@cherylw1958 Don't think so much a "god" but a giant TEAM of billions/trillions of things that make up something in-imaginably massive. I guess in that case you could just call everything we know (the known universe) god. :)
@CreativePotion accually no, this is a computer generated picture based on the postion of galaxies. Yes we do have telescopes powerful enough to see them, for years thay have been marking out the postions of the other galxies on circlier metal trays when you combine the known location of said glaxies this is what you get... Obviously a vast majoirty of this video is simulated by a computer response to the already known locations of galaxie that have been recorded.
I don't know why I posted that comment earlier, I was so pissed at all this other stuff I read about, then I go mad, and I posted that on here when I ran into this video.
I've looked at a video about this and it's amazing. So yeah, thanks for the response anyway.
I have a question which is quite imaginative when I think about it lol... but what if say for instence, you was in a lucid dream and decided to focus on where you were.. Over time you came to realise that your universe acts like a living organism.... and for strange reasons simulates the brain... although i'ld be more focused on what the living entity, which is my universe, sees then I would about my postion within it. When I woke up I realised I am the living entity which I was alive within..
@andypmz07 Basically what I'm trying to ask is, Is it possible that the universe could be self aware and that we as humans are a collection of the univeres self awareness. Add this together with the idea of sigularity and you've got an entity that is becoming self aware through us. If the human race can survive the next billion years then surely we would have technology avilable to expand our civilaztion through the cosmos.. Do you see where i'm going ?
@andypmz07 Think of it like this. Our brains are self aware but our bodies are not. Some parts of the universe are aware and others aren't. Here on Earth we can see first hand a collective intelligence, growing knowledge available to all of us. If we were to make contact with e.t we would create a further connection.
But I find ppl get hung up on awarenes. We have evolved a brain but many other life forms don't need one. I like to think of the universe more as a tree with awareness as a feature
@jaykulls I like that metaphor, I forgot to take into account the quantom world, How does the quantom world affect how we see the universe, also reguarding the double slit experiment, who is the observor ? If you combine quantom ideas along with your own awareness, things really do start to look like a lucid dream. Whats to say that my awareness is the true awareness, after all everyone sees things from different perspectives. I tried to puas much into this box as possible I hope it makes sence
@andypmz07 Aldous Huxley described our awareness as a reducing filter. We only evolve what we need to survive. It must have been necessary for us to have intelligence. It would be possible for us to see the entire spectrum if we needed to. As with sound, we only hear what is usefull to us. So every sense we have only falls within a certain range, reduced to make sense to us.
The universe seems to be like an unwanted erection, the more we think about it the harder it gets.
@andypmz07 Part 2. Sorry ran out of space. But really, taking into acount the quantum world, almost anything is possible. We discriminate between what is alive and dead but on the atomic level it's all the same. What's to say for example, that the sun isn't a lifefom of some kind.
What your were saying about each of us being the universe itself from different perspectives is one of the central themes of Buddhism. The word buddha in place of universe rather than being a god.
@jaykulls Well I suppose, I didn't mean to sound buddist but I'm going to have to do it again, everything we know of as the universe is just our perception of what we can see ( even what we can see through microscopes/ telescopes. ) but following on abit from what you was saying evolutionary wise, Well we have a limited perception and ability to understand/see the universe... All the things we can see are just the way we interpertarate ( spelling ) the vibratory signals from outside of us
@andypmz07 the things we see atm I.E a computerscreen, is just an illusion of what our minds have the capability to process, It looks that way because My mind tells me that it does, but our minds might not be evolutionarily possible to perceive what really is there, if anything at all.
@andypmz07 The only reality I know is the reality I perceive. Our perception of reality is our reality, there is nothing more we can know. To speak of the actuality that our reality represents is automatically in error, because our minds cannot process it through thought, even though it could be argued that we still seem to retain some understanding of actuality, even if it is only through the images we artificially create in the already illusionary reality we perceive.
@jaykulls 72,000 views in one year is not that bad really. Way sadder is considering videos such as those in the Cassiopeia Project channel (which has some of the best original science content I've seen on YouTube) getting sometimes even less than 10,000 views in three years. Check for instance: /watch?v=dkoScN9L7hY or /watch?v=zO2vfYNaIbk . Fortunately, other science channels DO get lots of viewers (Sixtysymbols, minutephysics, 1veritasium, etc.).
It's indescribable! Just look, and think about the universe around us. The elements of our bodies, the planets; created in the deaths of stars eons ago. To imagine everything we know about our world and everything we have yet to learn. The Age of discovery has just begun. (Now we just need to not destroy ourselves, and we'll be fine.)
Also can I just note, that the spelling and punctuation on this tread are fanatic!
How do they make 3D simulations, without using three satellites to record these objects? It's like a flat photograph. One can't make a 3D model from a flat photograph, without guessing what the other sides look like.
@ChristopherJManess The model is created by introducing data (particles) in a computer program that uses our current physical laws and understanding of the universe (general relativity, the rate of expansion of the universe, whatever we know about dark matter...) to determine where those particles will be in the future. If talk about is the comparison with actual data (2:24) that comes from sky surveys such as the SDSS which, I think, use red shift to determine the distances.
@ChristopherJManess Check this about red shift /watch?v=mx2M_ZKXM_c That entire Kahn Academy list about Cosmology and astronomy is VERY interesting. /watch?v=GZx3U0dbASg&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=SP2186CFB2CE12A8B
@ChristopherJManess MUCH better explanation about red shift and spectroscopy /watch?v=sVev5RsKXog that explains how knowing about the nature of the atom we can understand about the stars and the universe.
@cristianfcao I think you misunderstood what I meant. My step-father worked for NASA, so I am aware of much of your information. In the physical world, in order to get a 3D image, the most accurate way to get the information is to record the object(s) from three different sides, aka 3D. Like satellites, for example. The government, I mean friends track you by triangulating from three (or more) different sides, in order to confirm your location via GPS and other devices. Why not have three?
@ChristopherJManess I'm not sure what you mean even now. I'm familiar with the concept of triangulation and it has many uses in astronomy. But I'm not sure how it'd be useful to model galaxies on a computer program. If you talk about real galaxies, I believe parallax (triangulating the position of a star with the position of the earth @ different time in the year) doesn't work because gal. are too far away for our instruments to measure the difference. /watch?v=bJv55ebJbhs5
@cristianfcao No, no, hahaha! Three telescopes, like Hubble. They could get real, 3D models based off of actual photos taken from these satellites. Make sense?
@cristianfcao I think that would make some amazing photos! I'm not sure how long it would take them, but my idea would be to send them out in a direction, equally distanced from one another, which would also tell gravity and magnetic fields in space, as well as other forces that may cause their paths to alter. I may be reaching for the stars, because I think right now we have more pressing issues on Earth to deal with.
