Will future astronomers believe in galaxies they can no longer view for themselves? #astronomy

47 thoughts on “Will future astronomers believe in galaxies they can no longer view for themselves? #astronomy”

1. Aren’t we proportionately moving as well?

2. It’s hilarious they think humankind will survive another thousand years.

3. Makes me question what night sky was visible to the ancient Egytians 🤔

4. We built the universe with ˹great˺ might, and We are certainly expanding ˹it˺.
   51:47 (Al.Qur'aan).

5. I wonder what the expanding is attributed to? Sun Woo Kongs big stick?

6. 😂 what if it’s the other way around the instead of light expanding at the speed of light and faster, if the unobservable is expanding faster than the speed of light to some greater point some day we will down the road face😊

7. IS there a center from which everything is expanding?

8. Then how can we collide with Andromeda??

9. Won't we be moving just as fast, if then how are we going to lose sight?

10. Meanwhile the whole Universe is small in the infinity of Consciousness😂…

11. I'm surprised you said mass increases. Isn't E= Gamma X M V? Just would like clarification.

12. These theories assume that there will be future humans to witness such events

13. I thinks actually shrinking at the moment, but moves from shrinking to expansion just like our lungs 🫁

14. Well I saw the microwave map of planets right after the big bang and matched it with the present cosmic microwave map. Almost 14 billions years after, it shows the planets and galacies have moved clockwise from right to left about 10 to 12 inches in a black board extended map. I saw this in a physics demonstration on the Steven Hawkins' Scientific TV Series played on PBS but produced by Cambridge and the BBC.
    Great teaching demonstration!

15. I see a bad moon rising. I see troubles on the way.

16. Not anymore.

17. The guy he is talking to can’t appreciate the point because he lacks some basic knowledge in the subject.

18. And, believe it or not, it’s all happening “just because”. No reason. No Creator responsible for its expansion (and existence in the first place). Just because it decided to.

19. See this is where a historical record becomes useful.

20. Faster than the speed of light? How?

21. For calculations describing an infinite expansion of our universe we need to use irrational numbers as exponents, such as π or √2 and so on. We are, so far, unable to biologically conceptualise the results to these calculations and technologically unable to complete these calculations. So, in effect, it is not the limitations of the infinitely expanding universe. It is the limitations of human knowledge that we need to confront.

22. Wait a minute……🤔 aren't we always told that nothing can go faster than the speed of light?

    Anyroadup: space is infinite. Get over it* 😂

    * or not, as the case may be 😉

23. All in theory

24. The current theory — of an accelerating expanding universe — HAS to be flawed. There has to be an alternative explanation for the cosmological red-shift, one that needs no Dark Matter or dark Energy to exist to prop up the theory, like epicycles in the geocentric cosmology.

25. Won't they see some further galaxies in their night sky? That we don't see today but will be visible to them?

26. Even in a thousand years, the human species, if it survives, will be indistinguishable from it's current state and form. We will soon be technologically enhanced and connected. The advancement in AI will reveal new information that will enable the acceleration of evolution possibly eliminating aging. Then there is the transitioning out of the chains of physical restrictions into conscious forms of teleportational energy. A million years is impossible to imagine what "human" life will be like.

27. Perhaps Andromeda moveing closer will give some interesting concerns sooner that galaxys moveing further away, will post an update in about 4 billion years.

28. Great clip! But geez Brian, allow your guests a little more personal space, man. 😉

29. Momma always told me to never worry about galaxies moving from you at the speed of light.

30. مزيد 😮😮😮مزيد 😮😊

31. Can you imagine these civilizations in the far future that are religious and believe in Gods. One of our main arguments and reasons for dismissing gods and understanding that it's all silly is we see the vast numbers of other galaxies and other planets and potentially a multiverse that exists. But now imagine if you look into the night sky and you seen nothing and the only evidence of existence is just your one sun and your one planet in an ocean of nothingness and now try to argue that that wasn't an act of God. These poor species of the future will be forever ignorant.

