Thx, bc the QRC don't work on my phone at least.

What is this in part yet another example of something we thought would be one way, but it ends up being the opposite a.k.a. we’re in a simulation 😂

The comment section is way too long. You’ll never read this unless I post it here but I have two questions one what are these polls really matter it feels like the scientist were given multiple sets of data and they kind of just chose which sets of data they wanted to use data line through some thing and that’s it. I see a bunch of lines but it’s really just scientific interpretation of data. It’s not real things second question is why in the world they call of the axis of Evil You went over in the video, but never bother to explain why such an outrageous name.

I ordered 2 Interstellar pen’s and got 10% off with the code DRBECKY… Thank you for the awesome gift idea and the great videos. Grts from Belgium 🇧🇪

I ordered my Hoverpen (from Australia) after watching this excellent video clip last night and it arrived less than 12 hours later! What amazing service.

Actually, you are on one side: you don't have 360 degree vision

@@MaGaO That assumes your sense of self comes from the eyes and not your brain(with is about as central in you as you get), witch is a philosophical question and not a Astrophysics question

Hi neighbor! I'm right there with you.

What are you all talking about? It's MY universe... you're just living in it. 😆

You're the centre of my universe mate. 💕

Well it had to happen somewhere

@@TheJuggtron No it didn't.

Or perhaps some intelligent, wise, powerful being figured this our ahead of time and made it just so.

That's my favorite solution to the Fermi Paradox. Space-faring life arises only once or twice per galaxy because the conditions for it to arise are so unlikely (but still possible).

I fear there's a lot of reaching going on here. Our star is relatively stable - at present. It wasn't cooperative to life when it was young (although life managed anyway) and absolutely won't be cooperative in the future as it grows old. It's already well on its way to becoming too luminous and active for Earth's atmosphere to cope with and in about 250 million years the biosphere of the planet will begin to collapse as a result. A billion years from now and the surface of Earth will be sterile. The sun's "galactic suburbs" position in the Milky Way is shared by about 100 billion other stars and probably a trillion planets so is hardly remarkable. Nobody would bother to look for life in the Galactic core for instance because conditions there are extremely hostile, both to life and to astronomical observations. We have yet to determine the "standard" form a star system takes (if one exists at all). Exoplanet research has a rather skewed sample data built in due to it favouring systems conducive to current methods of discovery. Detection methods have extreme difficulty seeing small bodies and pretty much no ability to see distantly orbiting bodies, so these are massively under-represented. So whether the solar system's layout is atypical or not is currently unanswerable. Also the "vacuum cleaner" hypothesis is a bit old fashioned these days and the situation is a bit more nuanced. Some modelling suggests gas giants create more problems to terrestrial worlds than they solve. I'll grant you the Moon is impressively useful in its current configuration (although it would have been an unholy menace in its early days when whipping around the Earth in 9 days). However there's no reason to believe the Earth would not be able to support life without it. Only that life has taken advantage of its presence. Don't forget that you are Douglas Adams' "sentient puddle" marvelling at how the hole it fills up fits its body shape so perfectly. Meanwhile an objective observer understands the puddle can _only_ take the shape of the hole it fills. It has no choice in the matter. Likewise we have the life cycles, morphologies and chemistry on Earth that this environment, time frame and locality in the cosmos makes possible. To assume this is the only form and only way in which a biosphere can manifest is at best only a guide for finding "Earth analogues" and at worst comically arrogant and near guaranteed to be wrong. For all we know life exists on hundreds of millions of worlds, many of which are likely to be far removed from the conditions here. But at present we do not know enough to answer the question one way or the other. All we can know is that life exists in the Milky Way, because we are a sample of it. A sample set of 1 tells us only that it _can_ happen and little else and a lottery with only 1 ticket isn't remarkable at all.

At least attribute the great late Richard Feynman if you're going to quote him.

Am I allowed to question if the earth actually rotates on its axis every 24 hours and revolves around the sun every 365.25 days? Or am I allowed to ask if the earth is actually at the center of the universe? Occam’s Razor: the earth is the center of the universe. It explains all of the scientific observations. A real scientist would admit what the data show. The data disproves Copernicanism and iroves Geocentrism.❤

@@ochem123 uhh, it does not. Hour and day are made up units based on nature (the rotation of the earth), not the other way around. Also, how is Geocentricism gonna solve problems? It only creates more problem. Just look at the movement of the celestial bodies. Geocentricism just fucks all of that up. It's like rotating yourself and think the whole universe is rotating around you.

@@ochem123 Occam's Razor: if it seems like the entire universe is rotating, it's more likely that you are the one rotating

@@asdfoifhvjbkaos The actual scientific data support fixed Earth. Review the work of Dr. Robert Sungenis.

Surely it can't be as simple as the scientists drawing straight lines on paper between features that aren't really straight?