@ChristopherJManess it is simulation in super computer, you get data out by putting data in, they then compare to some know data and have found some correlations. Resolution is still low but headed in right direction.
totally agree with the previous post,... it does look like Neurons
just imagine if we ended up being a part of a bigger being and that we are just ideas
of the creator hahahahahaha... very interesting the cosmos is... from the very small to the very large,... amazing that back in the day we could just see and have the knowledge or the idea that the world was flat,.... not look at this!!!!! AMAZING
I also was just thinking how these clusters looked like the neurons. I have no doubt that we are the cells of the earth, and the earth and starts are cells of a much bigger organism that we cannot comprehend. Just like how a neuron has no concept of us...and the proteins that make up the organelles of our cells don't know they are in a cell, that in turn is in a human body... and so it goes...why would we be at the top of this chain? There is no top, its a never ending cycle of life.
This unbelievably beautifull pieace of music is from a greec musician called "Vangelis", name of the track "Heaven and Hell". Now go and listen to it, and dream..
Yeah, me to. When it was broadcasted I only picked up very small fragments. Recently I downloaded a torrent of the complete series. The epicness of this music "Movement 3" everytime thrills my senses.
The problem I have with Dark Matter is that Gravitational Lenses are really just water-lenses aka Parhelions. Every time they say DM they are just talking about a big cloud of icey and gaseous water. Another prob with LCDM is this expansion of space. Your model you just showed doesnt show expansion at all does it... and further, what if cosmological inflation is an illusion as Einstein said over and over... Hydrodynamics is the next and last "current model" we will ever need. Occam sez so!
The Cosmic Web with its tidal bridges between massive cluster nodes are arranged in filiments preferentially aligned with the major axis of their central galaxy. This is because the BB, which we have so much evidence for, was an explosion of a massive STAR which left behind magnetic filiments intrinsically aligned with the old lobes of the predominating magnetic structure at the time of the Nova. The Cosmic Web is obviously aligned mostly "true" NS and EW. Time to find the lobes next?
Does anyone know of a site where people can go to exchange ideas about the universe, physics and the like. I some therories i would like to run up the flag pole.
@nupesmac You may try physicsforums . com Another site I love is askamathematician . com, which although less interactive, has answers to many cool questions about physics and cosmology.
I have read recently, that the number of cells in ones brain matches with the number of stars in a galaxy, and with the number of galaxies in the Universe. For this reason I believe that we live in a multiverse. (our Universe being the "brain", other universes, that are like organs in the human body) Only for that reason I believe in a Creator. And that we are a part of His body. (stars are the nuclei of atoms, galaxies are cells). We are reflections of the Creator, each and every one of us.
@caesare100 That's a beautiful poetic thought, but I don't think the premises that you have (number of cells in the brain = number of stars in a typical galaxy; a loose similarity between the structures of the braincells and galaxy clusters) are enough to justify your believe in a God, or that we are part of his/her "body". If what you believe is right, maybe one day scientist may demonstrate that we are literally part of a creator. So far, nothing I know seems to point in that direction.
@caesare100 David Eagleman stated that 1 cubic millimeter of brain tissue contains about as many neural connections as there are stars in the Milky Way galaxy.
@8644371 Yes, and according to Wikipedia, the average human being hosts about one quadrillion (10^15) bacteria in the intestines :D.
All living things are a "microcosm" of a lot of different tiny intricate things, but that doesn't allow us to think that we are also be part of a supernatural being.
@cristianfcao But that does not exclude the possibility of anything happening. Everything is growing all the time, magic is real. Anything can happen!
@bobo88mk Isis lives in the 13 dimension, and she also lives inside someone, i think that someone, liv sin the 26. not sure.. remember, everything is fractal and equaly proporcional... The solar system is an atom,, and earth is just an electron... have u ever watched the endings os the Men In Black movies?, i recommend you to..
@silverbullet1979 I read this in a book by Carl Johan Calleman, called "The Purposeful Universe" . The idea of the universe being like the body of a human being, with the galaxies as cells and all that, was a fantasy that I had when I learned about the solar system. (When I was 13 years old). About the book: it's "heavy stuff", (not for the average reader, spoken in very scientific language) but still worth to look at occasionally. Cheers!
@caesare100 thank you very much for the info and your right, I'm not an average reader I've fell in love with Physics since I was 12 years old... anyway I'll look for the book, thanks again and take care...
@caesare100 Other thing.... our universe, is not the brain.. our universe is the entire body... our galaxy, the miky way is located in the center of the chest, being the central kristal... the 12 chakra
These filaments are stunningly like the neurons in a brain.
Perhaps Descartes: "I think therefore I am" (Cogito ergo sum) should be revised into: "It thinks therefore we are" ? It would go down nicely with social constructionism :-)
@PurpleHeartVeteran Hey Purple! It's neither I'm afraid. This is just a simulation of a portion of the universe but it doesn't use data about the position of the current galaxies. That node represents a supercluster of galaxies of roughly the same size of the Virgo supercluster that contains our galaxy (about 100 million light years in diameter), however it's not meant to represent our supercluster.
Question: "Why does business science scoff at the notion that there is very much a real vantage point, wherein we are looked down upon, in very much the same way we look down at atomic structure?" I'd further this by asking, "what really is distance?" I really believe we are just stuck in this iteration. And if we were present down in the local space of our quantum scale and all physical laws were normal...then time too is fractal. You ready for that? or are you scoffing too?
What I see here is simply something that looks like almost "biological" matter! Take any photo from some Bio Lab showing a slice of some human organ in a close look through a good micro and cross check with the above. The careful and honest observer will definitely recognise the similarities. One only wanders...if this large scale structure was only a slice from a huge brain would we, the worms on Earth be able to recognise ourselves as just flashes inside a huge Hypermind?
Doesn't anybody here know what copernican epicycles are? It is a thinking error in which Copernicus continually added more and more epicycles in support of his false cosmological theory. That goes to explain Dark Matter theory in a nutshell, except in this case the goal is to support gravitational theory on a cosmic scale. Dark Matter is just another "epicycle."
These constant references to "Dark Matter" are annoying. When was its existence proven? It is just "an epicycle added to an epicycle" based on the need to solve a problem with understanding galactic rotation. Dark Matter is really just "Hot Air" until there is solid evidence and not just theoretical evidence.
not quite what you said. "Dark Matter" is pretty much thee only solution to the missing mass problem; i.e. there isn't enough visible matter in the universe to hold it together like we observe. its a matter of mass. and with no "Dark Matter" added into the equation, the universe as we see it just doesn't quite make sense.
yes, you can't see it, smell it, touch it. you also can't see electromagnetic fields or gravity, but we know their there because of their interaction with matter. Dark Matter is a highly supported theory in astrophysics. sorry to bust your side, but when the majority of the scientific community supports something, it tends to be true. now, present another idea for the missing 83% percent of the matter of the universe, and your have something on your side.
@Ryagful A tiny change in Newton's gravitational equation can "account" for the "missing" 83%. It's called human error. Physics commonly assumes that gravity works according to the same formula throughout the universe.
