We still dont know if gravity was apart of the forces, and the 3 other forces dont come together as predicted either. There is still alot we dont know
@mcwaffles2003 Who says their should be equal amounts of matter and anti matter. There was very clearly more matter than antimatter hence why matter won.
@viper100200 how can you be so certain? what if entire galaxies are made completely of antimater, giving off identical spectra, seeming like normal matter has won... i suspect it has only won here where we are, but there are large amounts elsewhere... where antimatter would be the norm and normal matter there would seem to be the antimatter.
nerd joke i dont like to make something of nothing but
math has a limit to physical reality in-bedded into its sequence at the core of its number system there for it will always show a linear result at its core and its something so simple that people have been doctored to be ignore it since kinda garden
example properties of positive and negative constants both being the same
double positive makes a positive but a double negative also makes a positive
I guess Puff the Magic Dragon was the culprit to this ? The more knowlege of the universe is discovered , the less you can deny intelligent design . If the farther we see into space we are to observe the very earlliest period of our universe , then why are there FULLY MATURE solar systems ? Google Hubble...hnd.
temperature: 10 to the power of 32--How do they know that for sure? That is infinitely hot. And why was it that hot in the first place? That seems to be indicating that an exchange (friction) was taking place before the expansion. If so, then light was always being generated trying to expand outwards; however that was not according to models. Could it be that the singularity was a Black Hole with unimaginable gradational force? Then it exploded, what caused it? Squished gravity being expelled?
Who's to say ALL antimatter is gone? As I understand it there could be entire portions of the universe made of antimatter. The only reason for it to be destroyed is running into normal matter. It wouldn't just disappear otherwise.
That's just to the best of my knowledge, I'm not debating a point, that's just what I thought I heard. If I'm wrong, someone care to correct me?
@RebornAc3 for that you have to go into M theory, the universe is part of a multiverse of universes each integrated into their own membrane suspended in hyperspace, when membranes collide you get big bangs and new universes.
So where did the hyperspace and membranes come from?
@luridplanet no it means it is 10 with 32 zeros behind it or 1000000000000000000000000000000000 it just makes it easy and simple... well at least i think... but i dont know the unit of measurement...
I cannot remember his name at the moment, but there is a theoretical physicist who believes black holes create new universes in exactly the way you describe. I would point out however, "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" is a saying which applies to forces, and has little meaning in the context with the rest of your comment.
No, its a common misconception that black holes are of infinite mass, but actually they only have infinite density. A black hole actually has less mass than the star that created it. The laws of conservation of mass cannot be broken on such a large scale. You are right in saying that black holes are infinitely small so they do have infinite density. Also, the every action has an opposite and equal reaction doesn't apply to expansion and condensation the way you're thinking about it.
There are a lot of unanswered questions, but this is as good as we can get now. If you believe everything was created by an entity will make things far worse.
@ChrisJK94 By experimenting hypotheses they have. If proved right, they keep testing and testing. If the pattern continues, the hypotheses becomes a theory. There is a lot of evidence for this, no experiment has proven it wrong. But remember is imcomplete. More work needs to be done.
The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing - is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice."
Richard Dawkins.
Atheism is the belief in nothing, something coming from nothing is a scientific impossibility.
When you eliminate the impossible, what remains is not only possible, but probable!
Actually virtual particles and anti-particles popping into existence at the edge of a black hole are the reason for Hawking Radiation as I understand it. So something can come from nothing.
But regardless, life coming from nonlife is NOT something coming from nothing. It's a tiny self-replicating organic robot coming from naturally occurring organic molecules.
Actually Hawking Radiation is caused by the splitting of positive and negative particles at the edge of a black hole, the negative particles are consumed by the black hole with the residual positive particles at the edge making up Hawking Radiation.
Far from something coming from nothing, Hawking Radiation and all other theoretical particles constitute something rather than nothing.
Life does not come from non-life (the law of biogenesis). Hope that helps!
Actually virtual particles are only boosted to a particle-antiparticle pair due to the intense gravity found near the event horizon of a black hole. Thus saying virtual particles pop into existence at the edge of black holes is true. Something can come from nothing.
And the theories of abiogenesis (life from non-life) begs to differ with your law of biogenesis (which was invented by Pasteur to describe modern evolved life, not primitive, early life). Hope that helps!
Particles, virtual particles and antiparticles constitute something, so something comes from something...something does not come from nothing.
Biogenesis is a scientific law. Life only comes from life. Since life coming from non life has never been observed, it remains unproven that abiogenesis is even possible.
Virtual particles and antiparticles constitute something even less than a singularity before the Big Bang would have constituted something, because they are not matter. If you really want to insist on calling virtual particles something, then I invite you to call a singularity something.
Biogenesis is still a scientific law in referring to modern, evolved life. Trees don't magically come from dirt, they come from seeds. Biogenesis does not refer to early life at all howeve.
Actually, you just agreed with me that particles constitute something rather than nothing and that biogenesis is a scientific law.
Virtual particles, radiation,gravity, strong and weak nuclear force, singularities, light, energy and other non material entities all constitute something rather than nothing.
You need to understand the laws and their application before you begin arguing your point with them. The law of biogenesis has a certain field where it is accurate. It does not apply to the earliest forms of life that came from organic particles, nor does it try to.
The Pythagorean Theorem also does not apply to all triangles. Unless you understand that some scientific laws and methods have certain restrictions as to their application, talking about them makes you look kinda stupid...
I think you are just alittle upset that I understand them better than you do. Obviously you are trying to compensate for your lack of understanding by trying to belittle the messenger rather than the message. If you had a better understanding, you might be able to articulate what you are trying to say in a more intelligent manner.
Oh,you try viciousness when reason fails (which seems to be quite early in a discussion, I must observe), interesting. Too bad you're not terribly good at it.
Instead of this infantile "You're just against me because you're jealous", why don't we concentrate on the factual component? The law of biogenesis pertains to the forms of life it was formulated to explain. These are bacteria, and evolved life-forms in general.
I'm sure you have specific quotes to the contrary? If so,I'd love to see them.
No viciousness needed, you simply do not understand the law of biogenesis. Life only comes from life.
Ideas like life originating from a lightning strike on a mud puddle or on crystals or volcanic vents or lab experiments such as Miller/Urey have all proven this simply does not happen. If anything, all of those things tend to terminate life (lol).
Life does not come from non-life. Thus the law of biogensis remains a scientific law- Life only comes from life.
"Life only comes from life", however, is sadly not precisely what the scientifically accepted version of the law says. It properly says that evolved life is not spontaneously created (funny, by the way, how that is exactly what you believe...).
And the lightning striking a mud puddle gave me a laugh, thanks for that. It is terribly intimidating, knowing that you get your information from authorities on the subject like Ben Stein.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Actually, the law of biogenesis does precisely state that life only comes from life. You could not prove otherwise, thus you proved my point for me. (lol)
Ben Stein is apparently better informed on this topic than you are (lol).
Next time, do a little more research before you embarass yourself (lol).
Save your christian spite, it does not affect me. While you are free to argue with whatever strawmen you like to prove the point you are by scripture obligated to make, it seems to me the only effect it has is to illustrate your intellectual dishonesty.
I also notice with some satisfaction that you have as yet failed to provide the "specific quote" I asked you for, which would support your assertion. I guess requiring valid arguments from a fundamentalist is inherently absurd - my mistake...
Thats not spite, I just find you to be hilarious, the way you parrot atheist propaganda cracks me up!
Your head is so far into Dawkins and company that you cant hear the voice of reason or see the light of truth. Open up your closed mind and you might learn something.