Massive Missive (c) follows: (no TLDR - Lump it.) The same problem when plotting a shortest course, I.e. a great circle route, on any flat map of the spherical earth. Only a very restricted subset of true great circle routes show up as straight lines on any given flat mapping of the global surface. The rest are curved, even crossing “hyperspace” by leaping off one edge of the map and reappearing on another, like those video games where you can shoot at an opponent nearly the complete way across the screen from you by turning and firing from a very short distance at the proper angle to the edge near you and have the projectile/ray/whatever emerge from the edge very near them, doing them in promptly. Wraparound. You are never more than half a ‘screenshot’ away, in some direction. Another analog is in drawing threads on a bolt viewed at right angles. The simplistic way is diagonal straight lines across the axis of the bolt, but in reality the thread roots and crests are properly visualized as slight ‘s’ curves, with the extreme ends of the lines curved to a parallel with the bolt axis. You are mapping a cylindrical object onto a flat surface. A slight, but I think very germane, emendation to your ‘small remark’. Not only are we, as here, mapping the sky onto a flat two dimensional surface, but the sky is itself a spherical 2-D surface mapping of a 3-D volume to start with. That is the very concept of ‘the sky’. A straight line ‘on’ the 2-D, albeit curved, sky is not necessarily a straight line through either Newtonian or Einsteinian space. Planetary orbits appear straight along the ecliptic, but are elliptical in space. A lack of understanding of ‘mapping’ may be at the core of flat-earthers’ confusion, both on the ground and in space (for those who are truly confused, and not merely knot-headed contrarians). One of my brothers-in-law was impressed by my sister’s mention of some astronomical object as being ’out there’, rather than ‘up there’, showing that she understood the three-dimensionality of what was visible overhead at the moment, and earth’s inclusion in that volume. “or by just using a different projection”: This would require reorienting each projection’s axes to place the line in question along one of the small subsets of lines straight in both space and its mapping. A case of special pleading? What if, as here, you have multiple poles to draw lines for on the same map? This arbitrary reorientation tends to militate against the very point of mapping, which is to highlight relationships between multiple entities within a particular framework using an appropriate projection. I hope this has mapped the concepts, which I am trying to communicate to you, onto/into your mind - in full fidelity.

@@toomdog It's not, they're just saying that the visualization in the video is technically wrong because it's drawn as a straight line. You can actually sort of get an idea of what the curve looks like from the picture of the CMB dipole at ~ 7:20

@@For_What_It-s_Worth And for some reason, space is somehow always toroidal when shooting of the sides...

If you drop the big bang and go with what the father of plasma physics, Hannes Alfven says about the scalable universe this makes perfect sense?

I’ll sign! lol

And sign my petition that says we *are* special!

im guessing one of the problems is that it merely shifts the question of "why would the solar system be aligned with the axis of evil?" to "why would the solar system be aligned with the galaxy cluster precisely in a way that makes it look aligned with the axis of evil?"

Just past the 10 minute mark in the video she states that the dipole is “exactly” 90 degrees to the quadrupole and the octipole. My understanding was that the angle of the dipole is accounted for by the direction of travel of the Milky-way. It seems to me then that the mystery is really what possible reason could there be for these higher order poles to be at right angles to our galaxy’s direction of travel. 🤷🏻

​@FLPhotoCatcher lol I just put basically the same thing we are special then I read yours.

I refuse to accept that the bootes void is a middle-aged bald spot.

Yeah but unlike the universe we gain mass.

Welcome to enlightenment.

@@GwydionFrost So universe getting less hot with age and developing bald spot hahahaha

@@blacksage2375 So THAT’s where my energy is going!

You're quite right !

It’s incredibly funny seeing someone every time there’s an unexplained phenomenon saying “The cosmological establishment refuses to acknowledge it!!” There’s thousands of scientists all across the planet with the goal of understanding the universe better. There’s new papers published daily like the one reraising this topic. It’s genuinely baffling how ignorant people are and just want to push some anti establishment narrative

Most “scientists” are like the immune system of the body, but for scientific information and “knowledge”. They protect what exists and neutralise any attacks against it. They are the skeptic function of the part of our mind that says “I know x”. The part that justifies why it knows It’s really nice to see people admit the holes and flaws in their knowledge. It shows humility which is the first step to real knowledge.

@@MevlinousI don’t think you get it; Scientists are constantly ATTACKING the very notions they made up. It is just hard to counter it. Just as a few hundred years ago it was hard to imagine earth NOT being the centre of everything, we have similar thoughts about things like the big bang. As we speed ever-faster into technological depths it’s only natural that these questions will will be solved. Just give it time (unfortunately, that ‘time’ may be longer than our lifespans ;-;)

So I’ve noticed. In my experience, the new, unanswered questions resulting from the first question are also bigger (more perplexing?) than the first.

Answer, the more questions suggest a healthy dose of curiosity 😂

Every answer expands our awareness (context), e.g., an awareness of more to find out, e.g., of how little we knew, which implies how much more there is to know.

The more you know, the more you become aware of the things you don't know. Imagine our knowledge as a sphere inside the space of the unknown. If the sphere of our knowledge expands then so does its surface, the things we're aware we don't know. To quote Marcelo Gleiser: "As the island of Knowledge grows, so do the shores of our ignorance -the boundary between the known and the unknown. Learning more about the world doesn’t lead to a point closer to a final destination but to more questions and mysteries."