And while things "tend" to be true based on majority belief, majority belief has been exploded many, many times throughout the history of physics. Physics does not make progress by simply staying with the majority of beliefs. Otherwise we would still be using the Copernican model
right. the ''error'' has been taken into consideration, and your a fool if you really believe that such a gigantic error can be made and ignored. its not an error, its a fact, proven by more than one measurements. that's how science works: if the same thing it can be measured more than once, and if it give the same thing, its not an error. that HAS been done. the alternative theories have even less support and evidence. Gravity DOSE works the same throughout the universe, go learn some physics.
@Ryagful "right. the ''error'' has been taken into consideration, and your a fool if you really believe"
Now THAT's convincing! I don't want to be seen as a fool, therefore, I HAVE to believe everything you say.
I don't see any evidence that you even know what error I'm talking about. But the belief that gravity works the same way throughout the universe is not supported by experiment. And observations are denying it. Dark Matter is just a way of making our human equations look secure.
no, don't believe me. believe the darn observations made. gravity appears to act different at different SCALES; i.e. it doesn't quite work at the very tiny quantum level, but at the macroscopic level, that's the universe at large, it rules. gravity works the same everywhere in the universe, otherwise, it some parts of the universe would be very different from what we see. but the universe is quite the same in every direction. and what experiments can anyone do at these scales? OBSERVATIONS, yes.
@Ryagful The observations say we need Dark Matter? Some say we need to question our basic assumption about gravity. And while you reference gravity on the macroscopic level, you are conflating that with the cosmic scale of things.
yes, the observations say we miss a very large chunk of the universe. those that say we need to question our basic assumption about gravity have no alternatives so far. those few ideas aren't more testable than dark matter. even if we do change our basic assumption about gravity, it will STILL act the same everywhere in the universe, because that's the nature of the universe. when those scientist come up with something, let me know. until then dark matter remains the only solution to this issue.
@Ryagful "If we do change our basic assumption about gravity, it will still act the same everywhere." I'm not saying that changing an equation will change the facts of reality. Your argument is circular, designed merely to support its own premise. Look up McGaugh and the MOND theory.
look, the only other idea that would explain the extra gravity, but no extra mass required, is M-theory, in which gravity from a "nearby" universe affects the galaxies. what is MOND? an attempts to explain the galaxy rotation problem by changing Newton's law of motion. there is extremely little evidence for that, and even that is highly controversial. in science, that that has a higher probability of being true is the general accepted idea. dark matter is the one. changing gravity is not.
@Ryagful There is no extra gravity because there is no extra mass. Just a problem with our theories. Yes, MOND was first used to explain the galaxy rotation problem, but McGaugh is not limiting his skepticism to just the one problem. Gravitational lensing and red-shifting galaxies pose further problems "solved" by tossing in some Dark Matter here and there.
what further problems? ok, want to play like this. google "evidence for dark matter", and on the first page you should see an article "NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter", to see an observation in which just increased gravity doesn't work.
there is also other such observations, such as NGC 720 or Abell 2218, both of which can't be explain by a simple increases in gravity. they need a MASS.
half wrong. it dose put the likeness in favor of Dark Matter, and shows that just modified gravity doesn't work. of course, Dark Matter will be much more proven when we will find a more direct method of detection. but it dose make MOND less likely, simply because of the nature of this observation. dose MOND have anything like this? no.
@Ryagful Does Dark Matter have to explain everything? Apparently so. But MOND doesn't have to explain everything. MOND does not pretend to be the answer to every significant problem in the universe. The answer is that gravity is an extremely weak force compared to, say, electricity. But cosmologists are so caught up in gravitational forces, gravitational lensing, and they require huge amounts of Dark Matter to make their explanations work. But electricity is already present in enough quantities.
no, Dark Matter has to explain why galaxies hold together despite not having without enough mass, aka Rotation curve problem. it has support for that. and what dose electricity has to do here? for MOND to replace Dark Matter, it DOSE has to explain significant problems in the universe, this one included. so far, it dose not.
@Ryagful You're implying there is one explanation for everything. "What dose electricity has to do here?" MOND is the solution to rotation/mass, electricity works quite well where there is gas or plasma present along with the question of, say, why the gas is failing to escape despite the absence of gravity. And electricity is a far more powerful force than gravity, it does not require 5-10 times the mass of an entire galaxy to explain some anomalous behavior. And magnetism can also do the job.
ok, the part with one explanation i can easily understand. yes, point to an article about this, please. also, it is not only the gas that is the issue here, there's also the stars. yes, plasma. so? how dose this thing work for plasma billions of miles from each other? only gravity has that range. it is weak, but it has a practical limitless range, while all other fundamental forces are VERY limited. how dose that work for VELOCITY of stars, the thing used to measured the whole problem?
you..you know, this highly scientific and exiting debate is getting tiresome. its almost 3 AM here. tell you what, i subscribe to you, send a friend invite, and talk another time, when more proof will be on the table.
@EddieGoregor Umm, Eddie, check again. Your spelling nazi skills were aimed at the wrong person. So please try again, and be a little more diligent with identifying the correct misspeller next time.
@EddieGoregor Obviously I was quoting someone there. So I quoted the misspelling too. If you were a little more observant, maybe you would notice that @Ryagful ALWAYS spells it "dose." Try this: Ctrl + F, input the term "dose" and click "enter."
@Ryagful - Ok, I've done the research you requested. Here's what I found: 'Big Bang theorists simply ignore the evidence of the images, calculate the mass required to produce the desired amount of lensing, and announce that it exists as “dark matter” that can’t be seen.' (From the thunderbolts(dot)info site.)
......that sounds an awful lot like a conspiracy theory dude. and where is the evidence that this has ever happened? those guys are scientists, not priests sticking to a dogma. if they find evidence that MONO is real tomorrow, their be the first to admit they were wrong. this is science, not a competition. and they can't just fake this stuff, cuz science isn't blind; evidence that all hoaxes played on it never last. take the Piltdown Man for example.
@MsMegamusicmaster lol. I hate to break it to you.... but there is no god. Just some dumb book uneducated people wrote hundreds of years ago to try and explain shit they didn't understand and/or control the population.
@chillichomper I'm not an expert (just an enthusiast) but I'll try to answer. I'm not aware of any "filament theory" nor about the big bang needing extra support by a certain amount of dark matter. Those filaments are just an observation and It's believed that dark matter contributes to that configuration. On the other hand, the simulation is important for our current models because the way we think, for instance, gravity or dark matter wok is validated since the outcome matches our observations
@chillichomper The filaments are *observed* - when we actually plot where the galaxies really are in the universe, they have a filamentary pattern. This pattern nicely matches what we expect from theory and simulation for a 13.7 billion year old universe with dark matter & dark energy
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
When trying to look intelligent by saying smart things, it helps to spell words correctly. The written narrative of this video is full of AIDS and fail. AND bad spelling. The whole meaning gets lost when reading something written by somebody who obviously doesn't know what they're doing.
@ANDROLOMA I'm not an English native speaker. I'm from Argentina. Do you happen to remember some misspelling? What's AIDS, by the way? Do you mean aids (in minuscule) for the text explanations in the video?