32. Dark energy is to blame for that accelerating expansion of intergalactic space

33. That's what science is, belief, guess and hope.

34. So it is possible that we're already not seeing many such galaxies that have sped out of our reach permanently!

35. They will know as we have recorded it and they will observe our recordings.

36. By then human species would be extinct

37. Take teleportation into consideration by redefining the location variable of an object wherever on a relative grid you wish to go, instantly

38. Moronic you have failed to subtract enough diffraction of red shift from your recessional speed red shift. This simply means that there is a lot more gas and dust and Pebble fields and other particulates which are a much larger redshift due to diffraction. I know astronomy subtracts some type of random, unprovable amount of diffraction of red shift from their recessional speed redshift calculations. But it is not nearly enough. This means there is a lot more material between us and the object being arbitrarily assigned a recessional speed through some kind of random choice of a constant which must be subtracted. Why would it be a constant. The further the distance the more material is between the Earth and the object.

    Also there is no way to test the theory that light shifts toward the red of its own inherent properties, completely separate from the fractional redshift effects and recessional speed red shift.

    Of course science does not allow you to proclaim that there is a lot more materials causing diffraction redshift effects. Not until you actually can detect those materials. How are you going to detect pebbles and dust at such distances when we couldn't even see Pluto until 1930. Science could not proclaim that Pluto existed until it was actually detected. But they could proclaim that there was something gravitic which was perturbing orbitz. Your claim of recessional speed redshift effects, that is also the same thing. It is your right to proclaim that something is causing the red shift. But you have not detected exactly what that red shift is. So please stop talking like this issue has been resolved. Moron.

39. the dumb thing is no one asks how much of the universe is already passed this benchmark…….and how certain could we be of our estimates of the permanently invisible inaccessible earlyier faster universe…..

40. Humans will not be around by then, in the far future

41. "There will come a point…" um, What can we already not see?

42. Bill Maher sure is passionate about astronomy

43. What Brian doesn't mention is that by the time the universe expands this much, earth will have been engulfed by the sun.

44. I have a real problem with this. If what you observe in the most distant parts of the universe lead you to believe that space is expanding faster, doesn’t it mean that space expanded faster in the distant past? The most distant objects in space are viewable by the light that they emitted from the most distant point in the past. The snapshot of what is going on at the edge of the universe now, is a snapshot of the oldest activity in the universe. This means that closer in time to the big bang, things accelerated more quickly. Now the objects closest to us are moving slower than whatever’s on the periphery. It seems more logical that if there was a big bang, it would be like kicking off the side in a swimming pool at first you move very quickly but then as time goes on the water slows you down and eventually stops you. There is no water in space, but there is matter and there is gravity, and this gravity is strong enough to slow things down. I believe astronomers have it backwards. Space is not expanding faster, rather space expanded faster at one time in the distant past, but now it is actually slowing down.

45. I would say if we can't see the light from galaxies moving further away, then that means they have crossed a point where we can't see, not that it is moving faster than light because that can't happen. Doesn't mean that the Universe isn't infinite in size, but that in that infinite space those galaxies just passed a ridge, a Rubicon, a horizon that just keeps going on until the next one. But who knows, if the fabric of reality is a 4D Block Universe than all moments of spacetime are happening all at once, and we can only see where on the world line we happen to be falling down, and then when it all collapses back on itself it happens all over again.

46. Let's focus on what 95% of the matter we have no idea is first methinks…

47. Great video! Love the phrase “riding the swell of space itself.” One important point: although most of the observable universe is currently beyond our Hubble sphere (HS)—with only about 3% of galaxies having subluminal recessional velocities—we can still see light from galaxies beyond the HS. The HS marks where recessional velocity equals the speed of light, but photons emitted in the past from those galaxies can still reach us today.
    
    Some propose a variable speed of light (VSL) model to explain this, but similar conclusions arise from considering a changing timescale—where the speed of light (C) is constant in SI units, but appears faster relative to cosmic time.
    
    The Fractal Topology of Space-Time (FTS) model explains this by showing that the apparent expansion is due to dynamic scaling between atomic time (AT) and ephemeris time (ET), the latter based on orbital mechanics. In FTS, the Hubble sphere is a limit for future causality, not a strict boundary for visibility. Light from distant galaxies was emitted when their recessional velocity was less than the speed of light, C, and the evolving scale of space-time allows us to receive those signals today. So, most of the observable universe is superluminal in recessional velocity, yet still visible due to the changing cosmic horizon.

    FTS 23 02 2025 preprint available on ResearchGate.

Comments are closed.