It's real simple if we are not the fundamental highest spatial dimension and the universe is not a 3 + 1 System then we would expect to see the shape of the universe be flat which is exactly what we observe so it aligns with the information and the experience of Mandela effects which also points towards higher spatial dimensional existence and crop circles which have genetic sites on the parts that are laid down which bend them up to 45° angle naturally without pressure but genetically.

Yeah same! I feel like I missed something... Maybe I need to rewatch the video lol

yeah, especially since that explanation seemed to have fit the data fairly well going by the pictures

It's real simple if we are not the fundamental highest spatial dimension and the universe is not a 3 + 1 System then we would expect to see the shape of the universe be flat which is exactly what we observe so it aligns with the information and the experience of Mandela effects which also points towards higher spatial dimensional existence and crop circles which have genetic sites on the parts that are laid down which bend them up to 45° angle naturally without pressure but genetically..

@@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler oh, of course. I must have been distracted watching the video

... unemployment :D

I noticed this too! only a few weeks until Le Mans

Magrathea made planets, not universes.

One might say he was a...Fjord Prefect 😎

...and tomorrow I intend to eat a heartybeakfaast.

@@thomasdjonesn One might, but then one would be condemned to eternal torment, so it isn't advisable.

​@michaelsommers2356 yeah, the fjord guy would be too low in the ranks

Krispe Kream have a sale on.

We've already seen the same object at different times, when a supernova was observed in an Einstein Cross. One supernova, seen three times. No torii needed for that.

It was cool btw. Shame the mathematician missed it.

It's real simple if we are not the fundamental highest spatial dimension and the universe is not a 3 + 1 System then we would expect to see the shape of the universe be flat which is exactly what we observe so it aligns with the information and the experience of Mandela effects which also points towards higher spatial dimensional existence and crop circles which have genetic sites on the parts that are laid down which bend them up to 45° angle naturally without pressure but genetically...

The Present may not be the plane of Space/Time boundedness we think it is...

I don’t know what the lithium 7 thing is so I definitely wanna hear about that. Though I’m definitely also gonna look it up after I finish this video 😅

I'm sorry but how dare you discount such a beautiful pen? XD

I got it, truly an excellent build and display piece.

I find that I'm wishing my job wasn't completely digital so I'd have a reason to buy that pen. You don't need a reason to buy Lego. You just need a way to justify it to your spouse.

@@jeffspaulding9834 tip: buy it first before getting a spouse.

Because that’s the way (name of preferred creator) made it. There! Another question answered. Next?

666 -- 6 quarks, 6 leptons and 6 force carriers -- the standard model of physics! The master is dual to the apprentice -- the rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark matter is dual to dark energy -- singularities are dual. Dipoles or dual poles = Duality! Antipodal points identify for the rotation group SO(3). Sintropy is dual to entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Good is dual to bad. Divine is dual to evil. Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space (inflation). The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- singularities are dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic. Duality creates reality!

@@briandeschene8424 Science: Questions that can not be answered. Religion: Answers that can never be questioned. Take your religious rubbish and please leave. It's NEVER 'god did it'.

It doesn't make me happy to not get answers, but I don't turn to science for happyness or all the answers, but for the closest to truth answers that are humanly feasible. I value concious and honest perception of the Universe over happyness. Happyness will come and go on it's own, pursuing it for it's own sake seems to often not lead to success and compromise other qualities that are valued by many.

​@@jannikheidemann3805 Would you be happy if Christianity was true? ✝️

Yeah the triplo- tlidop- ... the thingie with the three legs.

666 -- 6 quarks, 6 leptons and 6 force carriers -- the standard model of physics! The master is dual to the apprentice -- the rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark matter is dual to dark energy -- singularities are dual. Dipoles or dual poles = Duality! Antipodal points identify for the rotation group SO(3). Sintropy is dual to entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Good is dual to bad. Divine is dual to evil. Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space (inflation). The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- singularities are dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic. Duality creates reality!

hahahaha that is bloody smart 🙂

Exactly :)

I like that, I'll use it in the future. Unfortunately you know somebody's going to interpret that as you go to faith for the answers.

@@iainmc9859 Some might say that and they're welcome to do it, but reason and theology is apples and oranges. Those are the extreme ones. Go to any university and you'll find no shortage of scientists who have strong faith, and they seem to make it work quite well.

I’m gonna have tee shirts made, “Tale Chasing Lovers Club”

Well, we're the most evil planet known in the universe and we're on it.

History buffs think this name is sus

Not a great name. History of that name makes me uncomfortable.

@@bigfishoutofwater3135 The most evil *inhabited* planet, I would say. Venus is in fact much more evil than Earth.

I thought it might also be a play of words for the two variables (b,l) that are mentioned in the paper summary. So it is the "axis of b l" repeated very fast until it sounds like "axis of evil".

astronomers run away from that star, you would imagine someone would have tried to observe it again after all these years with more refined spectra... well, guess again

Answer is simple: all stars synthesize all elements; fusion happens in the outer layers of stars, not in the cores, and fusion is not what powers stars, but is a powered process, powered through electrical energy from huge interstellar and intergalactic currents.

​@@hoon_sol science will come together again... probably during and after a micronova event. 😅

666 -- 6 quarks, 6 leptons and 6 force carriers -- the standard model of physics! The master is dual to the apprentice -- the rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark matter is dual to dark energy -- singularities are dual. Dipoles or dual poles = Duality! Antipodal points identify for the rotation group SO(3). Sintropy is dual to entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Good is dual to bad. Divine is dual to evil. Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space (inflation). The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- singularities are dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic. Duality creates reality! Positive is dual to negative -- numbers, charge and curvature.

If I fart then I am the centre of my smell. That says nothing about new York.

That's what occurred to me, but I'm just a 17th literature specialist so what do I know about astrophysics? But it did strike me as an observation issue.

This is actually a contradiction that I see pop up regularly in physics explanations, For example: "The universe is 3.8 million years old. The visible universe (or often just Universe) is 90 billion light years across". So if the visible universe (past light cone) is 13.8 billion light years across. Where does 90 billion come from? OK, they estimate the expansion of where the furthest object may be "now", except there is no "now" in the past or visible light cone, and objects outside of the light cone are unknown to us. Unknown such as the actual size of the universe. > In relativity we are always the center of our visible light cone/sphere (knowable universe). You perceive a different visible universe so I can never have a direct knowledge of what you see :) > [Edit - correction] What we refer to as the observable universe was 84 *million* light years across at the actual time of the CMB, NOT 13.7 billion x 2. The 13.7 billion comes after adjustment for inflation.

This is what baffles me. We're not the center of the universe, we're the center of OUR universe. That being said, by what we know and observe, we'll be able to find the center of the universe? Since universe is expanding, where is the point it's expanding from? I know we can't (maybe) pinpoint that accurately like with an explosion, since the scale of universe at the moment of big bang would be incomprehensible since even if fully compacted and opaque it would, for sure, be bigger than the most massive star discovered (or even, in my opinion, the size of a BIG galaxy), after the big bang our area of where Milky way starts to exist would end up way off the "center" of "explosion", could we will ever find a "center" point? I know I didn't explained that too good, here's another easy way to understand what I think of/about: Imagine a balloon, slightly inflated, just so that is looks it has some air in it keeping it "stiff" (This is how imagine universe before big bang. Then big bang happens, everywhere, starting this expansion (now imagine you're filling up this balloon with air to it's almost max) If, let's say, where the Milky way exists now is 3/4r distance from the center of the balloon (1/4 away from the edge or the balloon itself) but our observable universe it's only as big as a soap bubble in that balloon that doesn't even come close to the edge of the balloon, can we find a starting point of our position? I find this idea a very tricky one and can't stop thinking of it, since I didn't find anything to answer me this question. Not even the question of how far out are we from the big bang origins? Or how far out are we from the center of the universe. Or even if we know where this center is/might be. Or even how much is our observable universe compared to the whole universe?

@@axle.student The universe is 14.3 Billion years old or some where there abouts. Yes the visible light cone amounts to about 90 Billion light years in diameter which is roughly 45 Billion light years in any direction. We do not see 45 billion light years away though. We just see light that was emitted from an object 14.3 billion years away when it was 14.3 billion light years away and due to the red shift we believe it to be 45 billion light years away now. 45 billion light years on both sides of us is 90 billion light years diameter. Does that help reduce the confusion?

666 -- 6 quarks, 6 leptons and 6 force carriers -- the standard model of physics! The master is dual to the apprentice -- the rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark matter is dual to dark energy -- singularities are dual. Dipoles or dual poles = Duality! Antipodal points identify for the rotation group SO(3). Sintropy is dual to entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Good is dual to bad. Divine is dual to evil. Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space (inflation). The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- singularities are dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic. Duality creates reality! Positive is dual to negative -- numbers, charge and curvature.

NO, this earth is the only earth in the universe with people evil enough to kill their own creator, Jesus the Christ.

@@Rudyard_Stripling More schizo babble about the imaginary zombie buddy.

Good question. Using the same methodology, my guess would be "yes" since it's more likely to be an effect caused by the persistent mass distribution imbalance that comes with being in a solar system than it is to be one caused by a cosmic conspiracy.

That's why we need to travel to other solar systems and galaxys to check and observe.

​@@Rudyard_Striplingwtf are you on about?

They made a few things non-aligned, for effect. Like Terak Nor.

Star Trek stems from the '60s. When did the axis of evil get discovered again? Do the math.

Star Trek has good excuses. My favourite is the Heisenberg Compensators needed for the transporters to be “feasible”.

@@michaelrichter9427 Star Trek writers are always doing post-hoc in-universe explanations for various things, like why all species look humanoid. And there are still series being made, we don't even know which one he's talking about. Do the math..

666 -- 6 quarks, 6 leptons and 6 force carriers -- the standard model of physics! The master is dual to the apprentice -- the rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark matter is dual to dark energy -- singularities are dual. Dipoles or dual poles = Duality! Antipodal points identify for the rotation group SO(3). Sintropy is dual to entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Good is dual to bad. Divine is dual to evil. Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space (inflation). The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- singularities are dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic. Duality creates reality! Up is dual to down, left is dual to right -- space duality. Space is dual to time -- Einstein.

because gravitational lensing messing up the data, as stated.

@@thekaxmax​​⁠​⁠ya might want to rewatch. 12:20 The cluster of galaxies worked because of gravitational lensing as stated in the paper by Vale. The only reference as to why it hasn’t solved the problem of the axis of evil is it caused 10’s of other problems that haven’t been solved. I’m asking for more details about the last part. Kinda spent 5 seconds on it at the end of the video.

It's not really discounted and seems to discount the "axis" theory as mere artifact but she clearly prefers there to be mysterious things to talk about rather than "nothing abnormal".

It sounded to me like it caused more problems than it solved. If you have one flat tire on a car, that corner sits lower then the other three. You can solve that problem by making the other three tires also flat, but then you have a bigger overall problem than when you started.

@@dzcav3except the concept of gravitational lensing is well known and intuitively makes sense in this case. There are issues caused by the paper, but we don’t know what those issues are in order to determine is all the tires were made flatter or not.

I've not watched yet, but she's likely referencing Occam's razor, a philosophical principle inherent in the scientific method which suggests that the best explanation is the one which makes the fewest assumptions. (i.e. the simpler the explanation, with fewer unproven premises, the better). You asked a good question so I, in turn, hope you find my answer beneficial & that hoped benefit finds you well.

Thanks. I'm not a fan of using Occam's razor like this since it isn't provable. Really, it just speaks to our desire for simple answers in a complex universe.

@@NickCombs I totally concur; notice how I called such, first and foremost, a philosophical principle.. granted, it's a great guideline within a dynamic framework (may seem prolix/redundant here yet I occasion such intensively-i.e. to reflect proper proportions of the scientific method as I see it-viz. 2/3 jelly-1/3 jam 😁) yet revered, extraneously adhered, & aspersively commandeered. All wizards considered, Occam's razor is an inert quirk within multi-bodied systems wherein any given body could harbor peculiarities (semantic seesaw: society or cosmology.. you decide 🙃).

Or something about our solar system that we don't know yet

Yeah from what I've read it seems that the way we originally derived the local momentum of the solar system was through use of the CMB dipole which if true would put this as an example of circular arguments. At the very least it has been well demonstrated in the last 3 years though a falsification test proposed in 1984 that compares the CMB dipole to a sufficiently large dipole built from cosmologically distant sources across the sky and checks to see if they both match as would be expected if the dipole is entirely or primarily kinematic in origin. The results from Nathan Secret et al seem to show that there is a 4.9 sigma discrepancy between these two dipoles which can not be rectified with the validity of a purely kinematic dipole falsifying the cosmological principal out to redshifts greater than 1if a single large statistical anomaly exists or the observable universe otherwise We need an independent test of the local frame of reference to verify that this is the case but to me it looks like a strong case for systematic bias as the culprit. This has the nice coincidence of simultaneously resolving the observations attributed to "dark energy", as an inevitable consequence of gravity in a inhomogeneous and anisotropic universe according to numerical modeling of the full unreduced Einstein field equations, the so called axis of evil discussed here, and the Hubble tension, not to mention the numerous and ever growing list of "impossibly large structures within the lambda CDM model" observed. The amount of problems which go away as a con sequence of systematic bias seems like Occam's razor points in this direction of faulty model assumptions.

considering every single component in the math comes from observations of light of things that are unfathomably away....I have been convinced for a while that we just aren't measuring all that stuff accurately enough. The shear number of assumptions involved is staggering. As Dragrath said, there are so many circular arguments involved with any understanding of anything outside of our solar system.

Aren't we overlooking the obvious answer, that the CMB is created by our solar system, not by some theoretical explosion that supposedly created the universe? See Occam.

@@user-ds7uk1ft2x You mean hypothetical not theoretical. Citing Occam does not fill in the gaps of your assertion. For instance, how does our system generate the BACKGROUND microwaves?

NO, this earth is the only earth in the universe with people evil enough to kill their own creator, Jesus the Christ.

Thank you, that's really interesting.

@@Rudyard_Stripling More schyzo babble about the imaginary zombie buddy.

@@DeepeningTheListening Moses 1 25 And calling upon the name of God, he beheld his glory again, for it was upon him; and he heard a voice, saying: Blessed art thou, Moses, for I, the Almighty, have chosen thee, and thou shalt be made stronger than many waters; for they shall obey thy command as if thou wert God. 26 And lo, I am with thee, even unto the end of thy days; for thou shalt deliver my people from bondage, even Israel my chosen. 27 And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the Spirit of God. 28 And he beheld also the inhabitants thereof, and there was not a soul which he beheld not; and he discerned them by the Spirit of God; and their numbers were great, even numberless as the sand upon the sea shore. 29 And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof. 30 And it came to pass that Moses called upon God, saying: Tell me, I pray thee, why these things are so, and by what thou madest them? 31 And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face. And the Lord God said unto Moses: For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me. 32 And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth. 33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. 34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many. 35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them. 36 And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying: Be merciful unto thy servant, O God, and tell me concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy servant will be content. 37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine. 38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words. 39 For behold, this is my work and my glory-to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. 40 And now, Moses, my son, I will speak unto thee concerning this earth upon which thou standest; and thou shalt write the things which I shall speak. 41 And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught and take many of them from the book which thou shalt write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be had again among the children of men-among as many as shall believe. 42 (These words were spoken unto Moses in the mount, the name of which shall not be known among the children of men. And now they are spoken unto you. Show them not unto any except them that believe. Even so. Amen.)

Umm ... Moving on

Axis of evil sounds like a marvel movie lol Captain America and the axis of evil

The crisis in cosmology is all due to people in Physics being unable to understand The CMB in the first place ... hence the tension.

@@alphalunamare What points about the CMB do you think are misunderstood?

“It happened everywhere at once.” …wait, what!?

@@gamelairtim lol, where did that come from :P

@@gamelairtim That is causing you concerns? Take a universe. Fill it with a plasma with (almost) exactly the same composition, temperature and pressure, then leave it expanding (at the same rate, in all places. Come back after it has been cooling for 3 minutes less than 300,000 years and measure the temperature here, there and over there (all pairs of them separated by more then 300,000 light years, so light, gravity etc could not have got from one point to another (this is the so-called "horizon problem") in the time you've been waiting. At that time, none of the gas will have dropped below the temperature at which hydrogen nuclei can hold onto an electron to become hydrogen atoms. Come back 5 minutes later. The universe, in these separate locations unable to communicate with each other will have cooled slightly, and the hydrogen ions are starting to combine for the first time to form hydrogen atoms. Photons are travelling further before encountering an electron (or proton) to scatter off (hence the CMB's alternative name of the "Last Scattering Surface" and variants). The same event has happened simultaneously throughout the universe, without any surprising coordination. How to get a universe "with (almost) exactly the same composition, temperature and pressure" is a good question - for which the standard answer is "inflation". What happened earlier is another good question (see Weinberg's excellent "The First Three Minutes"). But you make me wonder - shouldn't we also see a "scattering surface" from when the first electrons hooked up with He2+ nuclei to form He1+ ions? With He's double charge, that should have been at higher electron energy - so, temperature, so earlier. Can't we detect the light from that event? And similarly, the (red-shifted) gamma rays from the "freezing" of nucleosynthesis in the "first three minutes" at about six hydrogen nuclei to one helium nucleus?

When in doubt, blame Jupiter

666 -- 6 quarks, 6 leptons and 6 force carriers -- the standard model of physics! The master is dual to the apprentice -- the rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark matter is dual to dark energy -- singularities are dual. Dipoles or dual poles = Duality! Antipodal points identify for the rotation group SO(3). Sintropy is dual to entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Good is dual to bad. Divine is dual to evil. Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space (inflation). The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- singularities are dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic. Duality creates reality! Positive is dual to negative -- numbers, charge and curvature.

666 -- 6 quarks, 6 leptons and 6 force carriers -- the standard model of physics! The master is dual to the apprentice -- the rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark matter is dual to dark energy -- singularities are dual. Dipoles or dual poles = Duality! Antipodal points identify for the rotation group SO(3). Sintropy is dual to entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Good is dual to bad. Divine is dual to evil. Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space (inflation). The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- singularities are dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic. Duality creates reality!

Why not? Andromeda is practically next door, cosmologically speaking.

Andromeda is a galaxy, not a solar system. The axis of evil aligns with our solar system, not our galaxy.

Almost certainly. The main difference would be the orientation of the dipole, given that Andromeda and Milky way are approaching each other at non-negligible velocities.

Actually, if we could do it, that might be an excellent test. If the view from Andromeda is significantly different, the axis should be the result of local phenomena. If the view from Andromeda isn't significantly different, then the cause of the axis is probably far outside our local group. (IOW, the dipole isn't a result of our galaxy's motion, but of the motion of our entire local group through the universe.)

@@wj2036 a system in Andromeda, then. Or even on a different system in our galaxy - just curious what the results would be

Release the semantics 😊

@@tonygreenwood1798 sure, what do you want me to translate or explain? )

Because it’s an ad read and has to hit certain buzz words to be acceptable by the company that purchased said ad. Welcome to capitalism

666 -- 6 quarks, 6 leptons and 6 force carriers -- the standard model of physics! The master is dual to the apprentice -- the rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark matter is dual to dark energy -- singularities are dual. Dipoles or dual poles = Duality! Antipodal points identify for the rotation group SO(3). Sintropy is dual to entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Good is dual to bad. Divine is dual to evil. Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space (inflation). The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- singularities are dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic. Duality creates reality! Positive is dual to negative -- numbers, charge and curvature.

@@hyperduality2838Me when 2:

@@hyperduality2838eh, if two was such a base concept they would’ve callee it twoniverse, not universe. Clearly 1 is a better number to use.