You might want to look beyond atheist propaganda at some point, most of it is just rehashed Soviet era garbage. It is dated and boring. It did not work then and it does not work now.
Since you obviously have nothing to show (like a quote from a respectable peer-reviewed journal that states that the law of biogenesis specifically renders the notion of abiogenesis impossible - which you failed to provide twice now...) that would elevate your assertion beyond mere personal opinion, it would seem there is little point in discussing it with you.
Your willful ignorance is to be pitied, no doubt, but there comes a point when it has to be recognized as blind zeal...
Spelling? You criticise my spelling? And thats your defence argument for why you are unable to understand basic concepts such as abiogenesis, and why you consciously ignore that the theory of biogenesis cannot be applied to the appearance of life on this planet? I wonder just how many languages can you use to express your ignorance, in the same way I use this English. Just by repeating whats on my profile wont make you look smarter, just a monkey.
You still did not answer my question. Who was the creationist mad man that let you pass their science exams? Did you actually received basic science education in this language or any other? Or the only thing you remember is the mantra of the religious ignorant :::life can come only from life::: ? Or the watchmaker analogy? Are you a watch, or even better, a mindless robot, created to sing eternal mantras? Pathetic.
Are you sure you are actually 45? You definitely sound like a 15. Childish and pretentious. It really takes a religious mindless puppet, that still enjoys to play around with imaginary invisible friends, to compare that scum of a person called Ben Stein to any real scientist. While I might enjoy the artistic values inherited in folk tales, I am actually able to see that they are the works of fantasy. While you are capable only to regurgitate your own indoctrination.
Nope- you are a strange atheist homosexual freak who reads fairly tales like a child. Most 30 year olds would consider you to be the ultimate failure...Gay, alone, middle aged and destined to stay that way.
Face it, you are a failure. Your only hope is to turn your life around before HIV kills you. A good starting point is to admit that you have failed and seek God to forgive you.
The wages of sin are death and you are on a one way course to a painful agonizing death before you reach 40.
So, do the people that follow your ministry know that you attack people on youtube by calling people gays, failures, and freaks? Do they know you act like an upset child when faced with intellectual discourse? Can they comprehend that the level of humility and grace you fall short of exhibiting only contributes to the hatred anti-theists are slowly accumulating?
Should I link this comment page to every one on your friends list so they see?
Well, you keep responding, obviously I'm not blocked hard enough.
Also, if looking at your PUBLIC profile and seeing that you are a 45 year old minister named Dr. Miles Bateman of Pampa Texas makes me a stalker, then you should not disclose so much sensitive data on your main page. Continuing, your friends are also listed on that page, so contacting them doesn't even require extensive searching.
Nothing is nothing. How amusing. Life must come from life, because you dint observe it otherwise. You blame abiogenesis for your own limitations. You dont understand this specific theory, and you consciously misuse the biogenesis(which you dont understand as well) theory to cover your ignorance. If only you would have paid attention to your basic mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology lessons. I wonder what educational establishment let you pass their exam.
So, another atheist who does not understand a basic concept like biogenesis or that something is different from nothing...too funny!
Let's see...atheist, homosexual, European, illiterate and ignorant (I read your profile- a grown man who likes fairy tales...really?)
Go back to school, buy a toothbrush and some deodorant, move, stop making out with other men, put down the childrens book (thats kinda creepy) and learn some manners.
:::Biogenesis is a scientific law. Life only comes from life::: Didnt you listen, you undereducated moron? The theory of biogenesis describes life as it develops today from one cell to a complex organism in the case of complex life forms, and so on. It has nothing to do with how life developed from self-replicating molecules, which is described by the theory of abiogenesis. Do you enjoy playing the role of the ignorant monkey?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
And (remember) the Day when We shall roll up the heaven like a scroll rolled up for books. As We began the first creation, We shall repeat it. (It is) a promise binding upon Us. Truly, We shall do it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Then He rose over (Istawa) towards the heaven when it smoke, and said to it and to the earth: "Come both of you willingly or unwillingly". They both said: "We come willingly".
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them? And We have made from water every living. Will they not then believe?
Quantum physics shows that even in empty space (i.e. a vacuum), "virtual" pairs of particles and anti-particles are constantly popping in and out of existence - so, while it's a completely counter-intuitive, even in "nothing", there's still "something".
Of course it's a bit more complicated that that, but Cosmologist Lawrence Krauss has given some very good talks about this topic - try looking up "A Universe From Nothing" vid on YouTube sometime .
And where did that first particle come from? When it comes down to it, the current explanation is everything came from nothing. It can't just randomly exist.
Well, if the question you want answered is "where did that first particle come from", it is as simple as vladimirck says; We don't know yet.
However, using scientific methods, we might be able of telling even more of the universe we live in and what existed before the big bang as well.
Now, if you believe in some sort of "god" who created everything, I ask you; Who created god? Try to answer that by reading a holy book over and over, instead of looking at facts in the actual world.
@xsoccerdudecjx. if this is trying to prove god, it doesnt. first, there is no reason why a personal being would cause this particle to exist rather than a non personal cause. second, there is no reason to believe it was caused by a single thing rather than multiple factors. third, there is no reason to assume it must have a cause. in quantum physics, things pop in and out of existence with no cause. fourth, there is no reason to assume that the cause/effect relationship exists beyond time.
Umm, nothing happens with absolutely no cause. Most are simply beyond your or my perception. A "there is no reason to believe" questioning shows that you haven't done any researching into the many things that contribute to the believability of the Bible. For example: Sodom and Gomorrah were recently found to be destroyed by meteors the time it was recorded in the Bible. This prophecy was made years before it happened. For more like this check out GodIsReal101's channel.
im no authority to argue this with. i have read however, that particles do indeed pop in and out of existence for no reason, with no pattern whatsoever. as for the "believability"(maybe you mean credibility?) of the bible, it holds countless contradictions. literally countless. i just looked up your sodom and gomorrah claim and i really haven't put too much effort in to researching it simply because even if it is true, it would still need to be proved that genesis was written before hand.
@xsoccerdudecjx. and i just checked out godisreal101, per your request. after watching his video on morality, i already am skeptical. it doesnt appear that he puts much abstract thought into his beliefs.
Yes i meant credibility, couldn't think of the word haha. Ok, you have no idea how many times I've heard "it has countless contradictions". I've debunked over 50 myself, I've yet to not be able to answer one. Send me a message with 5, I'll show you. About GodIsReal101, I was talking about the one about Prophecy Proves the Bible is divine. Not much thought required for pure facts.
ok heres a contradiction i find interesting. not explicitly in the bible, but good nonetheless. most christians (i dont know if you accept this belief) explain evil in the world by saying that people are imperfect- we have free will and we sometimes do not use it correctly. however, if god IS perfect, how could he create something imperfect? even jesus attests to this fact (Luke 6:43-45). you can reply in a personal message.
god has the tree of eternal life in the garden of eden in genesis 2:9, and after finding adam and eve guilty of eating the apple makes sure they don't get to his second tree (genesis 3:24), just to send his "only son" to "die for our sins" supposedly thousands of years later and threaten to send anyone to hell if they don't find this story credible. why not just allow eternal life through the tree? why does god not want us to eat the one tree but allows for the other?
furthermore, if the consequence of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil keeps with humankind for eternity, why not also the consequence of the eating of the tree of eternal life? why must now we believe a story to get a second rate eternal life where we dont have a body?
"I've debunked over 50 myself, I've yet to not be able to answer one"
I suspect you have not. I suspect you have rationalized them away. e.g. you have probably added extra-scriptural suppositions which to you, but not to the skeptic satisfy the apparent discrepancy.
For example can you resolve the identify of Joseph's father without resorting to extra-scriptural suppositions about one man being another man's brother with no supporting evidence that this is the case.