This just shows how insignificant and useless everything we do is. No matter what we do we will always be a subatomic particle on the spec of sand in this universe.
@shpongloidia@shpongloidia NO>>>on the contrary...WE may be a 'spec' as you say...but we have cognition...and that is the REAL miracle. And people are in pain and suffering. Children cry, people get sick and die ...people grieve etc...you can help them NOW. You have the opportunity every minute to ease suffering. If you own child was in pain...would you just think...'everything is useless' and let the child just be in pain?
Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: 1Co 15:41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
the accelaration of matter will eventually outrun light and the universe will be nothing but eternal darkness. Still, on the bright side, we'll be long exstinct by then....always look on the bright side of life!
ps, i cannot believe you are arguing about ANYTHING in the awesome face of the cosmic web. But then, we humans are unbelievably stupid.
I am not a religious person in any sense of the word, but every time I see macro-scale simulations of the Universe I cannot help but notice how much the filaments and clusters of galaxies resemble synapses and clusters of neurons in a human brain. It is fun to speculate that we are living inside the enormous "brain" of a transdimensional being, although of course there is zero evidence for such a wild speculation.
@Master0gkush maybe you did in an alternate universe. perhaps, you are a physicist in a parallel universe and created a universe by colliding particles together at a high enough energy. the universe would become part of the alternate universe momentarily but then it would expand and cut off from the alternate universe giving rise to our universe in which we all reside in today.
@MaithaS Very easy to say after the fact, but you NEVER see any example in history where people use religious texts to predict scientific discoveries before they are made. You can twist any passage from any religious text to make it appear to say almost anything, but you will never be able to predict the discovery of anything.
Any one els think that the universe looks like our brain waves, it looks alike in so many ways. Isn't that scary.
giggas5 1 week ago
lol
:
/\
RazDaz2000 2 weeks ago
there is no need for a god when you realise the beauty of this universe!
cherylw1958 2 weeks ago
@cherylw1958 Don't think so much a "god" but a giant TEAM of billions/trillions of things that make up something in-imaginably massive. I guess in that case you could just call everything we know (the known universe) god. :)
MadeInOregon27 3 days ago
@MadeInOregon27 Beautifully said!
FacinatingWorld 3 days ago
@MadeInOregon27 i stand corrected. You say it beautifully.Totally agree with you.
cherylw1958 3 days ago
Comment removed
CreativePotion 3 weeks ago
@CreativePotion accually no, this is a computer generated picture based on the postion of galaxies. Yes we do have telescopes powerful enough to see them, for years thay have been marking out the postions of the other galxies on circlier metal trays when you combine the known location of said glaxies this is what you get... Obviously a vast majoirty of this video is simulated by a computer response to the already known locations of galaxie that have been recorded.
andypmz07 2 weeks ago
@andypmz07
I don't know why I posted that comment earlier, I was so pissed at all this other stuff I read about, then I go mad, and I posted that on here when I ran into this video.
I've looked at a video about this and it's amazing. So yeah, thanks for the response anyway.
CreativePotion 2 weeks ago
@CreativePotion Don't worry about it, we all get angry from time to time, it's human nature.
andypmz07 2 weeks ago
@andypmz07
Haha. :D
CreativePotion 2 weeks ago
we are gods belly button lint
coffeefundmusic 3 weeks ago
I have a question which is quite imaginative when I think about it lol... but what if say for instence, you was in a lucid dream and decided to focus on where you were.. Over time you came to realise that your universe acts like a living organism.... and for strange reasons simulates the brain... although i'ld be more focused on what the living entity, which is my universe, sees then I would about my postion within it. When I woke up I realised I am the living entity which I was alive within..
andypmz07 1 month ago
@andypmz07 Basically what I'm trying to ask is, Is it possible that the universe could be self aware and that we as humans are a collection of the univeres self awareness. Add this together with the idea of sigularity and you've got an entity that is becoming self aware through us. If the human race can survive the next billion years then surely we would have technology avilable to expand our civilaztion through the cosmos.. Do you see where i'm going ?
andypmz07 1 month ago
@andypmz07 Think of it like this. Our brains are self aware but our bodies are not. Some parts of the universe are aware and others aren't. Here on Earth we can see first hand a collective intelligence, growing knowledge available to all of us. If we were to make contact with e.t we would create a further connection.
But I find ppl get hung up on awarenes. We have evolved a brain but many other life forms don't need one. I like to think of the universe more as a tree with awareness as a feature
jaykulls 1 month ago
@jaykulls I like that metaphor, I forgot to take into account the quantom world, How does the quantom world affect how we see the universe, also reguarding the double slit experiment, who is the observor ? If you combine quantom ideas along with your own awareness, things really do start to look like a lucid dream. Whats to say that my awareness is the true awareness, after all everyone sees things from different perspectives. I tried to puas much into this box as possible I hope it makes sence
andypmz07 4 weeks ago
@andypmz07 Aldous Huxley described our awareness as a reducing filter. We only evolve what we need to survive. It must have been necessary for us to have intelligence. It would be possible for us to see the entire spectrum if we needed to. As with sound, we only hear what is usefull to us. So every sense we have only falls within a certain range, reduced to make sense to us.
The universe seems to be like an unwanted erection, the more we think about it the harder it gets.
jaykulls 4 weeks ago
@andypmz07 Part 2. Sorry ran out of space. But really, taking into acount the quantum world, almost anything is possible. We discriminate between what is alive and dead but on the atomic level it's all the same. What's to say for example, that the sun isn't a lifefom of some kind.
What your were saying about each of us being the universe itself from different perspectives is one of the central themes of Buddhism. The word buddha in place of universe rather than being a god.
jaykulls 4 weeks ago
@jaykulls Well I suppose, I didn't mean to sound buddist but I'm going to have to do it again, everything we know of as the universe is just our perception of what we can see ( even what we can see through microscopes/ telescopes. ) but following on abit from what you was saying evolutionary wise, Well we have a limited perception and ability to understand/see the universe... All the things we can see are just the way we interpertarate ( spelling ) the vibratory signals from outside of us
andypmz07 4 weeks ago
@andypmz07 the things we see atm I.E a computerscreen, is just an illusion of what our minds have the capability to process, It looks that way because My mind tells me that it does, but our minds might not be evolutionarily possible to perceive what really is there, if anything at all.
andypmz07 4 weeks ago
@andypmz07 The only reality I know is the reality I perceive. Our perception of reality is our reality, there is nothing more we can know. To speak of the actuality that our reality represents is automatically in error, because our minds cannot process it through thought, even though it could be argued that we still seem to retain some understanding of actuality, even if it is only through the images we artificially create in the already illusionary reality we perceive.