@@boom-jr8vi The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. Observation, measurement, perception requires two -- empirical physics. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel. The master is dual to the apprentice -- the rule of two, Darth Bane -- Sith Lord. Waves are dual to particles -- Quantum duality. Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. Half the universe is missing as the Einstein field equations do not mention negative curvature!

Of course we're at the center of our observable universe, every point the universe is at the center of its observable universe. JADES-GS-z13-0 is the most distant galaxy we're currently aware of, and if there's anyone in that galaxy today looking around, they also see that they're at the center of their observable universe. You only need three statements to categorically conclude that we must be at the center of our observable universe: The age of the universe is finite. The speed of light is constant to all observers. Expansion does not differ between different parts of the universe. That's why "We're at the center of the universe we can observe" is just a different way to say "The universe has a beginning".

Everything is relative. Her use of special was a relative term to location in that case. She didn’t say YOU weren’t special.

@@OhhCrapGuyhey I’m not trying to be rude to you but you have misunderstood the measurement of the speed of light. The speed of light is not constant in fact and it is not set in stone anywhere. There was an agreed upon average by the scientific community sometime before Einstein died because so many different measurements were being given by prominent experts and noted scholars and gentlemen and rogues who dared to stare. At goats. …I mean the sky at night and digitally rendered dots now. One naked photo of space from the JWT would fundamentally change everything we have been forced to swalllow but you can’t get one.

NO, this earth is the only earth in the universe with people evil enough to kill their own creator, Jesus the Christ.

true, but we're all at basically the same spot in cosmic scales

It's at least the no.1 in "life carrying" as far as we can observe.

It was a phrase coined by G.W. Bush to refer to Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.

@@michaelsommers2356 thanx, that's where I know it from. I just can't think of a reason why they would have used it here? I was thinking if it was an acronym or something? 🤔🤔🤔

Because it's trolling scientist. ;O)-

​@@mael1515The phrase caught on around 2003 and stayed prominent in American culture for a number of years afterward. I bet one of the researchers said it as a joke and it just stuck

the thread is correct. It was W troll. A little know fact: Bush was also the reason Pluto got demoted.

I agree with your concerns about inflation theory. I also have a serious unresolved issue with the explanation of the CMB which for me completely breaks any chance of useful information being derived from the CMB.

As a lay man, I tend to snigger at the memes "curves the space-time" and the Lorentzian transform acrobacy, and the "expansion of the universe" - no science youtuber has ever cared to explain the very basics: speaking of "curving the space-time" or "expansion of the universe" - do the theoreticians imply that A) the cartesian coordinate system itself, the foundational theoretical framework, becomes twisted, i.e. no longer orthogonal, or keeps "sliding under our feet" to make the universe expand or B) do we somehow switch to using an "effective space-time", twisted and bounded by the speed of light, which departs from the ideal coordinate system, while the ideal coordinate system obviously stays put (albeit with a relative origin), exactly because it's perfect / ideal by definition? Thus allowing us to "watch the effective space-time" twist and turn, and expand. The expansion means that objects are getting further apart, but e.g. their individual dimensions remain valid, scale of distance remains constant, speed of light can actually be fathomed as finite etc. And another mystery to me: so let's accept as a fact that the big bang happened. Initially, the space was filled with matter, condensed to some "unimaginably high" levels of pressure / temperature / density, and then, it expanded. The question to me is: *where to* did it start to expand? In an ideal coordinate system, ignorant of relativistic stuff, there would need to be a "difference of pressure" between different places. Inhomogeneity. Otherwise, the ultra-dense and ultra-hot and ultra-pressurized matter would just retain its state! It would just stay put. Also, if we can already infer the rate or gradient of expansion, and we probably know the density of matter, isn't that already enough data to calculate the "size of the ultra-dense blob that went bang" (in a space filled with less density), or the "approximate dimensions of the domain of inhomogeneity" that allowed for the bang to happen? Or, do we really believe that the twisty bendy relativistic spacetime is the only coordinate system that we have, and it could start out "infinitely folded unto itself" and is merely unraveling to this day, at the speed of light? (I'm not asking if that difference makes a difference :-) Also, if mass was extremely dense (at the start of the big bang), but ideally homogenously dense over infinite dimensions, it would not form any particular event horizon. Also, an event horizon needs to be centered around something. Yes it can be deformed by inhomogenous density of mass inside (if we permit anything other than a singularity at the center) or by rotation... Seems to me that if the big bang did happen, and a cartesian coordinate system is applicable at least in theory, it means that the bang started from a blob of matter of finite dimensions. "Unfathomably large" is a silly term. Having a floating decimal point at our disposal, it's either infinite, or fathomable :-) It's similar to the evolution of theories around electromagnetic field and waves. At school, you are initially taught that there is no "ether" for light to travel in. The EM field itself is the "medium", in which fluctuations travel, and somehow the speed of light is a constant, characteristic of the medium. So, no ether, but we already have a medium. And then you get an accepted theory of the "quantum fields" and "vacuum fluctuations" giving rise to subatomic particles... But nooo, no Ether, that's been disproved centuries ago :-) In my book, it's just word play...

