that it ends up
in a different form. And back to dark fluid for a sec. Mr. Nation [?] has his own unified theory
of the Dark Sector. He reveals to us
that dark energy equals dark matter,… …times the speed of dark… …squared.
[ DE = dm•(cd^2) ] Genius on so many levels. Not only scientific levels,
but still, levels.

  • If a black hole sucks space at v>c, a white hole would expulse space time at v>c. Would matter be able to reach us? Or would the white hole essencially be throwing tachyions away?

  • God created this universe and worlds without end, and its ever expanding. Has been and always will be. That's why you won't find the center since space is endless and our equipment is pitiful in comparison to God. Science always will always support God since he understands it far better than we could ever hope to. We are just starting to understand it.

  • Help! Why expanding away from us. Am I not made of space-time too? Do we only ride on top of space-time? Why do we not expand as well, thus keeping the distance from other objects the same?

  • Dumb question for people smarter than me… is the expansion rate the same in every direction we look at in the universe? If the universe originated from a single point shouldn’t that expansion be faster in one direction than in another? Wouldn’t the force of the initial expansion work against an expansion back towards the initial source?

    I am probably thinking about it wrong. Most of this goes over my head

  • My money would be on Dark Energy not being a constant, but I'm excited for whatever the truth turns out to be. ❤Science❤.

  • Hubble got it wrong – Halton Arp got it right. Redshift does not measure distance, the universe is not expanding, galaxies are not rushing away from an imaginary earthcentric point.

  • The Hubble constant is essentially the resistance of free space. One might liken light traveling through space as electrons traveling through a non superconducting conductor. The constant is the ratio of the voltage of the light to the current. Note that in an electrical circuit the voltage goes down as the electrons pass through the conductor. Likewise light looses energy- changes it’s wavelength to a larger value, lower energy, red-shift. Where does the energy go to? Into the space, forming dark energy.

  • theirs no way out of here once you come in your in for good theirs no way to understand a created universe you were never meant to understand

  • Yes and no – The universe does not expand "into" anything and does not require space to exist "outside" it. Consider the referenced use of a universal singularity as the point of creation for the universe. Rather than considering the singularity as a point, think of it as a singular dimension of the space-time fabric. Then we could think of space-time as unfolding into two dimensions, then three dimensions, and so on. And since the predominant condition of the universe is dark energy, in which there is no baryonic matter, it could be better understood as a dimensional ramification of these earlier dimensions. In this way, everything is just evolving and maturing within infinite space-time.
    As for the expression of accelerating expansion, consider the time dilation of a black hole. To a distant observer, clocks near a black hole would appear to tick more slowly than those further away from the black hole. Due to this effect, known as gravitational time dilation, an object falling into a black hole appears to slow as it approaches the event horizon, taking an infinite time to reach it.
    Reversing this perspective from a black hole observer, clocks further away from the black hole would appear to tick more quickly than those further away from the black hole.
    This theoretical hypothesis is being proposed just to theorize upon the concept of time dilation as the rational justification for emulating the condition of an increasingly expanding universe. From anywhere in the cosmos, the universe is seemingly expanding faster rather than slower due to the perspective of time dilation. Therefore validating the expansion of the universe as the increase of the distance between two distant parts of the universe with time. It is an intrinsic expansion whereby the scale of space itself changes.

  • Measurements from the opposite ends of time = sounds like H0 isn't really constant. That or one of the other constants aren't over billions of years. Mystery solved.

  • I do not understand, please explain your "unknown" parameters?
    concept principle, paradox is paradox right? In the end equals ..
    Your translation of reality/definition is poor to say the least..
    DM/DE = +t > 0 -t<=1

    +1=+0.0=+1.1=+0.0=+1 > –

    -1= -0.0=-1.1=-0.0=-1 < +
    +A> = -B>
    Mirror directional outcomes, the opposite end of the black hole is the same black hole, inverted sending out equal matter in radiation to what it draws in. What makes you think the other opposite end inside out is a white hole?
    Any one care to enlighten?

  • Cosmology should distinguish between those two different statements:
    1. "Redshift is proportional to distance".
    2. "Further galaxies recede faster away from us."
    Statement 1 is an accurate, experimentally backed statement.
    Statement 2 needs a bunch of approximations from statement 1 to be made….. including that redshift is ONLY made of Doppler effect.

  • I still stand by the theory that white holes are the source if dark energy, and that their expansionism of spacetime forces them into isolation causing them to reside solely in voids.

  • In a new paper accepted for publication in The Astrophysical Journal, Freedman and her team announced a new measurement of the Hubble constant using a kind of star known as a red giant. Their new observations, made using Hubble, indicate that the expansion rate for the nearby universe is just under 70 kilometers per second per megaparsec (km/sec/Mpc). One parsec is equivalent to 3.26 light-years distance.

