Well, at least its going to require some reworking...

And if you believe this channel's report on the subject you might be interested in some of their other videos:

• Divers Just Made a Huge Discovery the Government is Trying to Conceal!
• Extinct Animals Finally Brought Back to Life!
• Terrifying Signals From Parallel Universes That Scientists Cannot Explain!
• Scientists Terrifying New Beach Discovery That Changes Everything!
• Scientists Terrifying New Discovery Frozen in Ice That Changes Everything!
• Scientists Terrifying New Discovery in Asia That Changes Everything!
• Scientists Terrifying New Discovery in Africa That Changes Everything!
• Scientists Terrifying New Discovery in Brazil That Changes Everything!
• Scientists Terrifying New Discovery in Russia That Changes Everything!
• Scientists Terrifying New Discovery in Australia That Changes Everything!

Yes, those are all real videos. See for yourself.

You have a point - entertainment value may out weigh science on that report.
Here is a NASA report with lots of "howevers"....

https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215?_auid=2020

been seeing this sort of thing floating around. On some level, it shows that our understanding of galaxy formation in the early universe is pretty crappy. We are seeing small, flat, well-organized early galaxies and that's in contrast to theory. So everyone is pretty excited about that.

One guy says that due to the presence of unexpected data, the Big Bang didn't happen. Basically the universe isn't expanding and has never expanded. Then he just sort of hand-waves away the whole red-shift issue. This despite the fact that red-shift is the primary and strongest evidence for the Big Bang. It was predicted based on Big Bang theory and then observed exactly as predicted. It also makes sense. If the universe is expanding, then the light waves are being stretched, increasing their wavelengths and red-shifting them. If the universe isn't expanding, why would we perceive this? What other possible explanations are there besides exotic time dilation stuff that would be really obvious?

With regards to the red shift,The anti expansion guy I heard was hanging his on "tired light". Basically photons bleed off energy as they travel through space time and slow down.

Yes, some of these images obviously raise a lot of questions about our aging/dating of the universe, and plausibly might make some think photons can 'slow down' (I am very skeptical), but really it just shows a need to adjust our understanding to the observed scientific/actual data. In truth, we've been trying since at least Einstein to come up with a plausible integrated theory/general relativity but things like dark energy, dark matter, subatomic physics, string theory etc. are tough to package it all together.

In some ways astrophysicists are just philosophers, theorizing about waves vs. particles/expansive physics and the truly great ones adjust/change their opinions a lot over time.

Fun time to be a casual stargazer/physics news nerd.

It's great! The whole point of the thing was to make us rethink physics and cosmology. Otherwise it's just history's most expensive scenery camera

Duncan Idaho said:

---

With regards to the red shift,The anti expansion guy I heard was hanging his on "tired light". Basically photons bleed off energy as they travel through space time and slow down.

---

I am no physicist, far from it, but isn't the speed of light pretty much the one thing we know doesn't change?

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Duncan Idaho said:

---

With regards to the red shift,The anti expansion guy I heard was hanging his on "tired light". Basically photons bleed off energy as they travel through space time and slow down.

---

I am no physicist, far from it, but isn't the speed of light pretty much the one thing we know doesn't change?

---

First, I am the wrong guy to ask/try to answer, but this is the internet so whatever. Feel free to discard the below comment though.

Yes, this constant is a thing and people have been trying to prove otherwise for well over a century to no effect. How photons can get away with not interacting with magnetic fields (they aren't charged), and whether light actually can/may/could slow down outside of space (if space time is stretched) is tough to comprehend. We have tried it in the lab.

We basically have no clue what's going on in most of the universe. It's pretty humbling.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Duncan Idaho said:

---

With regards to the red shift,The anti expansion guy I heard was hanging his on "tired light". Basically photons bleed off energy as they travel through space time and slow down.

---

I am no physicist, far from it, but isn't the speed of light pretty much the one thing we know doesn't change?

---

Just relaying what I heard. I had the same understanding as you.

Quote:

---

We basically have no clue what's going on in most of the universe. It's pretty humbling.

---

That's what makes it so fascinating. We act like we know so much, then you look out in space and realize this place is crazy.

nortex97 said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Duncan Idaho said:

---

With regards to the red shift,The anti expansion guy I heard was hanging his on "tired light". Basically photons bleed off energy as they travel through space time and slow down.

---

I am no physicist, far from it, but isn't the speed of light pretty much the one thing we know doesn't change?

---

First, I am the wrong guy to ask/try to answer, but this is the internet so whatever. Feel free to discard the below comment though.

Yes, this constant is a thing and people have been trying to prove otherwise for well over a century to no effect. How photons can get away with not interacting with magnetic fields (they aren't charged), and whether light actually can/may/could slow down outside of space (if space time is stretched) is tough to comprehend. We have tried it in the lab.

We basically have no clue what's going on in most of the universe. It's pretty humbling.

---

Few things. The speed of light doesn't change. It's energy is directly related to it's frequency, so higher frequency light (xrays, UV, gamma) have higher energy than lower frequency (infrared, microwave, radio). As far as I know, there is no way to directly increase or decrease the energy of a specific light wave. You can absorb a photon and re-emit it with a higher or lower energy, but I don't think you can directly affect it with some sort of field to increase or decrease the frequency. So the idea of light just losing energy due to travel in a vaccuum doesn't have any precedent of which I am aware.

There have been really cool experiments to slow down light, but those don't effect energy or frequency.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150123144158.htm
https://www.newsweek.com/physics-speed-light-stop-trapping-particles-inside-crystals-796385

Pretty much, though…the speed of light really only matters as a ratio vs. another fine structure constant. And, if that changed in the early universe (say, ratio between Planck and the speed of light), then…yes, but I get a headache.

Space-time-speed of light-matter-dark energy etc. was all a big theoretical who knows, for quite some time after the Big Bang, imho. Not sure we really understand it's present state all that well, for that 'matter.'