TheArtOfRevolution 2 weeks ago
@TheArtOfRevolution agreed, if we change our perception, we change the world. It's as simple as smiling today instead of frowning.
andypmz07 2 weeks ago
Girl lifts eyebrows up and down, 26 mllion hits after 1 month. This, 70 thou after 1 year. lol
jaykulls 1 month ago
@jaykulls 72,000 views in one year is not that bad really. Way sadder is considering videos such as those in the Cassiopeia Project channel (which has some of the best original science content I've seen on YouTube) getting sometimes even less than 10,000 views in three years. Check for instance: /watch?v=dkoScN9L7hY or /watch?v=zO2vfYNaIbk . Fortunately, other science channels DO get lots of viewers (Sixtysymbols, minutephysics, 1veritasium, etc.).
cristianfcao 1 month ago
@jaykulls Looks like 72 thou have decided to evolve... 26 million have not :)
andypmz07 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's indescribable! Just look, and think about the universe around us. The elements of our bodies, the planets; created in the deaths of stars eons ago. To imagine everything we know about our world and everything we have yet to learn. The Age of discovery has just begun. (Now we just need to not destroy ourselves, and we'll be fine.)
Also can I just note, that the spelling and punctuation on this tread are fanatic!
PersonifiedEpicness 1 month ago
Comment removed
PersonifiedEpicness 1 month ago
How do they make 3D simulations, without using three satellites to record these objects? It's like a flat photograph. One can't make a 3D model from a flat photograph, without guessing what the other sides look like.
ChristopherJManess 1 month ago
@ChristopherJManess The model is created by introducing data (particles) in a computer program that uses our current physical laws and understanding of the universe (general relativity, the rate of expansion of the universe, whatever we know about dark matter...) to determine where those particles will be in the future. If talk about is the comparison with actual data (2:24) that comes from sky surveys such as the SDSS which, I think, use red shift to determine the distances.
cristianfcao 1 month ago
@ChristopherJManess Check this about red shift /watch?v=mx2M_ZKXM_c That entire Kahn Academy list about Cosmology and astronomy is VERY interesting. /watch?v=GZx3U0dbASg&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=SP2186CFB2CE12A8B
cristianfcao 1 month ago
@ChristopherJManess MUCH better explanation about red shift and spectroscopy /watch?v=sVev5RsKXog that explains how knowing about the nature of the atom we can understand about the stars and the universe.
cristianfcao 1 month ago
@cristianfcao I think you misunderstood what I meant. My step-father worked for NASA, so I am aware of much of your information. In the physical world, in order to get a 3D image, the most accurate way to get the information is to record the object(s) from three different sides, aka 3D. Like satellites, for example. The government, I mean friends track you by triangulating from three (or more) different sides, in order to confirm your location via GPS and other devices. Why not have three?
ChristopherJManess 1 month ago
@ChristopherJManess I'm not sure what you mean even now. I'm familiar with the concept of triangulation and it has many uses in astronomy. But I'm not sure how it'd be useful to model galaxies on a computer program. If you talk about real galaxies, I believe parallax (triangulating the position of a star with the position of the earth @ different time in the year) doesn't work because gal. are too far away for our instruments to measure the difference. /watch?v=bJv55ebJbhs5
cristianfcao 1 month ago
@cristianfcao No, no, hahaha! Three telescopes, like Hubble. They could get real, 3D models based off of actual photos taken from these satellites. Make sense?
ChristopherJManess 1 month ago
@ChristopherJManess Finally, NOW I got it! However, I'm not aware about any project using that method.
cristianfcao 1 month ago
@cristianfcao I think that would make some amazing photos! I'm not sure how long it would take them, but my idea would be to send them out in a direction, equally distanced from one another, which would also tell gravity and magnetic fields in space, as well as other forces that may cause their paths to alter. I may be reaching for the stars, because I think right now we have more pressing issues on Earth to deal with.
ChristopherJManess 1 month ago
@ChristopherJManess it is simulation in super computer, you get data out by putting data in, they then compare to some know data and have found some correlations. Resolution is still low but headed in right direction.
We will soon have better data and better pictures
awsomegurl111 1 month ago
3 aliens dislike the video
yasirnori 2 months ago
totally agree with the previous post,... it does look like Neurons
just imagine if we ended up being a part of a bigger being and that we are just ideas
of the creator hahahahahaha... very interesting the cosmos is... from the very small to the very large,... amazing that back in the day we could just see and have the knowledge or the idea that the world was flat,.... not look at this!!!!! AMAZING
Nursemonster 2 months ago
And why would i ever give a shit about lindsay lohan.. Great video!
jmarmario1 2 months ago
most excellent and profoundly VAST
NEXUS1A 2 months ago
How astounding this would be in a theater with 3D glasses
UtopiaMinor666 2 months ago
So.......beautiful.....
themanwithnobutt 2 months ago
Looks like we live in a nerv system. What if it's The Truth?
Scumbot404 2 months ago
Sub: COSMIC WEB-COsMIC FILAMENTS -Should lead to PRIME cONCEPTS- COSMOLOGICAL INDEX
Cosmology is a borderland beteeen Science and philosophy Invisible- Visible Matrix modes are implied through Projections
All these help one interested in East West Interaction.
Cosmology needs best of brains trust
Vidyardhicosmology [dot] blogspot [dot] com
viswagsena108 2 months ago
Thank YOU for posting :)
SirezX 2 months ago
I also was just thinking how these clusters looked like the neurons. I have no doubt that we are the cells of the earth, and the earth and starts are cells of a much bigger organism that we cannot comprehend. Just like how a neuron has no concept of us...and the proteins that make up the organelles of our cells don't know they are in a cell, that in turn is in a human body... and so it goes...why would we be at the top of this chain? There is no top, its a never ending cycle of life.
StellarStardust 3 months ago
@StellarStardust Spoken like a true cosmic mystic .
DrQuijano 3 days ago
Comment removed
StellarStardust 3 months ago
shouldn't the title be WHAT does the universe look like ...
petkndy 3 months ago
@petkndy Oops! 1st time I've noticed that! Spanish is my native language and I made what my English teacher used to call a "traduction".
cristianfcao 3 months ago
@petkndy There it is: "WHAT does the universe look like" Thanks for noticing that.
cristianfcao 3 months ago
This unbelievably beautifull pieace of music is from a greec musician called "Vangelis", name of the track "Heaven and Hell". Now go and listen to it, and dream..
x3llence 3 months ago
Great. Just great.
Kurtzism 3 months ago
yellow dots dont represent galaxies, they represent galactic clusters
xNaza1993x 3 months ago
thanks for posting this - friggin' amazing!
danmu 3 months ago
Perfect choice of music for this grandiose simulation.
ricois3 3 months ago
Wonderful, gigantic, mindblowing. Nice music choice!
ricois3 3 months ago
Thanks for the upload, Cosmos music was a great choice.
Kariakas 4 months ago
The known universe is amazing, some of the comments here are amazingly ignorant though.
Ebonikizzle 4 months ago
Yeah, me to. When it was broadcasted I only picked up very small fragments. Recently I downloaded a torrent of the complete series. The epicness of this music "Movement 3" everytime thrills my senses.