"Sodom and Gomorrah were recently found to be destroyed by meteors the time it was recorded in the Bible."
Your claim is pure hyperbole. It is based on reaseach at the Uni of Bristol (see ht tp:/ /tiny url. c om/bristol-kofels) The sky described on a recently interpreted cuniform tablet appears to show an asteroid impact which matches to a geological anomaly in Austria. It has been speculated that the fireball in the sky may have given rise to a number of myths including the biblical story.
yes, this makes sence...nothing was there. and then somthing that was abslutly nothing went BOOM! and all by a incredible accident its all here now ! yuuppp that is so logical! no. and plus... where is your evidence?! oh wait there is nonee ! goodness greatious.
You really should educate yourself, just a tiny little bit, before posting such silliness.
The Big Bang model btw, actually has MULTIPLE evidences. Not to mention it was actually PREDICTED (it came naturally out of the maths of Einstein's gen theory of rel) before it was discovered. The expansion was OBSERVED by Hubble, and the CMBR confirmed it, found by Penzias and Wilson.
Where all the vaccines come from? How the man came with the idea of building the computer you are using? Jesus and the Bible gave us the blueprint for that? Thanks God this is not a christian nation, we would be doom otherwise (look the muslin nation, they are a way behind us because of their religion, and christianity is no better (do you remember the Dark Age?. Probably you are happy with what science is doing for humanity, you just doesn't like the fact that God is useless.
Vaccine and the and the Big Bang theory were developed using the same scientific method. There's no sacred and outdated book that tell us about it: Only cutting edge science. You were the one complained about the tax funded science, and that's why I brought it to the table.
It's funny that you talked about fable, but you believe that a talking snake doomed all humanity!!! LOL
And regarding the dark age, you are no that much different from catholic church. Who hanged those poor people in Salem? The catholic church? The Reform never complained about burning witches and non believer, they just complained about some dogmatic facts (opposed to buying pardon from God), but in fact, they also burned people like catholic used to do. You are alike. You are the one that have to do some research.
Sorry, Jim - but the Big Bang was a real event (whether you accept it or not). Modern physics predicted & confirmed it, and we have even detected the leftover microwave radiation from it.
FYI - def. of Fable: "A succinct story, in prose or verse, that features animals, plants, inanimate objects, or forces of nature which are anthropomorphized (given human qualities), and that illustrates a moral lesson." I would think that this term more accurately fits the Biblical creation account, don't you?
"Were did the energy come from to compact the singularity".
I don't suppose you've ever heard of GRAVITY have you??? or are you a proponent of intelligent falling too?
It always makes me wonder. The poeple who decry, and eschew science, never seem to have a problem using all the wonderfull things it has brought us in the modern world.
I suppose we should just stop funding everything. Yes, lets sack agriculture too, and go back to foraging, and dying at 25 -28 years old.
Where is your proof that gravity is the culprit? And where did the gravity come from to squish everything in the universe in to a tiny dot? (I had a hard time typing this with out face palming) Sounds like assumption mixed with a lot of faith here.
It sounds like your saying, we know it happened, we just need to find a way to prove it "I know, GRAVITY DIDIT!!"
Google up "big bang" and the first result (wikipedia) has a list of supporting evidence. This model also matches with current knowledge on physics and doesn't not interfere with the laws of physics. That is the complete opposite of religion.
your colors are mentally disordered. the universe functions in four colors: yellow against black and red against blue (put them on one ellipse if you want to understand them but you should learn the lever law before it cause behind every ellipse stands A lever), then there's green for spiritron and white for spatiotron.
Okay since we have some idea of what may have happen, just imagine if we could re-combine those particles mentioned together again?Wonder what could be possible?
You DO realise that these people (Cassiopeia Project) are the same corporate gangsters that produced a Global Warming Denialista video, don't you?
A crying shame really, this one and several others they produced are excellent, but that is apparently to make the denial video seem scientifically credible.
@middlekk I apologize for the generalization but I regard global warming denialists as being corporate gangsters or at least agents of disinformation which I think is at least criminal-esque, don't you?
This video on the standard model is great! But CPs video on Global Warming is just rewarmed contrarian propaganda. Check wikipedia for George C. Marshall Institute, Fred Singer and his denial of CFC-caused ozone depletion, sulfur emissions & acid rain and big tobacco LIES.
Thanks for the info. Yes, it appears that the global warming video suffers from a lack of peer-review by scientists qualified to comment on the matter.
And the video where their sources are cited only spotlights the fact that they cherry picked their information, primarily from denialist web sites, including the execrable Sen. Inhofe.
I agree. It's sad. The other videos I have watched seem to be quite solid. But the GW one is the proverbial "turd in a punch bowl".
That's a bigger "if" than you'd think. If it actually was a singularity, then it's damn hard to do any kind of physics without finding yourself trying to divide by zero.
It is the ultimate, brain-bending question, though. Either the universe was caused by something else, or it wasn't--either answer is extraordinary when you try to comprehend it.
I didn't read about any of this in my handy-dandy Bible. Could it maybe be in the Qur'an? Oh Muhammad please forgive me. I will read all about your Holy Leptons tomorrow.
I'm certainly not an expert, but as I understand it, time itself was a bit hazy in that first second, and inflation actually did occur faster than light. Of course I'm not sure if there was any light at that point. Anyone?
My understanding is that the universe inflated a LOT faster than light--but it doesn't break the speed limit because it's spacetime itself expanding, rather than something moving through it.
Didn't the Hubble red shift prove that not only is the universe inflating, the speed of inflation is increasing? Yet if inflation was faster than light early on, space-time can't have been inflating faster ever since. So did inflation slow down shortly after the BB and then start speeding up again recently? Whatever recently means o.0 And if so, why would inflation slow down then speed up again and can it reverse repeatedly like a sine curve on a rate of inflation vs. time graph, maybe? jw =)
There seems to be a consensus that the rate of expansion (occurring only in intergalactic space) is increasing, but of course that's a pretty recent conclusion, and while "dark matter" has predicted properties, this "dark energy" stuff driving expansion is really just a placeholder as there's no explanation as to why it's happening.
As to the early inflation, I really don't know what the theory says about why it happened, or why it stopped. Good question.
This is a very intelligent theory. But people say it as if it were a fact. This is the same trap that creationists fall into. I thought what separates the rational from the delusional is solid evidence.
That's one of the things that turns me off about these CP videos--they do present this information as though it were unquestionable. BB and inflation are very well supported, but their not infallible and could be falsified.
(The other thing that bugs me is the heavy reverb on homeboy's voice. I'm not watching this in a planetarium, dude, so let's have less cowbell)
That's an argument from personal incredulity and makes it a false argument. Just because you don't understand how it works, doesn't mean it's wrong. Pick up a book and go study.
ROFL. You use an argument from personal incredulity, I call you out on it, and you tell me not to be stupid?
There's plenty that can happen in only a second... binary stars that rotate around eachother several times a second, pulsars that have several rotations every second, neutron stars which colapse and condence something 40% or great than our sun into an area about the size of Manhattan... and it all happens in less than a second.
of course it can, just because you can't perceive due to the limitations of your brain (not your fault but just the way we evolved - in the middle-sized world) doesn't mean it can't happen.
count to 1, and then tell me you still think all of that happened in a single second. light cannot travel that fast and its the fastest thing in the universe.
We are not talking about light traveling. At the end of the day I don't understand why people without appropriate background feel like they know more than experts do. I don't have a degree in physics, I'm studying neuroscience. This isn't my field of expertise, and something tells me it is not yours either.
The way the big bang is usually explained to laypersons makes people think it was an explosion in the usual sense of the word.