@@xrysf03 I feel your pain. Theories are just that, theories. And the ambiguous word salad is a nightmare to navigate.

the expansion means, the light didn't travel. The expansion also means it doesn't need to expand faster than light for example. Imagine everything stuck on the outside of a balloon and expending the balloon, what is on the balloon could be standing still and it would at the same time move away from each other.

@@axle.student I think their is a big difference between theory in science and theory in informal language. A theory in informal, every day language is more like a hypothesis. A theory in science is something which has lots of proof and calculations, etc. behind it which might it extremely likely to be true. So much so it's generally accepted to be the case.

The problem is only some of the things are aligned, while the rest aren't. The data is also in 3D collected in orbit, so the alignment of the instrument should be irrelevant.

Indeed. The mere existence of our solar system defines a persistent local mass distribution asymmetry that can by second order effects affect the details of how, exactly light ends up approaching us starting from millions of lightyears away. Edited to add: well, not millions. Hundreds of thousands. Distances where the ~2600 light second difference in the Jovian orbital radius containing ~0.1% of the mass of the solar system is perceptible, affecting incoming light. Basically, our solar system is a lens and we get more input from the direction of the axis of symmetry than we do from outside of it.

It's aligned to the solar system Earth is spherical. No matter your alignment around Earth, it keeps aligned to the solar system

@@rogeriopenna9014 Earth is mostly spherical, but its axis of rotation isn't aligned to the plane of the solar system and it's the latter one we are talking about here.

@@jounik It's almost a perfect sphere. It's as spherical as a basketball. You can´t notice it's oblateness, because its so small % compared to the size. "but its axis of rotation isn't aligned to the plane of the solar system and it's the latter one we are talking about here." So you did not understand what I said here. The fact Earth is not aligned to the solar system plane, the fact you can you observe the alignment of the solar system plane with the microwave background no matter your alignment on Earth, shows the alignment is real, not "your camera", as the OP suggests.

The photon paradox (for me) is a serious problem in physics. I suspect we have the speed of the photon measured incorrectly.

Since a photon ceases to be when it interacts with something, it never really exists from our perspective (we only observe what happens after it interacted with something and not in flight), and from it's perspective, the whole Universe does not exist, since there without passage of time it is isolated from everything.....

Because of the Lorentz contraction, photons (and all other zero-mass particles) don't experience time. Their origination and destruction happen at the exact same moment, in their frame of reference.

@@a.karley4672 A photon has no frame of reference according to GR :/

@@a.karley4672 Nothing can "happen" if time isn't passing; there are no events; there are no changes, no transitions, whatever is, is, and that's it.

🤣

666 -- 6 quarks, 6 leptons and 6 force carriers -- the standard model of physics! The master is dual to the apprentice -- the rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark matter is dual to dark energy -- singularities are dual. Dipoles or dual poles = Duality! Antipodal points identify for the rotation group SO(3). Sintropy is dual to entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Good is dual to bad. Divine is dual to evil. Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space (inflation). The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- singularities are dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic. Duality creates reality! Positive is dual to negative -- numbers, charge and curvature.

I’d love to hear what KZfaqr Tim Rose has figured out about the universe

You are special, for me🥺

@@dominikjoestar9842 😁

Honestly… no.. not at all

@@Josecannoli1209 Ooh 🥺

Well.... you are. But not more then anyone.

666 -- 6 quarks, 6 leptons and 6 force carriers -- the standard model of physics! The master is dual to the apprentice -- the rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark matter is dual to dark energy -- singularities are dual. Dipoles or dual poles = Duality! Antipodal points identify for the rotation group SO(3). Sintropy is dual to entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Good is dual to bad. Divine is dual to evil. Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space (inflation). The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- singularities are dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic. Duality creates reality! Positive is dual to negative -- numbers, charge and curvature.

I mean dark matter/energy is just a place holder name for the phenomenon we see gravitationally/what’s accelerating the universe’s expansion. It’s not that its wrong it’s just we lack the ability to observe/know what it is right now

@@paroxysm6437 We might never be able to fully explain the universe, as it may be imbedded into a higher dimensional structure we have no access to. It is just a hopefull assumption that the universe can be explained from within alone.

@@nuneke0 You can still observe higher dimensions although it’s limited. But I get your point, although with advances in technology who knows what might be possible in the future

Why would you think so? :) I've never heard a scientist NOT say this exact line.

@@petrastein2531 There's no such thing as "everywhere at once" because relativity…

I agree. I am unclear why the "big bang" itself was not a central point, and the still "expanding" universe that came from it is just the projectile debris moving away from it in all directions with the usual variations that an explosion and it's debris cloud has. Like (((((@))))) and in north and south directions as well, where the @ is the initial explosion.

​@@czerskip if you're talking about the big bang, relativity doesn't apply

@@dielaughing73 I'm referring to the release of CMB, that's the context of the quote. Also, yes, it applies to the big bang as well, as we're still experiencing it. Why wouldn't it??

Or all of it.