Cyfrlingk 4 months ago
Love the Cosmos music :)
ElleRoni 4 months ago
Though I haven't watched the Cosmos series on TV, "Billiuns and billliuns of galaxies!" come to my mind.
synsei1 4 months ago
The problem I have with Dark Matter is that Gravitational Lenses are really just water-lenses aka Parhelions. Every time they say DM they are just talking about a big cloud of icey and gaseous water. Another prob with LCDM is this expansion of space. Your model you just showed doesnt show expansion at all does it... and further, what if cosmological inflation is an illusion as Einstein said over and over... Hydrodynamics is the next and last "current model" we will ever need. Occam sez so!
SuperZekethefreak 4 months ago
The Cosmic Web with its tidal bridges between massive cluster nodes are arranged in filiments preferentially aligned with the major axis of their central galaxy. This is because the BB, which we have so much evidence for, was an explosion of a massive STAR which left behind magnetic filiments intrinsically aligned with the old lobes of the predominating magnetic structure at the time of the Nova. The Cosmic Web is obviously aligned mostly "true" NS and EW. Time to find the lobes next?
SuperZekethefreak 4 months ago
This is an amazing video, thanks so much for putting this up.
I cannot WAIT for the James Webb telescope to up... 2018.. sigh...
synndarella 4 months ago
Does anyone know of a site where people can go to exchange ideas about the universe, physics and the like. I some therories i would like to run up the flag pole.
nupesmac 4 months ago
@nupesmac You may try physicsforums . com Another site I love is askamathematician . com, which although less interactive, has answers to many cool questions about physics and cosmology.
cristianfcao 4 months ago 2
@cristianfcao Its wierd how this looks like the neurons of a human brain.
Realloko13 3 months ago
We are the stuff that (the Creator's) dreams are made of!;)
bunnybooties 5 months ago
I have read recently, that the number of cells in ones brain matches with the number of stars in a galaxy, and with the number of galaxies in the Universe. For this reason I believe that we live in a multiverse. (our Universe being the "brain", other universes, that are like organs in the human body) Only for that reason I believe in a Creator. And that we are a part of His body. (stars are the nuclei of atoms, galaxies are cells). We are reflections of the Creator, each and every one of us.
caesare100 5 months ago
@caesare100 That's a beautiful poetic thought, but I don't think the premises that you have (number of cells in the brain = number of stars in a typical galaxy; a loose similarity between the structures of the braincells and galaxy clusters) are enough to justify your believe in a God, or that we are part of his/her "body". If what you believe is right, maybe one day scientist may demonstrate that we are literally part of a creator. So far, nothing I know seems to point in that direction.
cristianfcao 5 months ago 9
@caesare100 David Eagleman stated that 1 cubic millimeter of brain tissue contains about as many neural connections as there are stars in the Milky Way galaxy.
8644371 5 months ago
@8644371 Yes, and according to Wikipedia, the average human being hosts about one quadrillion (10^15) bacteria in the intestines :D.
All living things are a "microcosm" of a lot of different tiny intricate things, but that doesn't allow us to think that we are also be part of a supernatural being.
cristianfcao 5 months ago 11
@cristianfcao But that does not exclude the possibility of anything happening. Everything is growing all the time, magic is real. Anything can happen!
Peace and Love to all! /\
SaintZoc 5 months ago
@caesare100 yes... and our "god" or our host... its a girl.. her name is Isis.. shes only 19..
sounds incredible, but its true. remember, everything is fractal..
juanchakkal 4 months ago
@juanchakkal Where does this Isis girl live?
bobo88mk 4 months ago
@bobo88mk Isis lives in the 13 dimension, and she also lives inside someone, i think that someone, liv sin the 26. not sure.. remember, everything is fractal and equaly proporcional... The solar system is an atom,, and earth is just an electron... have u ever watched the endings os the Men In Black movies?, i recommend you to..
juanchakkal 4 months ago
@caesare100 can you please tell me where did you read it, thanks...
silverbullet1979 4 months ago
@silverbullet1979 I read this in a book by Carl Johan Calleman, called "The Purposeful Universe" . The idea of the universe being like the body of a human being, with the galaxies as cells and all that, was a fantasy that I had when I learned about the solar system. (When I was 13 years old). About the book: it's "heavy stuff", (not for the average reader, spoken in very scientific language) but still worth to look at occasionally. Cheers!
caesare100 4 months ago
@caesare100 thank you very much for the info and your right, I'm not an average reader I've fell in love with Physics since I was 12 years old... anyway I'll look for the book, thanks again and take care...
silverbullet1979 4 months ago
@caesare100 your idea is not too different from pantheism
tierrasimbolica 4 months ago
@tierrasimbolica interesting. Just read the wiki.
Grizzly0679 4 months ago
@caesare100 Other thing.... our universe, is not the brain.. our universe is the entire body... our galaxy, the miky way is located in the center of the chest, being the central kristal... the 12 chakra
juanchakkal 4 months ago
These filaments are stunningly like the neurons in a brain.
Perhaps Descartes: "I think therefore I am" (Cogito ergo sum) should be revised into: "It thinks therefore we are" ? It would go down nicely with social constructionism :-)
trefod 5 months ago
Perhaps we're just cells within the body of some giant galactic creature.
Youbian 5 months ago 2
@Youbian My thoughts exactly!
synndarella 4 months ago
From 3:22-3:40, is this a 360 view of our galaxy or just some random galaxy?
PurpleHeartVeteran 6 months ago
@PurpleHeartVeteran Hey Purple! It's neither I'm afraid. This is just a simulation of a portion of the universe but it doesn't use data about the position of the current galaxies. That node represents a supercluster of galaxies of roughly the same size of the Virgo supercluster that contains our galaxy (about 100 million light years in diameter), however it's not meant to represent our supercluster.
cristianfcao 6 months ago
Question: "Why does business science scoff at the notion that there is very much a real vantage point, wherein we are looked down upon, in very much the same way we look down at atomic structure?" I'd further this by asking, "what really is distance?" I really believe we are just stuck in this iteration. And if we were present down in the local space of our quantum scale and all physical laws were normal...then time too is fractal. You ready for that? or are you scoffing too?
EddieGoregor 6 months ago
What I see here is simply something that looks like almost "biological" matter! Take any photo from some Bio Lab showing a slice of some human organ in a close look through a good micro and cross check with the above. The careful and honest observer will definitely recognise the similarities. One only wanders...if this large scale structure was only a slice from a huge brain would we, the worms on Earth be able to recognise ourselves as just flashes inside a huge Hypermind?
rtheo1 6 months ago
Doesn't anybody here know what copernican epicycles are? It is a thinking error in which Copernicus continually added more and more epicycles in support of his false cosmological theory. That goes to explain Dark Matter theory in a nutshell, except in this case the goal is to support gravitational theory on a cosmic scale. Dark Matter is just another "epicycle."
Mal1234567 7 months ago
makes me sick to my stomach just thinking how big our universe is
icanplayrs 7 months ago
Absolutely amazing.
GrabaPL 7 months ago
Trees of light, ever growing...
MeredithWaters 7 months ago
looks like a brain
DJMimzy 7 months ago 2
would have been nice if they has also shown "you are here".
hgfuhgvg 7 months ago
Why is this not available as a screensaver?
just1bloke 8 months ago
These constant references to "Dark Matter" are annoying. When was its existence proven? It is just "an epicycle added to an epicycle" based on the need to solve a problem with understanding galactic rotation. Dark Matter is really just "Hot Air" until there is solid evidence and not just theoretical evidence.
Mal1234567 8 months ago
not quite what you said. "Dark Matter" is pretty much thee only solution to the missing mass problem; i.e. there isn't enough visible matter in the universe to hold it together like we observe. its a matter of mass. and with no "Dark Matter" added into the equation, the universe as we see it just doesn't quite make sense.
Ryagful 7 months ago
@Ryagful Show me some Dark Matter and I'll believe in it. You mean it can't be seen? My, how convenient for your side!
Mal1234567 7 months ago
yes, you can't see it, smell it, touch it. you also can't see electromagnetic fields or gravity, but we know their there because of their interaction with matter. Dark Matter is a highly supported theory in astrophysics. sorry to bust your side, but when the majority of the scientific community supports something, it tends to be true. now, present another idea for the missing 83% percent of the matter of the universe, and your have something on your side.
Ryagful 7 months ago
@Ryagful A tiny change in Newton's gravitational equation can "account" for the "missing" 83%. It's called human error. Physics commonly assumes that gravity works according to the same formula throughout the universe.
And while things "tend" to be true based on majority belief, majority belief has been exploded many, many times throughout the history of physics. Physics does not make progress by simply staying with the majority of beliefs. Otherwise we would still be using the Copernican model
Mal1234567 7 months ago
right. the ''error'' has been taken into consideration, and your a fool if you really believe that such a gigantic error can be made and ignored. its not an error, its a fact, proven by more than one measurements. that's how science works: if the same thing it can be measured more than once, and if it give the same thing, its not an error. that HAS been done. the alternative theories have even less support and evidence. Gravity DOSE works the same throughout the universe, go learn some physics.
Ryagful 7 months ago
@Ryagful "right. the ''error'' has been taken into consideration, and your a fool if you really believe"
Now THAT's convincing! I don't want to be seen as a fool, therefore, I HAVE to believe everything you say.
I don't see any evidence that you even know what error I'm talking about. But the belief that gravity works the same way throughout the universe is not supported by experiment. And observations are denying it. Dark Matter is just a way of making our human equations look secure.
Mal1234567 7 months ago
no, don't believe me. believe the darn observations made. gravity appears to act different at different SCALES; i.e. it doesn't quite work at the very tiny quantum level, but at the macroscopic level, that's the universe at large, it rules. gravity works the same everywhere in the universe, otherwise, it some parts of the universe would be very different from what we see. but the universe is quite the same in every direction. and what experiments can anyone do at these scales? OBSERVATIONS, yes.
Ryagful 7 months ago
@Ryagful The observations say we need Dark Matter? Some say we need to question our basic assumption about gravity. And while you reference gravity on the macroscopic level, you are conflating that with the cosmic scale of things.
Mal1234567 7 months ago
yes, the observations say we miss a very large chunk of the universe. those that say we need to question our basic assumption about gravity have no alternatives so far. those few ideas aren't more testable than dark matter. even if we do change our basic assumption about gravity, it will STILL act the same everywhere in the universe, because that's the nature of the universe. when those scientist come up with something, let me know. until then dark matter remains the only solution to this issue.
Ryagful 7 months ago
@Ryagful "If we do change our basic assumption about gravity, it will still act the same everywhere." I'm not saying that changing an equation will change the facts of reality. Your argument is circular, designed merely to support its own premise. Look up McGaugh and the MOND theory.
Mal1234567 7 months ago
yeah, MOND doesn't explains the missing mass. dark matter dose.
Ryagful 7 months ago
@Ryagful MOND is not supposed to explain the missing mass, you're still being circular. There is no missing mass to explain.
Mal1234567 7 months ago
look, the only other idea that would explain the extra gravity, but no extra mass required, is M-theory, in which gravity from a "nearby" universe affects the galaxies. what is MOND? an attempts to explain the galaxy rotation problem by changing Newton's law of motion. there is extremely little evidence for that, and even that is highly controversial. in science, that that has a higher probability of being true is the general accepted idea. dark matter is the one. changing gravity is not.
Ryagful 7 months ago
@Ryagful There is no extra gravity because there is no extra mass. Just a problem with our theories. Yes, MOND was first used to explain the galaxy rotation problem, but McGaugh is not limiting his skepticism to just the one problem. Gravitational lensing and red-shifting galaxies pose further problems "solved" by tossing in some Dark Matter here and there.
Mal1234567 7 months ago
what further problems? ok, want to play like this. google "evidence for dark matter", and on the first page you should see an article "NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter", to see an observation in which just increased gravity doesn't work.
Ryagful 7 months ago
there is also other such observations, such as NGC 720 or Abell 2218, both of which can't be explain by a simple increases in gravity. they need a MASS.
Ryagful 7 months ago
@Ryagful Showing that MOND cannot explain something does not prove that Dark Matter exists.
Mal1234567 7 months ago
half wrong. it dose put the likeness in favor of Dark Matter, and shows that just modified gravity doesn't work. of course, Dark Matter will be much more proven when we will find a more direct method of detection. but it dose make MOND less likely, simply because of the nature of this observation. dose MOND have anything like this? no.
Ryagful 7 months ago
@Ryagful Does Dark Matter have to explain everything? Apparently so. But MOND doesn't have to explain everything. MOND does not pretend to be the answer to every significant problem in the universe. The answer is that gravity is an extremely weak force compared to, say, electricity. But cosmologists are so caught up in gravitational forces, gravitational lensing, and they require huge amounts of Dark Matter to make their explanations work. But electricity is already present in enough quantities.
Mal1234567 7 months ago
no, Dark Matter has to explain why galaxies hold together despite not having without enough mass, aka Rotation curve problem. it has support for that. and what dose electricity has to do here? for MOND to replace Dark Matter, it DOSE has to explain significant problems in the universe, this one included. so far, it dose not.
Ryagful 7 months ago
@Ryagful You're implying there is one explanation for everything. "What dose electricity has to do here?" MOND is the solution to rotation/mass, electricity works quite well where there is gas or plasma present along with the question of, say, why the gas is failing to escape despite the absence of gravity. And electricity is a far more powerful force than gravity, it does not require 5-10 times the mass of an entire galaxy to explain some anomalous behavior. And magnetism can also do the job.
Mal1234567 7 months ago
ok, the part with one explanation i can easily understand. yes, point to an article about this, please. also, it is not only the gas that is the issue here, there's also the stars. yes, plasma. so? how dose this thing work for plasma billions of miles from each other? only gravity has that range. it is weak, but it has a practical limitless range, while all other fundamental forces are VERY limited. how dose that work for VELOCITY of stars, the thing used to measured the whole problem?