    Roughly speaking, it seems that the more distant in time then the slower the measured rate. This indicates an acceleration which is what I thought they had agreed upon already and is used to estimate the amount of dark energy. Did I miss something?

  • The discrepancy comes from using two erroneous theories, there never was a big bang – so the universe is not flying apart. A red-shifted star is not always an indicator of distance, speed or movement

  • Perplexed: if light from distant galaxies travels to us longer, that means they are older than the near ones. So if far away ones recede faster than near ones, doesn’t than follow that in the past they receded faster…?!

  • Until the red shift discoveries of Hubble's associate, Halton Arp, are properly addressed, we can never be certain of anything that follows., including the mythical fairy-tale of the CMB.

  • Or a more concise interpretation being! "yeah we privately educated unemployable's have been partying on this shit for decades now so you working-class scum best believe this total bollocks theory we have magicked up and keep paying your taxes"

  • Are global warming! oh sorry, climate change 'scientists' just the arseholes whos mums and dads didn't have sufficient government contacts to get their failed children into the taxpayer-funded Cosmology gravy train field of bullshit?

  • If things are expanding, won't the distance measured between any two objects also increase with time. For instance, object A and B are 12 pcs apart from our viewpoint, as they race away wouldn't they also get farther apart from each other as space between them also expands? If we do that for near objects whose distances we know, wouldn't that help?

  • maybe if the results where not based on theory huh, so the big bang is settled science? oh, gotta have the mythical dark matter in there to. No disrespect intended but, all of this is based off of a thought experiment, not proven anything. The bit about super novas is where the truth may lie I think, because it is actually measured and proven, all the other stuff is dependent on the premise that there was a big bang which isn't known or proven at all, only hypothesized

  • Pléyade World you look yo the blog about a new Cosmology the sphercal origin of the Universe from fluctuación of the nothing'state of the Universe.

  • there's no crisis in cosmology, except for the mechanistic/gravitational minded who somehow do not understand the role of other forces. The dark matter hypothesis only appear necessary to those who assume that electromagnetism averages to 0 over cosmological scales. That's a kindergarten-level "let's assume a sphere" approximation.

  • Sugiero las lectura del blog……….. contiene el libro Fundamentos físicos de la Historia natural del Universo (una Nueva Cosmologia) sobre el origen universal a partir de una esfera superficial de bosones creadores originales a partir de la Nada en puntos de vacío por una fluctuación gravito inercial .

  • Edward Hubble did not discover the universe. The universe was already discovered thousand of years before him. By the ancient people our ancestors.

  • Dark Energy =cP.
    The Real Energy equation:
    W=[c,V][ ,P]=[-vp,cP]=[-mGM/r,cP]

    This is the Proper Energy
    Newton missed cP=cmV.

    Force F=[d/dr,Del][-mGM/r,cP]
    F=[mGM/r^2 -cDel.P,
    cdP/dr – Del mGM/r + cDelxP]
    F=[mGM/r^2 – cDel.P,
    dP/dt + mGMR/r^3 + cDelxP]
    Newton's 3rd Law ,
    0=XW=[mGM/r^2 – cp/r,
    dP/dt + mGM/r^3]

    Centrifugal Force
    CF= -cDel.P=-cp/r cos (RP)
    Centripetal Force

    Quaternion Physics!

  • Father Lemaître was the first to discover the expansion of the Universe. He also proposed the Big Bang Theory (it's primitive and first version).

  • 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣….We smoked them out with the FLAT EARTH vechical. Their going to have to RE-think EVERYTHING. DISCLOSURE in 5….4…3..2…

  • What if the universe is not expanding in 3D space, but instead it is expanding in duration?

    Some say time is the 4th dimension, but maybe it is duration, and time is a measurement of location in duration. If duration is expanding, then it takes longer and longer to get to other areas of the universe. As we travel toward Andromeda, duration expands and therefore the ETA gets further and further into the future…

    Even if the physical 3 dimensional shape of the universe is not expanding…

  • We don't actually even know if the laws of physics are exactly the same throughout the entire Universe let alone the Hubble Constant , they may well be only a peculiarity of our local cosmic neighborhood and we may well living in one of the few pockets of Universe where the physical laws of nature and their constants are the way they are !

  • What a load of crap .Astronomers got everything wrong about our solar system ,how can they think that they know everything about the universe .
    All light from every source in the heavens travels though numerous nebula on the way to earth . Nebula are mostly hydrogen and hydrogen turns
    all light red. So using red shift to measure distance will not work. they haven't the faintest idea how far any object is from Earth if it is more that 30 light-years .
    The light from the most distant galaxies will have travelled through thousands of nebula on the way to Earth.

  • all cool n accurate but have you concidered the new theories of electric universe it explains alot that science has not understood ty alot for your cool video. the thunder bolt project

  • Sometimes titles say it all. After watching Thunderbolts project I can't help but laugh at this. Bring in some electric universe model and most problems disappear.