This is not my area of expertise (I welcome corrections) but my understanding is that it was actually a singularity of matter as well as space/time itself that rapidly expanded. It is helpful to think of the universe as existing on the surface of a balloon that went from being unbelievably tiny to fully inflated in a very short order.
Too bad the details in Genesis were proven wrong long ago, Parabol... like humans being made from dust, women coming from man's rib, talking snakes, and everything coming from a deity.
Halton Arp's 1966 Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies proves that quasars which are extremely high redshift objects are linked by plasma bridges to nearby galaxies of lower redshift & therefore NOT at the edge of the universe, ergo redshift is NOT linked entirely to distance & expansion....fact
some really good stuff here
osclarkos 3 days ago
you have some great stuff here
thejameskan 1 week ago
What a terrific video!
Kntrabssi 1 month ago
doesn't it have to make logical sense to be called science
cunnidvd 3 months ago
@cunnidvd Which it does. Common sense however, it does not.
AlphaCrucis 3 months ago
Comment removed
cunnidvd 3 months ago
@AlphaCrucis It doesn't actually. You just stay tuned.
cunnidvd 3 months ago
@cunnidvd I guess I'm not sure what you mean then.
AlphaCrucis 3 months ago
Comment removed
cunnidvd 3 months ago
Interesting...
ERiQTENDO 5 months ago
Very well done. I will mention this to my class for viewing.
dan69052 6 months ago
fuck yeah!
infinitenight2093 7 months ago
Primitive
Perilous3D 8 months ago
Nonsense
Zendout1 8 months ago
@Zendout1
Dumbass.
MrEvanOden 8 months ago
Comment removed
drrobertoboogie97 6 months ago in playlist Standard Model of Particle Physics
Comment removed
mcwaffles2003 8 months ago
We still dont know if gravity was apart of the forces, and the 3 other forces dont come together as predicted either. There is still alot we dont know
Typho0n86 8 months ago
@mcwaffles2003 Who says their should be equal amounts of matter and anti matter. There was very clearly more matter than antimatter hence why matter won.
viper100200 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@viper100200 how can you be so certain? what if entire galaxies are made completely of antimater, giving off identical spectra, seeming like normal matter has won... i suspect it has only won here where we are, but there are large amounts elsewhere... where antimatter would be the norm and normal matter there would seem to be the antimatter.
mcwaffles2003 8 months ago
15 people like justin bieber.
Darcin8or 11 months ago
nerd joke i dont like to make something of nothing but
math has a limit to physical reality in-bedded into its sequence at the core of its number system there for it will always show a linear result at its core and its something so simple that people have been doctored to be ignore it since kinda garden
example properties of positive and negative constants both being the same
double positive makes a positive but a double negative also makes a positive
(#) + (1) = +
(#) - (-1) = + ! wha..
okuma0kuma 11 months ago
anyone else think it's mind-boggling that we could possibly know the temp. of the universe at that time? math is trippy.
BrendanWhelan 1 year ago
Neat, makes me wonder if one of the four forces we know of today could split at some point in the expansion of our space-time.
fourtrees44 1 year ago
I guess Puff the Magic Dragon was the culprit to this ? The more knowlege of the universe is discovered , the less you can deny intelligent design . If the farther we see into space we are to observe the very earlliest period of our universe , then why are there FULLY MATURE solar systems ? Google Hubble...hnd.
vernb57 1 year ago
@vernb57 were not in the middle of space
mcwaffles2003 11 months ago
@mcwaffles2003 Yes, we are, everywhere is the middle of space.
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz no, theres a middle, its at the center of the cosmic microwave backround if it were projected as a sphere
mcwaffles2003 10 months ago
@mcwaffles2003 But the microwave background radiation is everywhere at the same strength.
gregrutz 10 months ago
temperature: 10 to the power of 32--How do they know that for sure? That is infinitely hot. And why was it that hot in the first place? That seems to be indicating that an exchange (friction) was taking place before the expansion. If so, then light was always being generated trying to expand outwards; however that was not according to models. Could it be that the singularity was a Black Hole with unimaginable gradational force? Then it exploded, what caused it? Squished gravity being expelled?
explorerSG1 1 year ago
@explorerSG1 Noob
Capitales0 1 year ago
will someone please explain the logic behind colour charge of quarkes and why its constantly changiing to me :s
McBeefsupreme 1 year ago
...consequently induced Nano-Nucleonic Cyborg Summoning!!!!
sorry thought id throw a little humor/metal reference in with all this quantum physics
tummysticks80 1 year ago
lovee this video
lettusgonow 1 year ago
Who's to say ALL antimatter is gone? As I understand it there could be entire portions of the universe made of antimatter. The only reason for it to be destroyed is running into normal matter. It wouldn't just disappear otherwise.
That's just to the best of my knowledge, I'm not debating a point, that's just what I thought I heard. If I'm wrong, someone care to correct me?
Psycherz 1 year ago
Interesting, but where did the heat, elementary particles and force come from???
RebornAc3 1 year ago
@RebornAc3 for that you have to go into M theory, the universe is part of a multiverse of universes each integrated into their own membrane suspended in hyperspace, when membranes collide you get big bangs and new universes.
So where did the hyperspace and membranes come from?
Haven't a clue! ;)
toyrocketastronaut 1 year ago
bill hicks explained it better
tareqjj 1 year ago
Is that 10degrees Kelvin?
luridplanet 1 year ago
@luridplanet no it means it is 10 with 32 zeros behind it or 1000000000000000000000000000000000 it just makes it easy and simple... well at least i think... but i dont know the unit of measurement...
Shcroft2 1 year ago
couldn't black holes and the big bang be the same thing?
matter enters an infinitely small space in a black hole
matter exits an infinite small space in a big bang in the opposite direction (out to in in to out).
both created in fractions of seconds
"every action has an opposite and equal reaction"
difference is point of view ie relativity
its like standing up close to a giant cube and seeing only a square.
our points of view obscure reality
just like chaos theory.
harlosik13 1 year ago
@harlosik13
I cannot remember his name at the moment, but there is a theoretical physicist who believes black holes create new universes in exactly the way you describe. I would point out however, "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" is a saying which applies to forces, and has little meaning in the context with the rest of your comment.
Skepnostic 1 year ago
@harlosik13
No, its a common misconception that black holes are of infinite mass, but actually they only have infinite density. A black hole actually has less mass than the star that created it. The laws of conservation of mass cannot be broken on such a large scale. You are right in saying that black holes are infinitely small so they do have infinite density. Also, the every action has an opposite and equal reaction doesn't apply to expansion and condensation the way you're thinking about it.
Dienysis 1 year ago
i <3 pHySiCz
13zombielover 1 year ago
There are a lot of unanswered questions, but this is as good as we can get now. If you believe everything was created by an entity will make things far worse.
TheBeyonder77 1 year ago
How do scientist get these asumptions?
ChrisJK94 1 year ago
@ChrisJK94 By experimenting hypotheses they have. If proved right, they keep testing and testing. If the pattern continues, the hypotheses becomes a theory. There is a lot of evidence for this, no experiment has proven it wrong. But remember is imcomplete. More work needs to be done.
TheBeyonder77 1 year ago
Its amazing how much we know but still there is much exploration still to be done.
And lets stop usingthe tired god of the gqps argument.
Ramshobraja 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing - is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice."
Richard Dawkins.
Atheism is the belief in nothing, something coming from nothing is a scientific impossibility.
When you eliminate the impossible, what remains is not only possible, but probable!
God is possible, atheism is not
moonlightbateman 2 years ago
Actually virtual particles and anti-particles popping into existence at the edge of a black hole are the reason for Hawking Radiation as I understand it. So something can come from nothing.
