How Big Are The Objects Floating In Our Universe, & How Big Can They Get.mp4

[clummann]

Thats no moon, ITS A SPACE STATION!

[destinystruth]

I just knew their would be a religious debate in the comments. Fuck religion, it's everywhere you go.

[Shortstickman]

@NirvanaCoD actualy relgious people claim that such creations as shown in this video denote that there would in fact have to be a devine/supreme creator. That of course is not to say that God could not have used a meathod such as the big bang. Just saying I am a believer of religion but to each their own opinions.

[CitriclyAcidify]

@NirvanaCoD Religion: Challenge Accepted.

[Tpena4]

@NirvanaCoD this has nothing to do with religion. I'm a Christian and this video is awesome.

[Kooister]

@NirvanaCoD what does this have to do with anything?

[Sekto]

@NirvanaCoD Don't be an asshole.

[MrLDiabolo]

Mind = Blown

[GortosXtreme]

@NirvanaCoD "Christianism". This is very Zen.

[x8muffinman8x]

How can something so amazing and huge and beautiful not be a result of intelligent design?

[queenluciaa]

@x8muffinman8x

How COULD it be, is the question.

[SupermarketsRevil]

@usurper70 How can it not be blatantly obvious to you? Religion typically promotes an earth, and more specifically, human-centred notion of existence, whereas this video shows that there is one species is not all that significant in the context of the entire universe.

[Plummn]

@SupermarketsRevil But, philosophically, every one person in the universe is their own center of that universe. There is no way to travel outside your senses or outside your "soul". That's why we are so selfish as a species. It's impossible for us to change our physical point of view in any way! Also, just because we are considered "insignificant" to this universe, does not mean we are insignificant to any creator.

[SupermarketsRevil]

@Plummn I am talking about objective reality, not some philosophy where the term 'centre of the universe' has a completely different, and non-literal meaning. Of course we view things with our own senses. That is no excuse for all the ignorance and selfishness you see in people. We have the capacity to be more understanding of the needs of others if we educate ourselves.

Significance is relative. My family is 'significant' to me, but all humanity is negligable in the scope of the universe.

[Plummn]

@SupermarketsRevil Everything is changed by our view point. From what we see in this video, we can make a guess that something out there exists for us to be relative to. Just because we haven't found it yet, doesn't mean nothing in space is relative to us. If you say there is no gold in China, is it an absolute statement? It isn't, because there isn't anyway to know unless you can prove it. It's all based on perspective, and due to our current lack of technology there is no way to find out.

[SupermarketsRevil]

@Plummn "we can make a guess that something out there exists for us to be relative to"--Please clarify this statement. What do you mean by 'relative to'? When I say we are 'relatively' insignificant in the scope of the universe, that is a reflection of the vast amount of space and matter that exists, of which we are only a very small portion.

And again, insofar as drawing religious conclusions about the origin of the universe, all you've got at the end of the day is an argument from ignorance.

[SupermarketsRevil]

@Plummn I fail to see why you bring up the absurd idea of a 'creator' in the context of a video showing the scale of the known universe. Yes, earth and everything on it is a tiny speck within this universe, but that's not to belittle our own life experiences. It's merely a testament to how spectacular this universe is. The anti-intellectual notion of a 'creator' is an insult to the academic initiative that has gone into developing our understanding of the universe.

[Plummn]

@SupermarketsRevil I don't see how the idea of a creator is more absurd than believing this beauty happened by accident. The latter is more absurd. If you were to have a crate of fifty oranges sitting on the back of your truck suddenly fall and spill onto the ground, what are the chances that they would line up in five perfect rows of ten? The belief that the laws of this universe and the very matter of it falling into place perfectly, by chance, is far less probable than a creator.

[SupermarketsRevil]

@Plummn I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume religion and cosmology are not things you think about very often. I have siblings who, although very intelligent, are not intellectually consistent in applying the same reasoned thinking to religion as they do to most other things in their life.

Your characterisation of the laws of the universe as an 'accident' and your subsequent fine-tuning argument are common and long debunked creationist fallacies.

[Plummn]

@SupermarketsRevil What else can you call the big bang? If it was not an accident, what was it? If there was nothing sentient to cause it, then what else could it called than an accident? You didn't really give me any reason to think my ideas are wrong, other than tell me "You are wrong." The big band, something that you think happened without any thought process or care put into it, created this universe. Obviously we don't know how what outside force caused it to happen.

[SupermarketsRevil]

@Plummn "What else can you call the big bang?"--The big bang theory states that around 13.7 billion years ago the universe was condensed into an incredibly small, dense 'ball' of space and time called a singularity. The term 'big bang' describes the subsequent expansion and cooling of the universe until the point where particles of mater could collide with each other to form the first simple atoms.

[Plummn]

@SupermarketsRevil How can an explosion bring the necessary terms for life? Saying that something as complex as our human eye or brain could be brought by an explosion and a long period of time is more moronic than saying a sentient being created them.

[SupermarketsRevil]

@Plummn Evolution explains the development of life and abiogenisis, a relatively new field, is learning more about how life developed from non life, which has already been scientifically proven to be possible. You have gone from vague claims about your religious beliefs to arrogant dismissals of the current state of acadaemia. If you have such little interest in seperating fact from fiction that you fail to verify your own claims then you're wasting my time.

