Steady State Theory

I'm wondering why this wonderfully explained video has only 58 likes??!! This was so good!!! Thanks a lot!!

Thx, nice concise explanation. It should also probably be noted that the Big Bang Theory is based on distances determined according to the current interpretations of redshift, i.e. that light's wavelength increases with distance. Though there are 'competing' interpretations, like Zwicky's 'Tired Light' theory, that redshift measurements should also take into account for photons loss of energy as they travel the vast distances, encountering matter and interstellar dust along the way. But we're currently unable to detect this interstellar dust, let alone account for how much there might really be. So until such time, the Big Bang theory reigns supreme, though the future James Webb telescope, designed to 'see' in the x-ray, ir and uv spectrums might eventually change that.

The only reason we're told the universe is expanding is because of the red-shifting of light but nobody wants to talk about quasars with high redshift obviously interacting with galaxies of much lower redshift. Instead we're told we're seeing an optical illusion, that the quasar isn't interacting with the galaxy because it's actually much, much further away - we're told that all quasars are really, really far away - but there are obvious matter bridges between some quasars and their relevant galaxies. Relativistic velocities are not the only thing that gives rise to the red-shifting of light therefore we cannot say unequivocally that the universe is expanding.

thank you so much bro, really helped me with our group's presentation in school 🙏🙏

nice video, really easy to understand 💕

Great explanations

I came here looking for the pulsating theory. Is there a video on that vs the big bang?

Great vid, thanks!

Great content

Sheesh, thank you so much!!!

You deserve more views

6:56 You mentioned that in the SS theory, a)density of matter stays the same b) distance between galaxies/matter/etc stays the same Don't they both mean the same thing? The greater the distance between matter, the lower the density(i.e. less packed) Or are you referring to the fact that galaxies can fade away therefore "density" is lost?

IF it all started from a single "big bang" from a single entity of condensed/compacted/concentrated matter & energy, THEN what were the dimensions and mass of this entity AND where did it originate from and HOW was it formed? What [if anything] pre-existed this seed structure, and do we know the answer for certainty rather than by speculation? Merci

I thought matter couldn’t be created or destroyed?

hahahaha. funny stuff. all these brilliant minds, and we still dont know anything.

@Explaining Science  9:34 if quasars still exist, how does it prove that the universe has evolved over time? Even if they don't exist in nearby galaxies, they might STILL exist in faraway galaxies therefore meaning that we have to wait another billion or so years for the light to travel to us to be able to conclude whether quasars still exist in that same region of space. Because if they do, SS theory is supported

god damn bro, why is the music in this video so damn scary??!!! 😂😂😂

Criminal this channel only has 1k subs. Youtube Algo is trash. Keep up the good work.

The very ideas that the speaker in this video is referring to when he defends big bang cosmology and rejects the steady state theory are ideas that 'steady staters' can eloquently oppose; so when he says, "We now know the universe is expanding.." and when he utters similar assertions, this should be taken, not with a grain of salt, but with a pound of it.

Red shift : Big Bang may be an error or illusion. The speed of light was measured to be 299792448m/s in vacuum of a permittivity e0 of 8.8541878128^-12 Farad/meter. That is true in pure homogeneous vacuum. However, untrue within 1AU or so space around solar. There, filled with solar wind and charged particles the size of molecule, protons and or smaller objects. In essence, permittivity in 1AU spade isn’t e0 but >e0, what we have is (apparent c) but c. As permittivity increases, light speed and wavelength decrease. Our spectrometers were calibrated by sunlight in presence of solar flare and solar wind within 1AU radius, under “apparent c” but c. Thereby our spectrometer (dark bands) were calibrated biased with a blue shift. At night, Hubble study his galaxies not realizing his apparatus was biased, declare that all his galaxies were in red shift ... by mistake. Counter argument? Could our night sky also contaminated with charged particles hence blue shift biased? No, not quite. (1) if our night sky also blue shifted as much as day time, there will be no redshift for Edwin to declare with. (2) at night the earth’s portion of solar wind were split and guid by earth’s magnetosphere into our polar regions, creating Aurora, leaving our night sky with little to no blue shift.