But regardless, life coming from nonlife is NOT something coming from nothing. It's a tiny self-replicating organic robot coming from naturally occurring organic molecules.
darkmiles22 1 year ago
Actually Hawking Radiation is caused by the splitting of positive and negative particles at the edge of a black hole, the negative particles are consumed by the black hole with the residual positive particles at the edge making up Hawking Radiation.
Far from something coming from nothing, Hawking Radiation and all other theoretical particles constitute something rather than nothing.
Life does not come from non-life (the law of biogenesis). Hope that helps!
moonlightbateman 1 year ago
Actually virtual particles are only boosted to a particle-antiparticle pair due to the intense gravity found near the event horizon of a black hole. Thus saying virtual particles pop into existence at the edge of black holes is true. Something can come from nothing.
And the theories of abiogenesis (life from non-life) begs to differ with your law of biogenesis (which was invented by Pasteur to describe modern evolved life, not primitive, early life). Hope that helps!
darkmiles22 1 year ago
ummm...no
Particles, virtual particles and antiparticles constitute something, so something comes from something...something does not come from nothing.
Biogenesis is a scientific law. Life only comes from life. Since life coming from non life has never been observed, it remains unproven that abiogenesis is even possible.
Hope that helps!
moonlightbateman 1 year ago
ummm...no
Virtual particles and antiparticles constitute something even less than a singularity before the Big Bang would have constituted something, because they are not matter. If you really want to insist on calling virtual particles something, then I invite you to call a singularity something.
Biogenesis is still a scientific law in referring to modern, evolved life. Trees don't magically come from dirt, they come from seeds. Biogenesis does not refer to early life at all howeve.
darkmiles22 1 year ago
Actually, you just agreed with me that particles constitute something rather than nothing and that biogenesis is a scientific law.
Virtual particles, radiation,gravity, strong and weak nuclear force, singularities, light, energy and other non material entities all constitute something rather than nothing.
Nothing is nothing.
Hope that helps!
moonlightbateman 1 year ago
You need to understand the laws and their application before you begin arguing your point with them. The law of biogenesis has a certain field where it is accurate. It does not apply to the earliest forms of life that came from organic particles, nor does it try to.
The Pythagorean Theorem also does not apply to all triangles. Unless you understand that some scientific laws and methods have certain restrictions as to their application, talking about them makes you look kinda stupid...
KeyserX 1 year ago
I think you are just alittle upset that I understand them better than you do. Obviously you are trying to compensate for your lack of understanding by trying to belittle the messenger rather than the message. If you had a better understanding, you might be able to articulate what you are trying to say in a more intelligent manner.
Hope that helps!
moonlightbateman 1 year ago
Oh,you try viciousness when reason fails (which seems to be quite early in a discussion, I must observe), interesting. Too bad you're not terribly good at it.
Instead of this infantile "You're just against me because you're jealous", why don't we concentrate on the factual component? The law of biogenesis pertains to the forms of life it was formulated to explain. These are bacteria, and evolved life-forms in general.
I'm sure you have specific quotes to the contrary? If so,I'd love to see them.
KeyserX 1 year ago
No viciousness needed, you simply do not understand the law of biogenesis. Life only comes from life.
Ideas like life originating from a lightning strike on a mud puddle or on crystals or volcanic vents or lab experiments such as Miller/Urey have all proven this simply does not happen. If anything, all of those things tend to terminate life (lol).
Life does not come from non-life. Thus the law of biogensis remains a scientific law- Life only comes from life.
Hope that helps!
moonlightbateman 1 year ago
"Life only comes from life", however, is sadly not precisely what the scientifically accepted version of the law says. It properly says that evolved life is not spontaneously created (funny, by the way, how that is exactly what you believe...).
And the lightning striking a mud puddle gave me a laugh, thanks for that. It is terribly intimidating, knowing that you get your information from authorities on the subject like Ben Stein.
Hope you get the help you need.
KeyserX 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Actually, the law of biogenesis does precisely state that life only comes from life. You could not prove otherwise, thus you proved my point for me. (lol)
Ben Stein is apparently better informed on this topic than you are (lol).
Next time, do a little more research before you embarass yourself (lol).
BTW- I'm laughing at you, not with you (lol).
moonlightbateman 1 year ago
Save your christian spite, it does not affect me. While you are free to argue with whatever strawmen you like to prove the point you are by scripture obligated to make, it seems to me the only effect it has is to illustrate your intellectual dishonesty.
I also notice with some satisfaction that you have as yet failed to provide the "specific quote" I asked you for, which would support your assertion. I guess requiring valid arguments from a fundamentalist is inherently absurd - my mistake...
KeyserX 1 year ago
Thats not spite, I just find you to be hilarious, the way you parrot atheist propaganda cracks me up!
Your head is so far into Dawkins and company that you cant hear the voice of reason or see the light of truth. Open up your closed mind and you might learn something.
You might want to look beyond atheist propaganda at some point, most of it is just rehashed Soviet era garbage. It is dated and boring. It did not work then and it does not work now.
lol, comrade, lol
moonlightbateman 1 year ago
Since you obviously have nothing to show (like a quote from a respectable peer-reviewed journal that states that the law of biogenesis specifically renders the notion of abiogenesis impossible - which you failed to provide twice now...) that would elevate your assertion beyond mere personal opinion, it would seem there is little point in discussing it with you.
Your willful ignorance is to be pitied, no doubt, but there comes a point when it has to be recognized as blind zeal...
KeyserX 1 year ago 2
Learn to read, Einstein- Biogenesis is a scientific law, it states that life only comes from life.
You can find it online, in elementary textbooks and even atheist propaganda sites like the ones you frequent.
What about that is so hard to understand?
I hope that helps your understanding of a very simple concept that seems to be beyond your scope of comprehension.
Atheists like you crack me up!
moonlightbateman 1 year ago
Spelling? You criticise my spelling? And thats your defence argument for why you are unable to understand basic concepts such as abiogenesis, and why you consciously ignore that the theory of biogenesis cannot be applied to the appearance of life on this planet? I wonder just how many languages can you use to express your ignorance, in the same way I use this English. Just by repeating whats on my profile wont make you look smarter, just a monkey.
eldadevata 1 year ago
Your HIV infected mind has lost the ability to reason and to spell.
Put down the childrens book (freak), buy some toothpaste and deodorant, take a basic English course and learn some manners,
Gay, Ignorant, Illiterate, nearly 30, overwieght and still reading Fairy Tales.
Sad and creepy...
moonlightbateman 1 year ago
You still did not answer my question. Who was the creationist mad man that let you pass their science exams? Did you actually received basic science education in this language or any other? Or the only thing you remember is the mantra of the religious ignorant :::life can come only from life::: ? Or the watchmaker analogy? Are you a watch, or even better, a mindless robot, created to sing eternal mantras? Pathetic.
eldadevata 1 year ago
So what did they teach you at homosexual school? How to make out with another man? (gross)
How to read childrens fairy tales (wierd) or stalk children (freak).
You cant find God for the same reason a criminal cant find a policeman.
moonlightbateman 1 year ago
Are you sure you are actually 45? You definitely sound like a 15. Childish and pretentious. It really takes a religious mindless puppet, that still enjoys to play around with imaginary invisible friends, to compare that scum of a person called Ben Stein to any real scientist. While I might enjoy the artistic values inherited in folk tales, I am actually able to see that they are the works of fantasy. While you are capable only to regurgitate your own indoctrination.
eldadevata 1 year ago
Nope- you are a strange atheist homosexual freak who reads fairly tales like a child. Most 30 year olds would consider you to be the ultimate failure...Gay, alone, middle aged and destined to stay that way.
Face it, you are a failure. Your only hope is to turn your life around before HIV kills you. A good starting point is to admit that you have failed and seek God to forgive you.
The wages of sin are death and you are on a one way course to a painful agonizing death before you reach 40.
moonlightbateman 1 year ago
@moonlightbateman Blind and demented.
Sublimnalxx 1 year ago
@moonlightbateman
Wow, looked at your profile page.
So, do the people that follow your ministry know that you attack people on youtube by calling people gays, failures, and freaks? Do they know you act like an upset child when faced with intellectual discourse? Can they comprehend that the level of humility and grace you fall short of exhibiting only contributes to the hatred anti-theists are slowly accumulating?
Should I link this comment page to every one on your friends list so they see?
coreygames 1 year ago 4
@coreygames Thanks for warning me you are a cyber-stalker. Consider yourself blocked (lol). Have a nice day!
moonlightbateman 1 year ago
@moonlightbateman
Religious person: Offensive comments
Observer: Calls them out on it
Religious person: Stop oppressing me!
Consider your reputation self-tarnished XD
coreygames 1 year ago
@coreygames is a Cyberstalker- you are blocked, what about that dont you get?
moonlightbateman 1 year ago
@moonlightbateman
Well, you keep responding, obviously I'm not blocked hard enough.
Also, if looking at your PUBLIC profile and seeing that you are a 45 year old minister named Dr. Miles Bateman of Pampa Texas makes me a stalker, then you should not disclose so much sensitive data on your main page. Continuing, your friends are also listed on that page, so contacting them doesn't even require extensive searching.
Care to dig your hole deeper?
coreygames 1 year ago
@coreygames coreygames ia a cyberstalker. I have blocked him and suggest you do the same.
moonlightbateman 1 year ago
@moonlightbateman Consequences will never be the same! You're done goofed!!
kyagh 1 year ago
@coreygames The US fought a big war with Mexico over Texas. America lost and were forced to keep Texas.
gamesbok 1 year ago 2
@moonlightbateman Ben Stein is better educated than who? There is no law of Biogenesis.
gamesbok 1 year ago
Nothing is nothing. How amusing. Life must come from life, because you dint observe it otherwise. You blame abiogenesis for your own limitations. You dont understand this specific theory, and you consciously misuse the biogenesis(which you dont understand as well) theory to cover your ignorance. If only you would have paid attention to your basic mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology lessons. I wonder what educational establishment let you pass their exam.
eldadevata 1 year ago
Nice spelling Einstein, (lol)
So, another atheist who does not understand a basic concept like biogenesis or that something is different from nothing...too funny!
Let's see...atheist, homosexual, European, illiterate and ignorant (I read your profile- a grown man who likes fairy tales...really?)
Go back to school, buy a toothbrush and some deodorant, move, stop making out with other men, put down the childrens book (thats kinda creepy) and learn some manners.
Hope that helps!
moonlightbateman 1 year ago
:::Biogenesis is a scientific law. Life only comes from life::: Didnt you listen, you undereducated moron? The theory of biogenesis describes life as it develops today from one cell to a complex organism in the case of complex life forms, and so on. It has nothing to do with how life developed from self-replicating molecules, which is described by the theory of abiogenesis. Do you enjoy playing the role of the ignorant monkey?
eldadevata 1 year ago 26
Biogenesis is a scientific law, Einstein, not a theory.
Life only comes from life. Please prove the scientific law wrong. Go ahead...
While you ponder that, LEARN TO READ AND SPELL!
Too funny!
moonlightbateman 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
And (remember) the Day when We shall roll up the heaven like a scroll rolled up for books. As We began the first creation, We shall repeat it. (It is) a promise binding upon Us. Truly, We shall do it.
Quran 17 verses 104
Tofy710 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Then He rose over (Istawa) towards the heaven when it smoke, and said to it and to the earth: "Come both of you willingly or unwillingly". They both said: "We come willingly".
Quran sort Fussilat verses -11
Tofy710 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them? And We have made from water every living. Will they not then believe?
Quran sort Al-Anbiya verses 30
Tofy710 2 years ago
THIS IS A LIE.
I created the universe when i snapped my finger. oh wait... i didnt exist back then, and technically couldnt.
ImAllFact 2 years ago
this is what must have happened??:|
BRESHEET 2 years ago
It's one interpretation and piecing-together of what we know today. It's a hypothesis of how we THINK it happened.
d00df00d 2 years ago
Why is there a particle at the first instant?
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
Quantum physics shows that even in empty space (i.e. a vacuum), "virtual" pairs of particles and anti-particles are constantly popping in and out of existence - so, while it's a completely counter-intuitive, even in "nothing", there's still "something".
Of course it's a bit more complicated that that, but Cosmologist Lawrence Krauss has given some very good talks about this topic - try looking up "A Universe From Nothing" vid on YouTube sometime .
muzakgeek 2 years ago
And where did that first particle come from? When it comes down to it, the current explanation is everything came from nothing. It can't just randomly exist.
xsoccerdudecjx 2 years ago
And how about "we don't know". It isn't true that the current explanation is "everything came from nothing". We just don't know.
vladimirck 2 years ago
Well, if the question you want answered is "where did that first particle come from", it is as simple as vladimirck says; We don't know yet.
However, using scientific methods, we might be able of telling even more of the universe we live in and what existed before the big bang as well.
Now, if you believe in some sort of "god" who created everything, I ask you; Who created god? Try to answer that by reading a holy book over and over, instead of looking at facts in the actual world.
xxxx85 2 years ago
@xsoccerdudecjx. if this is trying to prove god, it doesnt. first, there is no reason why a personal being would cause this particle to exist rather than a non personal cause. second, there is no reason to believe it was caused by a single thing rather than multiple factors. third, there is no reason to assume it must have a cause. in quantum physics, things pop in and out of existence with no cause. fourth, there is no reason to assume that the cause/effect relationship exists beyond time.
daniel0B 2 years ago
@daniel0B
Umm, nothing happens with absolutely no cause. Most are simply beyond your or my perception. A "there is no reason to believe" questioning shows that you haven't done any researching into the many things that contribute to the believability of the Bible. For example: Sodom and Gomorrah were recently found to be destroyed by meteors the time it was recorded in the Bible. This prophecy was made years before it happened. For more like this check out GodIsReal101's channel.
xsoccerdudecjx 2 years ago
im no authority to argue this with. i have read however, that particles do indeed pop in and out of existence for no reason, with no pattern whatsoever. as for the "believability"(maybe you mean credibility?) of the bible, it holds countless contradictions. literally countless. i just looked up your sodom and gomorrah claim and i really haven't put too much effort in to researching it simply because even if it is true, it would still need to be proved that genesis was written before hand.
daniel0B 2 years ago
@xsoccerdudecjx. and i just checked out godisreal101, per your request. after watching his video on morality, i already am skeptical. it doesnt appear that he puts much abstract thought into his beliefs.
daniel0B 2 years ago
@daniel0B
Yes i meant credibility, couldn't think of the word haha. Ok, you have no idea how many times I've heard "it has countless contradictions". I've debunked over 50 myself, I've yet to not be able to answer one. Send me a message with 5, I'll show you. About GodIsReal101, I was talking about the one about Prophecy Proves the Bible is divine. Not much thought required for pure facts.
xsoccerdudecjx 2 years ago
ok heres a contradiction i find interesting. not explicitly in the bible, but good nonetheless. most christians (i dont know if you accept this belief) explain evil in the world by saying that people are imperfect- we have free will and we sometimes do not use it correctly. however, if god IS perfect, how could he create something imperfect? even jesus attests to this fact (Luke 6:43-45). you can reply in a personal message.
daniel0B 2 years ago
in addition, Mark 10:18 vs. John 1:1. Mark shows Jesus and the father as separate, John shows them as completely one.
daniel0B 2 years ago
god has the tree of eternal life in the garden of eden in genesis 2:9, and after finding adam and eve guilty of eating the apple makes sure they don't get to his second tree (genesis 3:24), just to send his "only son" to "die for our sins" supposedly thousands of years later and threaten to send anyone to hell if they don't find this story credible. why not just allow eternal life through the tree? why does god not want us to eat the one tree but allows for the other?
daniel0B 2 years ago
furthermore, if the consequence of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil keeps with humankind for eternity, why not also the consequence of the eating of the tree of eternal life? why must now we believe a story to get a second rate eternal life where we dont have a body?
daniel0B 2 years ago
Since god created adam and eve, why didn't he make them just a little bit more obedient?
kufr72 2 years ago
"I've debunked over 50 myself, I've yet to not be able to answer one"
I suspect you have not. I suspect you have rationalized them away. e.g. you have probably added extra-scriptural suppositions which to you, but not to the skeptic satisfy the apparent discrepancy.
For example can you resolve the identify of Joseph's father without resorting to extra-scriptural suppositions about one man being another man's brother with no supporting evidence that this is the case.
Minttzz 2 years ago
"Sodom and Gomorrah were recently found to be destroyed by meteors the time it was recorded in the Bible."
Your claim is pure hyperbole. It is based on reaseach at the Uni of Bristol (see ht tp:/ /tiny url. c om/bristol-kofels) The sky described on a recently interpreted cuniform tablet appears to show an asteroid impact which matches to a geological anomaly in Austria. It has been speculated that the fireball in the sky may have given rise to a number of myths including the biblical story.
Minttzz 2 years ago
this makes a lot more sense, than any invisible allmighty gods...
inVivoArt 2 years ago 2
yes, this makes sence...nothing was there. and then somthing that was abslutly nothing went BOOM! and all by a incredible accident its all here now ! yuuppp that is so logical! no. and plus... where is your evidence?! oh wait there is nonee ! goodness greatious.
loveisonitsway14jb 2 years ago
There is evidence. Just google up "big bang evidence".
JacktheSmack 2 years ago
Comment removed
Caltwentynine 2 years ago
Excellent stuff.
revjimbob 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
And where are the facts to support this theory?
Were did the energy come from to compact the singularity and make it go bang?
Sounds like you guys got quite a religion going there that takes a lot of faith and assumptions.
One definition of Religion is scrupulously faithful; conscientious
One definition of religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe (Big bang)
Why is your religion tax funded and allowed into schools.
jimthebaptist67 2 years ago
it's very ironic to me that the very person who makes no effort in educating themselves start showing skepticism on subject like science.
stop making fun of yourself
Th0usandMaster 2 years ago
WOW
That by far is the most pitiful and ignorant comment i have ever read on youtube!
NATEandtheMONKEY 2 years ago
@jimthebaptist67
Because it ISN'T a religion.
UNLIKE your'e religions (unwarranted, and outdated) tax EXEMPT status.
You really should educate yourself, just a tiny little bit, before posting such silliness.
The Big Bang model btw, actually has MULTIPLE evidences. Not to mention it was actually PREDICTED (it came naturally out of the maths of Einstein's gen theory of rel) before it was discovered. The expansion was OBSERVED by Hubble, and the CMBR confirmed it, found by Penzias and Wilson.
martiangrundy 2 years ago
Why is it when atheists get stumped they call me the dumb one?
As far as taxes goes, your faith-based religion is tax funded by 90% of Americans who believe in intelligent design!
Why dont you guys get your own private school going and pay your own teachers to teach your faith like we have to?
Woe! Einstein predicted and the Hubble seen something that happened 20 billion years ago. Ummm, and I am the dumb one?
jimthebaptist67 2 years ago
Where all the vaccines come from? How the man came with the idea of building the computer you are using? Jesus and the Bible gave us the blueprint for that? Thanks God this is not a christian nation, we would be doom otherwise (look the muslin nation, they are a way behind us because of their religion, and christianity is no better (do you remember the Dark Age?. Probably you are happy with what science is doing for humanity, you just doesn't like the fact that God is useless.
vladimirck 2 years ago
So because of the big bang "theory" I now have a vaccine for polio and can play on youtube? LOLOLOL
Man what would we do with out the big bang fable?
And why was it called the "dark age"? Because the light of the gospel was hidden by the Catholic Church. You really need to research before posting.
jimthebaptist67 2 years ago
@jimthebaptist67
Vaccine and the and the Big Bang theory were developed using the same scientific method. There's no sacred and outdated book that tell us about it: Only cutting edge science. You were the one complained about the tax funded science, and that's why I brought it to the table.
It's funny that you talked about fable, but you believe that a talking snake doomed all humanity!!! LOL
vladimirck 2 years ago
And regarding the dark age, you are no that much different from catholic church. Who hanged those poor people in Salem? The catholic church? The Reform never complained about burning witches and non believer, they just complained about some dogmatic facts (opposed to buying pardon from God), but in fact, they also burned people like catholic used to do. You are alike. You are the one that have to do some research.
vladimirck 2 years ago
Sorry, Jim - but the Big Bang was a real event (whether you accept it or not). Modern physics predicted & confirmed it, and we have even detected the leftover microwave radiation from it.
FYI - def. of Fable: "A succinct story, in prose or verse, that features animals, plants, inanimate objects, or forces of nature which are anthropomorphized (given human qualities), and that illustrates a moral lesson." I would think that this term more accurately fits the Biblical creation account, don't you?
muzakgeek 2 years ago
@jimthebaptist67 Cont.
"Were did the energy come from to compact the singularity".
I don't suppose you've ever heard of GRAVITY have you??? or are you a proponent of intelligent falling too?
It always makes me wonder. The poeple who decry, and eschew science, never seem to have a problem using all the wonderfull things it has brought us in the modern world.
I suppose we should just stop funding everything. Yes, lets sack agriculture too, and go back to foraging, and dying at 25 -28 years old.
martiangrundy 2 years ago
Okay,
Where is your proof that gravity is the culprit? And where did the gravity come from to squish everything in the universe in to a tiny dot? (I had a hard time typing this with out face palming) Sounds like assumption mixed with a lot of faith here.
It sounds like your saying, we know it happened, we just need to find a way to prove it "I know, GRAVITY DIDIT!!"
jimthebaptist67 2 years ago
Comment removed
JacktheSmack 2 years ago
"And where are the facts to support this theory?"
Google up "big bang" and the first result (wikipedia) has a list of supporting evidence. This model also matches with current knowledge on physics and doesn't not interfere with the laws of physics. That is the complete opposite of religion.
JacktheSmack 2 years ago
your colors are mentally disordered. the universe functions in four colors: yellow against black and red against blue (put them on one ellipse if you want to understand them but you should learn the lever law before it cause behind every ellipse stands A lever), then there's green for spiritron and white for spatiotron.
dedanoe 2 years ago
Goddunit.
Zhokul 2 years ago
Okay since we have some idea of what may have happen, just imagine if we could re-combine those particles mentioned together again?Wonder what could be possible?
BeTheChange408 2 years ago
However, humans will never know how the universe is truly created.
ILCAC3 2 years ago
Not necessarily, one day we may be able to watch a universe come into existence.
jarjarbinks77 2 years ago
You DO realise that these people (Cassiopeia Project) are the same corporate gangsters that produced a Global Warming Denialista video, don't you?
A crying shame really, this one and several others they produced are excellent, but that is apparently to make the denial video seem scientifically credible.
wdgeo 2 years ago
Cite source for that assertion, please.
The Cassiopeia Project website says it is funded by a retired physics professor "with means". How does that translate into "corporate gangsters"?
Just asking. Where did you get that information?
middlekk 2 years ago
@middlekk I apologize for the generalization but I regard global warming denialists as being corporate gangsters or at least agents of disinformation which I think is at least criminal-esque, don't you?
This video on the standard model is great! But CPs video on Global Warming is just rewarmed contrarian propaganda. Check wikipedia for George C. Marshall Institute, Fred Singer and his denial of CFC-caused ozone depletion, sulfur emissions & acid rain and big tobacco LIES.
Corporate Gangsters.
wdgeo 2 years ago
Thanks for the info. Yes, it appears that the global warming video suffers from a lack of peer-review by scientists qualified to comment on the matter.
And the video where their sources are cited only spotlights the fact that they cherry picked their information, primarily from denialist web sites, including the execrable Sen. Inhofe.
I agree. It's sad. The other videos I have watched seem to be quite solid. But the GW one is the proverbial "turd in a punch bowl".
middlekk 2 years ago
One particle and one force to start with. Suspicious. Where did they come from.?
objectiveagnostic 2 years ago
A big crunch to a singularity?
franksaninocencio 2 years ago
If the First Law of Thermodynamics holds true, the answer would be "something else".
bowlsallbroken 2 years ago
That's a bigger "if" than you'd think. If it actually was a singularity, then it's damn hard to do any kind of physics without finding yourself trying to divide by zero.
It is the ultimate, brain-bending question, though. Either the universe was caused by something else, or it wasn't--either answer is extraordinary when you try to comprehend it.
kufr72 2 years ago
I didn't read about any of this in my handy-dandy Bible. Could it maybe be in the Qur'an? Oh Muhammad please forgive me. I will read all about your Holy Leptons tomorrow.
clifm 2 years ago
I'm certainly not an expert, but as I understand it, time itself was a bit hazy in that first second, and inflation actually did occur faster than light. Of course I'm not sure if there was any light at that point. Anyone?
marthur1971 2 years ago
My understanding is that the universe inflated a LOT faster than light--but it doesn't break the speed limit because it's spacetime itself expanding, rather than something moving through it.
kufr72 2 years ago 55
Didn't the Hubble red shift prove that not only is the universe inflating, the speed of inflation is increasing? Yet if inflation was faster than light early on, space-time can't have been inflating faster ever since. So did inflation slow down shortly after the BB and then start speeding up again recently? Whatever recently means o.0 And if so, why would inflation slow down then speed up again and can it reverse repeatedly like a sine curve on a rate of inflation vs. time graph, maybe? jw =)
darkmiles22 1 year ago
There seems to be a consensus that the rate of expansion (occurring only in intergalactic space) is increasing, but of course that's a pretty recent conclusion, and while "dark matter" has predicted properties, this "dark energy" stuff driving expansion is really just a placeholder as there's no explanation as to why it's happening.
As to the early inflation, I really don't know what the theory says about why it happened, or why it stopped. Good question.
kufr72 1 year ago
the best explanation is that dark energy is a component of gravity and it cant ever be bigger than gravity
so even if the universe is ever expanding , and the distance between particles grows a little bit
atoms will never just fly appart ...its called the cosmological constant for a good reason..
sidewaysfcs0718 1 year ago
@kufr72 That's exactly right
rubberglover 1 year ago
@kufr72 this is entirely speculative; it is an opinion:
I thought dark energy was making the atoms of all matter in the universe (stars and galaxies, etc) to move apart from each other...
what is the "substance" of spacetime "made of" that is causing all the matter in the universe to 'move'?
prgalois 1 year ago
@kufr72 Do we really need to keep Albert Einstein in charge of Internal Affairs? he only gets us speed limits! (lol)
StelarCF 1 year ago
man, physics is crazy complicated.
rockman22 2 years ago
This is a very intelligent theory. But people say it as if it were a fact. This is the same trap that creationists fall into. I thought what separates the rational from the delusional is solid evidence.
vottoduder 2 years ago
That's one of the things that turns me off about these CP videos--they do present this information as though it were unquestionable. BB and inflation are very well supported, but their not infallible and could be falsified.
(The other thing that bugs me is the heavy reverb on homeboy's voice. I'm not watching this in a planetarium, dude, so let's have less cowbell)
kufr72 2 years ago
NEIZ!
themaster0fclimax 2 years ago
that cant all happen in 1 second. maybe the scientists have a different meaning of time.
legalizemarijuananos 2 years ago
That's an argument from personal incredulity and makes it a false argument. Just because you don't understand how it works, doesn't mean it's wrong. Pick up a book and go study.
KemaTheAtheist 2 years ago
dont be stupid.
legalizemarijuananos 2 years ago
ROFL. You use an argument from personal incredulity, I call you out on it, and you tell me not to be stupid?
There's plenty that can happen in only a second... binary stars that rotate around eachother several times a second, pulsars that have several rotations every second, neutron stars which colapse and condence something 40% or great than our sun into an area about the size of Manhattan... and it all happens in less than a second.
Like I said, pick up a book, and go study.
KemaTheAtheist 2 years ago
like i said dont be stupid. and learn to read kthx.
legalizemarijuananos 2 years ago
ROFL. Thanks, legalizemarijuananos. I needed a laugh.
KemaTheAtheist 2 years ago
of course it can, just because you can't perceive due to the limitations of your brain (not your fault but just the way we evolved - in the middle-sized world) doesn't mean it can't happen.
safetypin00 2 years ago
count to 1, and then tell me you still think all of that happened in a single second. light cannot travel that fast and its the fastest thing in the universe.
legalizemarijuananos 2 years ago
Who said anything about traveling?
NoGodsB4Man 2 years ago
We are not talking about light traveling. At the end of the day I don't understand why people without appropriate background feel like they know more than experts do. I don't have a degree in physics, I'm studying neuroscience. This isn't my field of expertise, and something tells me it is not yours either.
safetypin00 2 years ago
The way the big bang is usually explained to laypersons makes people think it was an explosion in the usual sense of the word.
This is not my area of expertise (I welcome corrections) but my understanding is that it was actually a singularity of matter as well as space/time itself that rapidly expanded. It is helpful to think of the universe as existing on the surface of a balloon that went from being unbelievably tiny to fully inflated in a very short order.
bowlsallbroken 2 years ago
Oh Jesus H. Higgs READ A BOOK.
Yes it can. Just because you're fucking ignorant about it doesn't mean that everybody else is wrong and you're right.
kufr72 2 years ago
fascinating!
mike28 2 years ago
I just like the comparison between this and Genesis. Genesis has so much more detail...
Parabol0086 2 years ago
Too bad the details in Genesis were proven wrong long ago, Parabol... like humans being made from dust, women coming from man's rib, talking snakes, and everything coming from a deity.
KemaTheAtheist 2 years ago
Yeah, when you can just make shit up, it is easy to come up with a lot of detail.
safetypin00 2 years ago
I hope everyone realizes that the expanding universe theory is still in a toss up between other theories atm.
fcdog555 2 years ago
considering redshift has been shown NOT to be due to expansion
rubberdown1969 2 years ago
it has not been shown to NOT be due, thats just one part of the theory
fcdog555 2 years ago
Halton Arp's 1966 Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies proves that quasars which are extremely high redshift objects are linked by plasma bridges to nearby galaxies of lower redshift & therefore NOT at the edge of the universe, ergo redshift is NOT linked entirely to distance & expansion....fact
rubberdown1969 2 years ago