[Plummn]

@SupermarketsRevil What's fiction about my statements? The big band theory is just as it is. A theory. It is not an accepted truth by everyone. Neither is religion. Everything that we've been speaking of is not fact. It's mostly based on faith and which makes more sense. Just because something is excepted by one group doesn't make it correct. And frankly, the original comment "Your move religion" is absurd. Thinking that science and religion are separate completely, is in itself a fallacy.

[basicallyimfamous]

@Plummn The big bang theory is accepted by probably 99% of the people that have the authority to accept it. The people that have the knowledge to understand it.

[Plummn]

@basicallyimfamous That is a fabrication. And even if so, what does it matter? Does it disprove the relevance of a God? It doesn't. What I think is false about any theory that involves the creation of the universe, is that it happened on it's own, without any outside acting force.

[tkdy92]

@Plummn A scientific theory is actually defined differently than regular theories. It is an axiom which means that it is self-evident. It isn't for you to accept or deny, it just is. For example the fact that the sky is blue is a scientific theory. You can't experimentally prove it, but it's obviously true. Creationists always argue the big bang is just a theory, as if one day some random guy suggested it and it caught on. It is a product of thousands of years of study.

[rlgaf111]

@tkdy92 The problem is that we use the word theory in our every day speech so people doesn't know the differenence between a scientific theory and when people use to word to imply something they think might be correct without any backing of evidence. I can't believe how many people who doesn't know this simple fact and just refuse scientific theories such as evolution or the big bang based on the simple fact that they do not know the difference between the way we use the word.

[SupermarketsRevil]

@Plummn " If there was nothing sentient to cause it, then what else could it called than an accident"--I already told you, the 'big bang' was the result of natural physical laws. This is the most accurate description of the earliest measurable point &time in the universe as supported by current evidence. Logic dictates u have to prove your claim, it is not for my to disprove a magical sky fairy. What evidence do you have to support your claim other than the fallacy 'how else could it happen'?

[Plummn]

Where did these clearly complex laws come from? How did they come about? There is no answer to this question from an Atheistic point of view. The laws of the universe prove the existence of a creator. No mere explosive accident, caused by laws that some how magically existed before it, could bring the means for organic life. And even if the big band did take place, who says it wasn't a creator who caused it? That is more reasonable than saying "it happened on its own".

[SupermarketsRevil]

@Plummn "The big band, something that you think happened without any thought process or care put into it, created this universe. Obviously we don't know how what outside force caused it to happen."--First, what basis do you have to claim some supernatural being can create something from nothing, let alone exists. Second, *I* dont just think the big bang theory is the most accurate description of the earliest measurable time in the universe,so too do the overwhelming majority of relevant experts

[SupermarketsRevil]

@Plummn "Obviously we don't know how what outside force caused it to happen." --The history of the universe can be described in some detail back to the instant approximately 10^43 seconds after the big bang. What occurred in the first 10^43 seconds (the Planck epoch) is not known and difficult to theorise, due to interactions between the theories of gravitation and quantum mechanics

Don't tell me scientists dont know when they obviously do.

[Plummn]

@SupermarketsRevil We also do not know how a pure natural happening created a fine tuned system of physical laws and perfectly aligned our universe into organized planets and stars.

There is simply no evidence backing this ludicrous theory. No matter how many big words you use, it doesn't matter. Intelligent design is far more probable.

[SupermarketsRevil]

@Plummn "We also do not know how a pure natural happening created a fine tuned system of physical laws and perfectly aligned our universe into organized planets and stars." --This is a misrepresentation of the reality. We know for a fact that the universe is not 'finely tuned'. This fallacy has been debunked extensively and many times. Google 'fine tuning argument iron chariots' if you care to understand why.

Your claim that ID is 'more probable' is ridiculous baseless and demonstrably false

[SupermarketsRevil]

@Plummn If you are interested in testing the truth of your beliefs you will have already though to address any of the obvious criticism that may be directed at you. You would have studied the validity of your answers. The fact that you can so easily google the fine-tuning argument, and yet have not, gives you the appearance of someone who does not care about truth. You think this universe is so hospitable, so perfectly 'adjusted' & in doing so fail to see it for the vast chaos that it is.

[SupermarketsRevil]

@Plummn All blatantly obvious logical fallacies aside, even if science had to explanation for the origin of the universe, which it does, there is no logical thought process that would lead you to conclude some kind of magical being created it all. That is an argument from ignorance. When an answer is unknown, the only rational conclusion to make is 'i dont know', not 'God did it'. I suggest you replace your god-of-the-gaps philosophy with something a little more intellectually rigorous.

[Bloodglory21]

@NirvanaCoD So you are implying that a "big bang" or other theories are more logical to create something of this magnitude?

[mikeo179]

If the universe is infinitely big, i am actually the center of the universe though

[YourAverageJoey]

"It's a humbling field" -astronomer

[MrFurrycow779]

mind=blown



[chickenseeds]

Who are the 2 that dislike this video!? What is wrong with you?

[LokcedUot]

Why the use of periods as commas? Makes it so...not.... Aw.

[t3hsheeple]

@LokcedUot The OP is probably not from the US. Pretty much everywhere else uses periods instead of commas.

[t3hsheeple]

@t3hsheeple Of course, that's (to my knowledge) when we're talking about numbers, otherwise commas are commas. I think.

[randrage]

Is this available in a higher resolution?

[xrstunt]

@randrage Yeah, the original one: v=HEheh1BH34Q . This one is stolen.

[300pzl]

VY Canis Majoris is Chuck Norris' night-light.

[SuperSaiyanWii]

I've never felt so tiny!