Ryagful 7 months ago
you..you know, this highly scientific and exiting debate is getting tiresome. its almost 3 AM here. tell you what, i subscribe to you, send a friend invite, and talk another time, when more proof will be on the table.
Ryagful 7 months ago
@Ryagful I messaged you with a website
Mal1234567 7 months ago
Comment removed
EddieGoregor 6 months ago
@EddieGoregor Umm, Eddie, check again. Your spelling nazi skills were aimed at the wrong person. So please try again, and be a little more diligent with identifying the correct misspeller next time.
Mal1234567 6 months ago
Comment removed
EddieGoregor 6 months ago
Comment removed
EddieGoregor 6 months ago
@EddieGoregor Obviously I was quoting someone there. So I quoted the misspelling too. If you were a little more observant, maybe you would notice that @Ryagful ALWAYS spells it "dose." Try this: Ctrl + F, input the term "dose" and click "enter."
Mal1234567 6 months ago
Comment removed
EddieGoregor 6 months ago
@EddieGoregor By the way, you might also do some research on the term "spelling Nazi." You will find it has nothing to do with Nazis or rugers.
Mal1234567 6 months ago
Comment removed
EddieGoregor 6 months ago
Comment removed
EddieGoregor 6 months ago
@EddieGoregor ruger was just a test to prove that you are a SPELLING NAZI.
Mal1234567 6 months ago
Comment removed
EddieGoregor 6 months ago
@EddieGoregor Go away you fucking idiot.
Mal1234567 6 months ago
and one more thing: "Dark Matter" has been confirmed through its gravitational interaction, like gravitational lensing. do some research.
Ryagful 7 months ago
@Ryagful - Ok, I've done the research you requested. Here's what I found: 'Big Bang theorists simply ignore the evidence of the images, calculate the mass required to produce the desired amount of lensing, and announce that it exists as “dark matter” that can’t be seen.' (From the thunderbolts(dot)info site.)
Mal1234567 7 months ago
......that sounds an awful lot like a conspiracy theory dude. and where is the evidence that this has ever happened? those guys are scientists, not priests sticking to a dogma. if they find evidence that MONO is real tomorrow, their be the first to admit they were wrong. this is science, not a competition. and they can't just fake this stuff, cuz science isn't blind; evidence that all hoaxes played on it never last. take the Piltdown Man for example.
Ryagful 7 months ago
@MsMegamusicmaster lol. I hate to break it to you.... but there is no god. Just some dumb book uneducated people wrote hundreds of years ago to try and explain shit they didn't understand and/or control the population.
Dalamen 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
One of the best videos on youtube!!!
Dalamen 9 months ago
So does this mean that the filament theory accounts for all the dark matter that must be available to support the big bang?
chillichomper 9 months ago
@chillichomper I'm not an expert (just an enthusiast) but I'll try to answer. I'm not aware of any "filament theory" nor about the big bang needing extra support by a certain amount of dark matter. Those filaments are just an observation and It's believed that dark matter contributes to that configuration. On the other hand, the simulation is important for our current models because the way we think, for instance, gravity or dark matter wok is validated since the outcome matches our observations
cristianfcao 9 months ago
@chillichomper The filaments are *observed* - when we actually plot where the galaxies really are in the universe, they have a filamentary pattern. This pattern nicely matches what we expect from theory and simulation for a 13.7 billion year old universe with dark matter & dark energy
davespitvalve 8 months ago
Hail Sagan!
MarkArandjus 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
When trying to look intelligent by saying smart things, it helps to spell words correctly. The written narrative of this video is full of AIDS and fail. AND bad spelling. The whole meaning gets lost when reading something written by somebody who obviously doesn't know what they're doing.
ANDROLOMA 10 months ago
@ANDROLOMA I'm not an English native speaker. I'm from Argentina. Do you happen to remember some misspelling? What's AIDS, by the way? Do you mean aids (in minuscule) for the text explanations in the video?
cristianfcao 10 months ago
Comment removed
EddieGoregor 6 months ago
This just shows how insignificant and useless everything we do is. No matter what we do we will always be a subatomic particle on the spec of sand in this universe.
shpongloidia 10 months ago
Comment removed
skylotusdancer 10 months ago
Comment removed
skylotusdancer 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shpongloidia @shpongloidia NO>>>on the contrary...WE may be a 'spec' as you say...but we have cognition...and that is the REAL miracle. And people are in pain and suffering. Children cry, people get sick and die ...people grieve etc...you can help them NOW. You have the opportunity every minute to ease suffering. If you own child was in pain...would you just think...'everything is useless' and let the child just be in pain?
skylotusdancer 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: 1Co 15:41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
myfavorittools 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
myfavorittools 11 months ago
Shows that we are really just a drop in the bucket, not even that really
Jason987262 11 months ago
the accelaration of matter will eventually outrun light and the universe will be nothing but eternal darkness. Still, on the bright side, we'll be long exstinct by then....always look on the bright side of life!
ps, i cannot believe you are arguing about ANYTHING in the awesome face of the cosmic web. But then, we humans are unbelievably stupid.
Wankshaftsbury 11 months ago 2
I am not a religious person in any sense of the word, but every time I see macro-scale simulations of the Universe I cannot help but notice how much the filaments and clusters of galaxies resemble synapses and clusters of neurons in a human brain. It is fun to speculate that we are living inside the enormous "brain" of a transdimensional being, although of course there is zero evidence for such a wild speculation.
stringdreamer 11 months ago
omg! i almost started crying when the vangelis music started playing =)
niteshmurti 11 months ago
Fascinating! Thank you so much for sharing this!
woollyfeet 11 months ago
so how is it even possible that there is no alien. we are not alone
clostsin 11 months ago
I created the universe
Master0gkush 1 year ago
@Master0gkush maybe you did in an alternate universe. perhaps, you are a physicist in a parallel universe and created a universe by colliding particles together at a high enough energy. the universe would become part of the alternate universe momentarily but then it would expand and cut off from the alternate universe giving rise to our universe in which we all reside in today.
FallofDarkness55 11 months ago
Thanks so much for this beautiful great video!!!
facundosg 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
BTW, the fact that the universe is a "web" was mentioned in the Quran 14 centaries ago!
God said in the Quran:" والسماء ذات الحبك "
In English:"By the Sky with (its) numerous Paths,"
Means: the sky with its tight texture
MaithaS 1 year ago
@MaithaS Do you know what confirmation bias is? Look it up!
cristianfcao 1 year ago 2
@MaithaS Very easy to say after the fact, but you NEVER see any example in history where people use religious texts to predict scientific discoveries before they are made. You can twist any passage from any religious text to make it appear to say almost anything, but you will never be able to predict the discovery of anything.
mtheory85 1 year ago 8
@mtheory85 Yes you will!! (predict a scientific discovery based on what's written in a religious text)...
You just have to make a lot of predictions :-)
cristianfcao 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
TheoraCimino 5 months ago