  • Neutrinos cycle between the three types. Is the time in each state equal? Exactly WHAT is changing in the neutrino as it changes state and, if that changed thing is now gone, where does it come back from for the next cycle? Would the so-called "sterile" neutrino also have three states and, again, what would be changing and where does the changed "stuff" go/come from?

  • Probably Dark Energy isn't constant. If you think that more mass generates more gravity, maybe more expanded universe generates more dark energy. It just has to be proven.

  • answer #3.
    Welcome to the problem of understanding how the Universe evolved. In short, we need to do more measurements, since the Universe is either 14 or 18 billion years old. the discrepancy is a rather large factor of ….wut?.

    Personal theory, the expansion of the "young" universe does not match the expansion of the "older" Universe because the volume of "light" involved, has changed (increased) over time…. And I believe light itself is the driving factor in the expansion of the Universe….

  • Energwaves, gravity waves, dark matter, black holes, etc……ALL UNPROVEN BULLSHIT. We are in a new dark age and don't even realize it.

  • Let's be totally honest here: what are the odds that the accuracy on these competing calculations is just not as good as the scientists want to think? Especially with that second method, there must be so many variables baked in that I really struggle to believe a +/- 1% accuracy.

  • If you make the universe slightly closed, you can fix the discrepancy between CMB and SNe Ia. Oh, crap, what did that do for the dark energy density? I'm sure we can fix this by inventing a new particle or field.

  • This isn’t the only really big problem with modern physics !!! It seems like there just making up shit and calling it science !!!! The truth is scientists and physicists have no idea wtf is going on and they just don’t want to admit it !! Einstein was wrong there is also a problem with gravity !!!!

  • The crisis is that you have built a house of cards on multiple assumptions on the so called standard candles. Read Halton Arp, Seeing Red. Hubble constant is bunk!

  • Jamie farnes Might have solved it 😮 Description

    Dark energy and dark matter constitute 95% of the observable Universe. Yet the physical nature of these two phenomena remains a mystery. Einstein suggested a long-forgotten solution: gravitationally repulsive negative masses, which drive cosmic expansion and cannot coalesce into light-emitting structures. However, contemporary cosmological results are derived upon the reasonable assumption that the Universe only contains positive masses. By reconsidering this assumption, I have constructed a toy model which suggests that both dark phenomena can be unified into a single negative mass fluid. The model is a modified ΛCDM cosmology, and indicates that continuously-created negative masses can resemble the cosmological constant and can flatten the rotation curves of galaxies. The model leads to a cyclic universe with a time-variable Hubble parameter, potentially providing compatibility with the current …

  • I believe when we finally figure out that the red shift isn't expansion after all but something else, the whole pillar of current theoretical Astronomy is going to come crashing down. No more expansion, no more dark matter and energy and most important, no more big bang. There is so much we just don't know.

  • Goddamn, I don't consider myself smart, but resourceful, but this dude, he doesn't even have to say it. He's fucking brilliant.

  • If you were to stand on another terrestrial planet light-years away, would you see the same rate of expansion as you would if you were standing on Earth?

  • You will not solve the crises in cosmology by parroting tbe same dogma that created it!

  • The TRUTH that theoretical cosmology is in CRISIS is made clear by the ever increasing number of unobersvable FIXES created to cover up inconvenient results of observational astronomy,
    A massive independant effort needs to be applied to verify that the red shift of light is being correclty interpreted.
    Measured by language the idea that space expands is senseless. In applied maths that may not be so,
    Time is a construct of the human mind and is not present IN natural events.
    In applied maths (which I dont understand) time may be associated with space (defined to be curved) and space time curvature appears …all done by gravity,

  • Independently of who is right, if any, in this crisis, the "Hubble Constant" has suffered enough changes in its estimated value that it well deserves to be named, more accurately, the "Hubble UNconstant".

  • They should give Matt the novel prize for how freaking smart he is holy cow!! I figured out the theory of everything and it's 100 percent correct just by watching a few of Matt's spacetime videos! Wow this guy taught me everything I know except for the theory of everything which I came up with on my own just by thinking about it! Amazing how I did what no one was able to do just by thinking about it for a little while… I'd release my findings but idk if we should start the future of war I would need to be crowned ultimate ruler of all spacetime and everything in it in order to tell anyone the theory of everything…. So I can control any wrong uses if my theory…

  • Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day,- there are indeed Signs for people of understanding,-
    ‏‎(إِنَّ فِي خَلْقِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَاخْتِلَافِ اللَّيْلِ وَالنَّهَارِ لَآيَاتٍ لِأُولِي الْأَلْبَابِ)

  • Does anyone know what is the current situation of this discussion? Is there a consensus on what was the problem already?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *