@j03y2fly The periodic table is complete and therefore as far as current science is concerned no new stable elements can be created beyond the 92 known. However the possibility of bombarding heavy elements to create further transurranic elements is always a possibility and there is a hypothesised island of stability up around element 116 [I think]. It may be that in the future this hypothesis may bare fruit.
BigBang =Big blunder/ See May Edition Scientific American. Also see my channel.
I have PROVEN beyond a doubt there was no big bang and used the same general theory to explain ALL mysteries of cosmos, yes even cmbr. Kinetic waves slow due to particle recycling. Predicted thermals match only because Kmesons are the least recycled, therefore their kinetic waves travel furthest.
No fully formed theory of quantum gravity exists because (based on the perturbative quantum field theory) it requires the use of hypothetical elements called gravitons.
In your definition of the Big Bang theory, you mentioned all the evidence to support it as a theory, but failed to state that the evidence is not 100% conclusive to make it fact, so (in science) a theory is still an "educated guess".
Also, all elements were not formed by supernovae. Hypernovas (such as Eta Carinae) are required to create some of the more rarer elements, such as beryllium.
@informationsponge No evidence is "100% conclusive", as further observation can hypothetically disprove it. If theory means educated guess in science, I suppose Newton's Theory of Gravity is such a guess. Though I take it you wouldn't jump off a building to test said theory. Theory is much more important in science than 'fact' (since theories explain facts), something that seems to confuse many laymen because the terms are used in opposite fashion in day-to-day conversation.
A theory is not only an educated guess, but one's own professional opinion (when evidence runs out and speculation commences - especially in cutting-edge fields of study). Yes. A theory does help to explain the facts supporting any given theory, but (in regards to Sir Isaac Newton) what I think you're referring to - common sense, is something different entirely.
@informationsponge I would hardly call the Big Bang Theory cutting-edge. Yes there are aspects of the theory that require more explanation, but the basics of the Big Bang Theory have been solid science for at least 50 years, it is a theory backed up by loads of facts. Just because Brane Theory and theories like it exist doesn't change anything. That would be like saying quantum gravity theories affect the validity of Netwonian Gravity.
I wasn't referring to the Big Bang theory as cutting-edge. I meant other more advanced fields of study. You're just looking to argue for arguments' sake. Whatever. I'm finished.
@informationsponge You responded to both parts of my video attacking the credibility of most of my major points - and then after my rebuttals you claim I'm arguing for arguments sake? Come now.
No. I never attacked the credibility (as if you're Monsignor Georges Lemaitre). I merely commented on the inaccuracy of SOME of your "major points".
A fact is a simple statement that everyone believes. It is innocent, unless found guilty. A hypothesis is a novel suggestion that no one wants to believe. It is guilty, until found effective.
A fact is a statement that has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, popularity has nothing to do with it. Also claims are not innocent nor guilty. and thirdly if you make a claim it is you who has a burden of proof and nobody has to disprove your claim if you cannot provide evidence. Epistemology 101 and science 101 and Law 101.
That is a quote from Edward Teller used to make a point which you OBVIOUSLY missed. Do you even know who Edward Teller is? I didn't think so. A word of advice, you shouldn't participate in a conversation about theories if you lack the intellectual capacity to recognize simple sarcasm. A bit of STFU 101.
@lucretius1 SCIENCE BATTLE! i believe u came out on top ;) thanks for the vid dude, extremely informative and helpful, ill look at my universe in a different way thanks to u
I don't really fully understand the Big Bang Theory to be honest, I have some serious questions. I have this idea that time is infinite whether you go back to the past or into the future, but I keep hearing the phrase "beginning of time" in these videos. What exactly was "before time"? Are you telling me there was a time where no matter or energy existed, or is there like infinite smallness or something? I hope I didn't sound retarded just now, I'm just very curious and I want to learn something
@dksilentbob The current view of our understanding of the question "What happened 'before' the Big Bang?" is explained with the idea "What is south of the South Pole?" Einstein's theory of relativity states that time and space are relative to each other and that during the Plank Epoch time did not exist as we know it today. I know Wikipedia get poo pooed by people who don't understand it but i highly suggest it for reading on this subject. There is nothing "retarded" about curiosity.
In response to your thoughtful question, there was no time or space 'before' the Big Bang. Time and space, as complex conjugates, were initiated together at the Big Bang. Although, it is still accurate to say that the vacuum of totality which contains the universe has always existed. It's just that spacetime is required for anything to happen. It's also accurate to say that time is in the universe but the universe is not in time because the universe is in a subatomic state
@lynchmobb2000 Technically, it's very difficult to determine what happened before the big bang. The multibang theory in fact is the idea that the universe keeps going through a cycle of big bangs and big crunches again and again, but with no possible way of leaving any trace of the universe before. So, there might have been something before, we just don't know.
I think we're on the same page. Lawrence Krauss is the preeminent name these days on the topic and his thesis is that the universe is a peculiar kind of uncaused field generated by the vacuum.
The vacuum is the irreducible primary of existence and so there was never a point when it did not exist. To say that existence at one time did not exist is to violate the law of non-contradiction, and since it is not possible for nothing to exist, something has 'always' existed
When I look at the reactions of christians, it seems to me christianity is coming to an end. You are really clutching at straws and don't even sound christian anymore. Then again you barely ever have.
But we have observed this inflation in a way. We have observed Microwave Background Anisotropy, which means that the background radiation of the universe is incredibly uniform, down to a remarkable ~10e-5 degrees. This is exactly what inflation predicts.
Inflation also accounts for the exact energy density of the universe because the bubble of false of vacuum - which is the mechanism of inflation - accounts for the predicted ~10e90 grams of gravitational potential energy.
@lynchmobb2000 I have a theory. "Cause and Effect". A god or gods or super beings from a another universe caused a Big Bang energy pulse which resulted in a tiny "bubble" which rapidly expanded 14 billion years ago to form our Universe.And thus the background radiation. They made basic life forms, which can not evolve into another life form. (ape-like to human). However the life forms use Darwinian Evolution to change into a different version of the same life form,IE, Darwin's Finches. Etc,Etc.
@lync Such anger from a "dispassionate" science person! Cause: I push your god-phobic button. Effect: Your irrational anger. Simple Science. And it teaches C/E, the background radiation, evolution IE,finches.etc. "...keep my god in.."? I was approaching this in an AGNOSTIC way, keeping all possibilities on the table.Using your standards NO ONE can prove Asimov or Sagan or god ever existed! That's a closed mind. You ASSumed I had a god--makes you the ASS!
@kdc43 Ok, but you really have avoided answering anything, and simply created another universe(s) AND complex intelligent beings without providing answers as to their formation.
It's like the Panspermia hypothesis. Simply saying it happened somewhere else now opens the can of worms of "where did it come from and how did THAT come about?" etc.
It's all well and good postulating something without evidence, but only if it actually attempts to explain something and is falsifiable.
@Macque77 No, that's the Materialsts, they can not explain what caused the Big Bang and so they say (with out evidence or observation,mind you) our universe budded off another universe in a another dimension.So where did that one come from??? So they take this budding process,cosmos before cosmos, back to infinity-past. It's just a cop-out non-answer.
There wasn't "matter" to begin with. There was mass.
Matter came later.
That you do not understand this fundamental concept of physics means you wouldn't understand whatever else I tried to explain to you.
But what is certain is that the process did not involve a giant fairy wishing the mass into the universe.
BTW: You're also asking the wrong question, but again, you're clearly not educated enough to understand that, either. But, in any event, no giant fairy.
I don't necessarily disagree with any of what is being taught here on this video. In theory, all things that are discovered about this topic is based on scientific assumptions consolidated with data from centuries past. Similarity to religious belief in my opinion. From an elementary statistical standpoint, a standard normal curve does not end definitely. Therefore, the probability of any of these "theories" being 100% true is 0. That's cut and dry.
@mr2mchpayne No theory in science claims to be 100% true, this simply can not be as we do not know what we'll learn tomorrow.
Also, do realize that, as the make of the video said, a 'theory' is the highest attainable status for a hypothesis. These are backed up by mountains of (observable, testable) evidence . Also, any hypothesis needs to make predictions which must come true.
To claim that science is like a religion is so laughable that you could kill the most serious man alive from laughing.
The exponentially expanding of the universe seems like mass/stuff/energy which disappears from a sphere. That could explain the matter/antimatter question. Theres a feeding. Enerergy spews from the sphere.
Can the sphere be god?
Is all we know just coming from the hole in the sphere? Does god get less from the feeding?
Why do people have to come on this video and argue against science with Christanity? There are so many religions out there, and for me, I don't think we will ever know what will happen to us when we die. I also don't think the big bang theory is real either. Whatever created the universe is probably so beyond our imagination. That's why the Big Bang theory it is called a THEORY..to all you guys trollin' on this video. You don't have to believe this is what REALLY happened, cause it's not proven
A theory is not a guess, it is a model, and the big bang does have evidence. The more evidence that supports the theory the stronger it is. Science 101
here is a answer to every religious idiot trying to put GOD in to this;
dont watch this video, go with your idiotic god storys elsewere and stop trying to convince us that god is real.... it wont work... that idiotic childrens story wont work...
A few questions here! Did the gravity separate from the unified force BEFORE or AFTER the Planck era? In the map of CMB, the blue regions represents more matter density than the red ones?
I don't know about that map at 2:00. Take a close look. Don't those shapes look familiar? I see Africa in the middle, Australia on the right, New Guinea above and Antarctica below, a barely visible Europe, a speckling of South America... it's either a co-incidence or what was recorded was in fact just a reflection of the water density of Earth's surface.
Yep, you would be mistaken to think this was a map of the Earth. Look at a world map, and actually compare it to this. You'd see that there is no possible way to draw the conclusion you just did.
I did. Throw a little anthropomorphism in there and try again. It's a little warped, but several of the blue marks line up with parts of the world that don't have much water.
Great vid. Concise and researched. I just didn't like the way that theory was pushed as if it was fact. If Theory means guess in layman terms, it should not law to others. the way that it sounded like a bible thumper just with facts, still feels bad to the listener.
Yes, [theory] does mean [guess] in layman's terms, but in scientific terms a [guess] is called a [hypothesis], and a [theory] is as close to the layman's [fact] as you can get. This misalignment is often used by creationists to confuse people, often deliberately, because they don't expect you to read a dictionary.
I'm just a curious musician, so take this w/a grain of salt and patronize me if warranted, BUT...if everything we know CAME from the big bang, then how can we still LOOK back at it's radiation/EM waves? Are we essentially looking back onto ourselves? This is how I would simply conceptualize this. So, how then can we exist in one place yet look at ourselves in the past at the same time? There has to be something to this "expansion of space time" that I don't get. Is there math 4 it? lol
It takes sun light 8 minutes to arrive at earth. If the sun were to go out it would take us 8 minutes to know. Essentially if you were to look at the sun you are looking at the sun as it was 8 minutes ago. You are looking back in time. The closest star to the sun is 4 light years away, if you look at it you are looking at it as it appeared 4 years ago. Therefore if you can look far enough away you can see galaxies that existed 13 billion years ago.
Any video about the big bang will attract religious visitors. If you believe that God created everything, then believe in your faith and do not watch this video.
I liked it as well. The only constructive criticism I would give is that at times, the music seems louder than your voice so I had to carefully listen (the music was perfect for the vid, btw, just on the loud side). Good presentation.
I have a doubt. When we talk about big bang, the first thing comes to me is red shifting: all galaxies moving away from us and from themselves thus creating more space between them. What explains andromeda galaxy lights blue shifting? Thanks
That "round" (actually elliptical) cosmic map is a two-dimensional computer generated projection compiled from thousands of telescope photos of the three dimensional celestial sphere all around us. Just like similar elliptical projections you've seen of the map of the world.
The CMB map is a composite of images looking in all directions with the earth at the centre. The real "shape" of the image is the inner surface of a sphere seen from the centre, like a star map.
The shape you see is like a map of the earth, it depends on the projection you use to display it onto a flat surface. They usually show it as an oval, but don't forget that it represents the whole sky.
You can represent it better on the external surface of a sphere - like a "Night Sky Globe".
I pretty much fucking love you! im up at 2am just finished an assignment for an Astronomy class that would of taken me SOOOOOOOO much longer if you had not of put this video up
indeed this theory is very interesting and should be explored, but thats just the thing, it almost seems like we were born to explore the universe and its beauty, to look forward to the unimaginable and see it is as possible, this is the very starting point of science. why shouldn't i believe in god? i do not believe in limit.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
What your saying is that a library exploded and a dictionary was formed out of the explosion. Think about this if God did not create us then why do we have emotions unlike the animals but we supposedly evolved from animals. This makes no sense animals have no morals yet we do. Kind of amazing coming from something that was created out of a puddle of "Goo". Now I can tell you your wrong 100% since I explained your misconstrued view of creation, but please think with common since. THINK!!PLZ
ok muppet, listen I know the bible and all the fairy tales in it. You must first learn about science and then have a discussion. The nonsense you come up with is hilarious and you look like a total ass. Nothing was created out of a puddle of goo, look up abiogenesis and learn.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Except, no one has ever seen Stars form. If they did, there are no records of it.
The existence of stars is not evidence that they can form and evolve by themselves.
I know it is impossible for us to watch the formatting of stars according to a law in science, but if its impossible then its all just a theory which is no better than another theory.
It's called the BEST theory. No one is pretending it is 100% correct (unlike religious types who claim their various desert gods "just making it" is a superior idea).
When a better one comes along, this one will be shelved. More likely, though, this one will just continue to be revised as we learn more.
No need to qualify it with "scientific". It IS THE BEST THEORY. Period. There is no theory in any other discipline that compares to it in terms of explaining the cosmos. There is no qualifier needed.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Im guessing that your an atheist searching for the 100% true answer but you shun all truth therefore you will not here the truth. please read without rolling the eyes. If you have no religious beliefs then your religion is atheist, but isnt atheism a religion lol. I am not apart of any religion I only believe in the truth. Religion has destroyed and hidden the truth. The truth is that God created the earth and that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation not Religion. Read it for yourself
Seriously? You are one of those people who think atheism is a religion? It is NOT a religion, it has NO characteristics of a religion, and atheists are generally only interested in REASONS, not beliefs.
Your religion is an attempt to explain the universe. Because it was an attempt made by pre-scientific desert nomads thousands of years ago, it is a poor attempt and intellectually bankrupt. It is embarassing that you still hold it out as true. Join modernity.
interesting that you know the history of my book. Modernity is the attempt to lean on ones self for explanation yet we have no thought process at all. Name one thing that you do that you did not use a conglomeration of memories to acheive. No man is an island. So why do we look toward other people who are no more intelligent than we are. Are you saying that you are less important than the scientist who came up with the idea. You must be because you lean to his understanding and not your own.
I have never claimed the things you are saying I claimed. I know how knowledge is acquired. I also know that the ideas formerly heralded as brilliant have now been eclipsed by new ideas that built upon those and often rejected them, in whole or in part, and so evolved over time.
Modernity has a "thought process" called the scientific method. You shuld learn about it. It is the quest for truth while recognizing that you can be wrong, but the cumulative effect is to move mankind forward.
Knowledge is nothing without understanding. If you have partial knowledge then you have no knowledge at all. But remember that there is a difference between knowledge and wisdom. The bible says "the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom". Well what is wisdom. The bible says "true wisdom brings life to the living". So what is true wisdom. What is life but a vapor in the vast eternity. So life must mean eternal life, and true wisdom must be the Bible.
I dfo not fear your imaginary god, and I think it is embarassing that you do. The Bible is stories made up by Bronze Age desert-dwelling nomads who had no science. If there had been science, there would be no gods to explain things. Unfortunately, imagination reigned before the scientific method was established as the way to uncover "truth" as best we are able as simple primates.
It is pathetic and embarassing that you spread these lies.
Im not trying to push you into "Religion". Like is said "religion" has made a mockery of the importance and values illustrated in the bible. Saying that people can say a magical prayer and be saved that is impossible. First you must look at the facts and then it will be much more clear as to whether it is true or not. There are about 2400 seperate prophecies (predictions of future events) that have come true for example. Israel was reborn as a a nation in 1948.
In 1966(6 day war the jews regained control of jerusalem. In 1917 the jews were emancipated from austria hungary. Why was the war only six days, because on the seventh God had to give his people rest. What is so amazing is that the US is supposedly the strongest nation in the world yet we are still fighting in Iraq, but the Jews as small as there numbers are won a war and regained control of a whole country in six days. Please level with me and read it. You wont be dissappointed I promise.
Such nonsense! You are not paying attention to the THOUSANDS of other wars that were won under unlikely conditions, some of which might have even numerically fulfilled prophecy of some sort or other. This is how conspiracy theorists think: Look only at select facts and a very narrow picture. If you take a longer view of the world, you realize how insignificant it really is.
Your religion is like all the others, and will in time be deposited in the dustbin of myth. The Jews are just people.
The Bible was not written by desert nomads, it was put together by a Council headed by the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, based on texts considered holy written by Helenized Jewish Philosophers, If you are going to throw insults at people with different beliefs than you, at least have an idea as to what you are talking about.
For the record, Atheists are people who believe no God(s) exists, and strive to constantly shove that belief down everyones throat.
No, you are wrong. It was begun in the Bronze Age by desert nomads, and was compiled and EDITED by Constantine, then later edited again by Roman committees -- because apparently that is how Christians determine the truth.
Your beliefs are based upon lies and political manipulation. Time to just own it. It's not an indefensible position, but it sure makes it all seem like a load of ancient nonsense to me.
There was no bible before Constantine. His people put it together from a selection of 300 holy texts from Christians. They decided on 30 which most accurately reflected the spiritual and moralistic values of Roman culture at the time. The other 270 declared heresy and burned, with the punishment of death for possessing heretical writings.
Nomads are almost by rule illiterate, sticking to oral tradition. The original texts were written by helenized jews with ties to mystic cults.
That's not quite accurate. The Jewish Scriptures were completed before Constantine. "Christian" books were written (some destroyed) by the 2nd century. The First Council of Nicea was 325 CE. Constantine died in 337 CE. The Western Christian version of the NT was listed by Athanasius in 367 CE. To this day, not all Christian denominations use the same version of the Bible.
For the record, you have labelled all non-believers and claimed that all of us act the same way - constantly striving to "shove that belief down everyones throat", yet (as usual for theists) provide no evidence or show any signs that you know what you are talking about.
How can you believe that the Bible is the absolute truth when it was composed/modified by a 'council' over 1500 years ago - how can "God's truth" be determined by those few mere mortals?
I suppose I should point out a couple of things. First, I was speaking about people who label themselves Atheists. Second, you are guilty of exactly what you accuse me of, making an assumption.
For the record, I am not a theist, I don't subscribe to any doctrine whether it be organized religion or spiritual, nor do I believe anyone on Earth knows the truth about the full nature of the kosmos. However, from observation I can easily see the common nature of people who label themselves atheist.
without theists there would be no "atheist's". I always thought "atheist" was a derogatory term similar to heathen used by "theists" to point out non believers. "Atheism" has just developed into another belief when really it is the rejection of belief's, There are many kinds of Atheism and all children are born Atheists for they do not know of god. If someone has never been taught of god they will accept science because it employs logic and evidence. just some thoughts :P
wow well i was making a point evolution doesn't need a divine intervention and the whole argument if u see it and looks complex somebody made it now thats just silly life is complex but not perfect ur eye isn't prefect it has blind spots and u have organs u don't need y would a creator do that?
The difference between a wooden tower and a tree/anthill is this:
We have good scientific reason to assume that the wooden tower was 'created'. There is someone claiming to be the creator, we can get the creator's designs, we can observe this creator doing the creating, and we can see the creation's individual parts.
Also: the anthill was created by the ants! There's no intelligence needed for that. Perhaps you can argue that the ants themselves need a creator/designer, but not the anthill.
For anyone asking the question "But what came before this? Who started it, why did it happen?"
Think about this, and don't think about it like you normally would. Expand your brain.
There is no start to time. Time is man-made. It is infinite in both directions. Nobody started, and there's no reason for it to have happened. It just happened. And there is no "God". Humans are nothing on this spectrum.
Yeah, you're right. I should rephrase that. I meant the concept of "time" is man made. I don't think we can possibly understand time. What we set down as "units of time", such as minutes, hours, days, years, they're all set by revolutions of Earth and orbit around the sun, and divisions of that to make it easier to express in words. To set something around Earth (which is just another rock going around a star) is ridiculous.. it's such a tiny part of the big picture, but it's all we know.
Pretty cool video... and very good explanation too, honestly... Lucretius1, I really think you have done a very good video that teach real science... respectfully, A minor observation that shouldn't discourage you: Don't do self-serving bias by stating that scientist do have an idea but can't come with a theory... you're having faith, a good thing when founded on reality, but recognize limitations (You did it at part 1 by saying "we really don't know")- Overall pretty good job, really
accepting creationism is fairly stupid. Science has proved soooo many things in our lives, and provides a visual explanation for life and possibly the future. All creationism has done is provide us with a story, no facts, no proof, no realism. Until religious people provide facts and proof of their belief , it will still just be another theory in my mind. Nothing against religion, but "JUST BELIEVE" only works for so long when facts and proof is right in front of us. Religion is ignorant.
The matter and energy of all the universe came from the Big Bang. The Big Bang came from a singularity. The singularity came from an interaction at the boundary of the multiverse.
You know, there are lots and lots of books on this subject. Maybe you should read one before you sound like more of a moron.
well water is H2O so it came from a mixture of Big bang Nulceosynthesis (this giving H) and stealler Nulceosynthesis (this giving O). oh and matter is Atoms. And as for energy due to E=mc2 energy and matter are the same thing.
I most certainly have learned quite a bit from this. I must admit that I don't understand it anywhere near as well as you clearly do, but I understand more than I did before watching the video. I think VenomFangX should watch this. It kinda destroys a lot of Kent Hovind's arguments.
Hey guys, is it just me, or do the 'darker' regions in the cosmic background radiation look a hell of a lot like a map of earth? I seem to notice North and South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, even Australia!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Hey stop talking about evidence. The more I listen to you the more i realize you have no evidence. Youre just trying to make everything sound factual but they are purely conjectures. You seem to keep forgetting that youre basing everthing on theories (quantum theories, etc). Theories are not facts. Smart really smart!
I hope you're one of the people who actually believes that god decided to create light and light appeared, because if not you're just stupid. The big bang is a theory weaved from other theories. I'll listen and take seriously what you haev to say when you've come back with a PhD in a relevant subject and know what you're talking about.
"You seem to keep forgetting that youre basing everthing on theories (quantum theories, etc). Theories are not facts. Smart really smart!" How about you drag your ass off to wikipedia and learn the scientific definition of "theory". then come back.
But if the big bang was before anything and at the beginning of every "thing" (non-living) shouldn't it have had some part in the living part? How are they connected?
The Big Bang is a theory that tell us how our universe began and changed on a large scale. Abiogenesis, while it takes place after the Big Bang, is a different field of study which looks at the origin of life. Just like evolution and the Big Bang are not the same thing, even though biological evolution happened after the Big Bang did, they are two different theories which seek to answer radically different questions.
They're not, except that without the BB, hydrogen wouldn't have formed, and without H, stars wouldn't have formed, and without stars, other elements wouldn't have formed, and without other elements, the solar system wouldn't have formed, and without the solar system, Earth wouldn't be here and without Earth, life on Earth wouldn't have started.
It's a pretty long line. 13.7 billion years long. Only 5 billion for our solar system. 3.5 for life on Earth.
Quick question. Going past how the big bang formed planets and elements...how did the big bang create life? Where did life begin? How did it begin? Does the big bang explain the beginning of all life? Do you have another video for that?--thanks
The Big Bang is not the theory to study if you want to understand the origin of life. I'd take a look at abiogenesis. It is a theory built around understanding the origin of life on Earth. A good book to read is called "Genesis" by Robert M. Hazen on the matter. One of the newest books on the field of study.
In the beginning there was darkness then bang giving birth to an endless span of time space and matter.Sorry I got it off The Universe.
princesscelestia1 2 days ago
love the video really good
simysimss 1 week ago
Impossible
AaronSmooth13 5 months ago
What was before 'BIG BANG' know one knows..!!! Because God (ALLAH) Exists :)
60zar 6 months ago
A couple of good videos. I would have two suggestions and one correction.
The fact that that the big bang was the expansion of the universe, rather than an expansion into the universe should be emphasised.
The effect of cosmic inflation on the size of the visible universe should be researched.
The creation of the heavier elements in 1st generation stars should be explored. Fusion did it all is simplistic at best and misleading.
Huttate1 7 months ago
this was a really good video. i think im ganna go to my physics teacher and give him the finger and say i got my physics lessons for the week
WAZZA1235 7 months ago
So can more elements still be created?
j03y2fly 8 months ago
@j03y2fly The periodic table is complete and therefore as far as current science is concerned no new stable elements can be created beyond the 92 known. However the possibility of bombarding heavy elements to create further transurranic elements is always a possibility and there is a hypothesised island of stability up around element 116 [I think]. It may be that in the future this hypothesis may bare fruit.
Huttate1 7 months ago
Very Very enlightening I now shall do more research... To Wikipedia!!! :P :P
whizzo76 8 months ago
BigBang =Big blunder/ See May Edition Scientific American. Also see my channel.
I have PROVEN beyond a doubt there was no big bang and used the same general theory to explain ALL mysteries of cosmos, yes even cmbr. Kinetic waves slow due to particle recycling. Predicted thermals match only because Kmesons are the least recycled, therefore their kinetic waves travel furthest.
mikefromspace 8 months ago
Stop talking about religion. You idiots are making my brain sad.
t3hPoundcake 9 months ago
Where did the big bang come from?
mrtadreamer 9 months ago
Comment removed
informationsponge 9 months ago
Comment removed
informationsponge 9 months ago
No fully formed theory of quantum gravity exists because (based on the perturbative quantum field theory) it requires the use of hypothetical elements called gravitons.
In your definition of the Big Bang theory, you mentioned all the evidence to support it as a theory, but failed to state that the evidence is not 100% conclusive to make it fact, so (in science) a theory is still an "educated guess".
informationsponge 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@informationsponge
Also, all elements were not formed by supernovae. Hypernovas (such as Eta Carinae) are required to create some of the more rarer elements, such as beryllium.
informationsponge 9 months ago
Comment removed
informationsponge 9 months ago
@informationsponge No evidence is "100% conclusive", as further observation can hypothetically disprove it. If theory means educated guess in science, I suppose Newton's Theory of Gravity is such a guess. Though I take it you wouldn't jump off a building to test said theory. Theory is much more important in science than 'fact' (since theories explain facts), something that seems to confuse many laymen because the terms are used in opposite fashion in day-to-day conversation.
lucretius1 9 months ago
@lucretius1
A theory is not only an educated guess, but one's own professional opinion (when evidence runs out and speculation commences - especially in cutting-edge fields of study). Yes. A theory does help to explain the facts supporting any given theory, but (in regards to Sir Isaac Newton) what I think you're referring to - common sense, is something different entirely.
informationsponge 9 months ago
@informationsponge I would hardly call the Big Bang Theory cutting-edge. Yes there are aspects of the theory that require more explanation, but the basics of the Big Bang Theory have been solid science for at least 50 years, it is a theory backed up by loads of facts. Just because Brane Theory and theories like it exist doesn't change anything. That would be like saying quantum gravity theories affect the validity of Netwonian Gravity.
lucretius1 9 months ago
@lucretius1
I wasn't referring to the Big Bang theory as cutting-edge. I meant other more advanced fields of study. You're just looking to argue for arguments' sake. Whatever. I'm finished.
informationsponge 9 months ago
@informationsponge You responded to both parts of my video attacking the credibility of most of my major points - and then after my rebuttals you claim I'm arguing for arguments sake? Come now.
lucretius1 9 months ago 10
@lucretius1
No. I never attacked the credibility (as if you're Monsignor Georges Lemaitre). I merely commented on the inaccuracy of SOME of your "major points".
A fact is a simple statement that everyone believes. It is innocent, unless found guilty. A hypothesis is a novel suggestion that no one wants to believe. It is guilty, until found effective.
informationsponge 9 months ago
@informationsponge
A fact is a statement that has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, popularity has nothing to do with it. Also claims are not innocent nor guilty. and thirdly if you make a claim it is you who has a burden of proof and nobody has to disprove your claim if you cannot provide evidence. Epistemology 101 and science 101 and Law 101.
SexyArcanine666 9 months ago
@SexyArcanine666
That is a quote from Edward Teller used to make a point which you OBVIOUSLY missed. Do you even know who Edward Teller is? I didn't think so. A word of advice, you shouldn't participate in a conversation about theories if you lack the intellectual capacity to recognize simple sarcasm. A bit of STFU 101.
informationsponge 9 months ago
@informationsponge
Those who use sarcasm and quotes cannot be expected to be understood nor taken seriously. Common sense 101.
SexyArcanine666 9 months ago
@SexyArcanine666
Only by people like you (and you're a very minute percentage). Really... quit while you're behind. LOL
informationsponge 9 months ago
@lucretius1 SCIENCE BATTLE! i believe u came out on top ;) thanks for the vid dude, extremely informative and helpful, ill look at my universe in a different way thanks to u
theslayerofvirgins 8 months ago
@lucretius1 i think you just got trolled.
tuseroni 5 months ago
I don't really fully understand the Big Bang Theory to be honest, I have some serious questions. I have this idea that time is infinite whether you go back to the past or into the future, but I keep hearing the phrase "beginning of time" in these videos. What exactly was "before time"? Are you telling me there was a time where no matter or energy existed, or is there like infinite smallness or something? I hope I didn't sound retarded just now, I'm just very curious and I want to learn something
dksilentbob 10 months ago
@dksilentbob The current view of our understanding of the question "What happened 'before' the Big Bang?" is explained with the idea "What is south of the South Pole?" Einstein's theory of relativity states that time and space are relative to each other and that during the Plank Epoch time did not exist as we know it today. I know Wikipedia get poo pooed by people who don't understand it but i highly suggest it for reading on this subject. There is nothing "retarded" about curiosity.
JanusChristIsRisen 10 months ago
@JanusChristIsRisen Thanks
dksilentbob 10 months ago
@dksilentbob
In response to your thoughtful question, there was no time or space 'before' the Big Bang. Time and space, as complex conjugates, were initiated together at the Big Bang. Although, it is still accurate to say that the vacuum of totality which contains the universe has always existed. It's just that spacetime is required for anything to happen. It's also accurate to say that time is in the universe but the universe is not in time because the universe is in a subatomic state
Cheers
lynchmobb2000 10 months ago
@lynchmobb2000 thank you
dksilentbob 10 months ago
@lynchmobb2000 Technically, it's very difficult to determine what happened before the big bang. The multibang theory in fact is the idea that the universe keeps going through a cycle of big bangs and big crunches again and again, but with no possible way of leaving any trace of the universe before. So, there might have been something before, we just don't know.
GnarlyNewEngland 10 months ago
@GnarlyNewEngland
I think we're on the same page. Lawrence Krauss is the preeminent name these days on the topic and his thesis is that the universe is a peculiar kind of uncaused field generated by the vacuum.
The vacuum is the irreducible primary of existence and so there was never a point when it did not exist. To say that existence at one time did not exist is to violate the law of non-contradiction, and since it is not possible for nothing to exist, something has 'always' existed
Cheers
lynchmobb2000 10 months ago
Thank you for posting this!
rhcp27la 1 year ago
I'm a Christian but this, I have to admit, is an amazing video. I love physics!!!!
FreeTunes498 1 year ago
wonderful video lucretius!
thanks for ur time to do this ;)
dogmiagy 1 year ago
What's the piano piece playing in the background of these videos?
timpani112 1 year ago
@timpani112 I made this a while ago, but most of the pieces in these videos are by Sergei Rachmaninoff. I forget which ones I used though, sorry!
lucretius1 1 year ago
@lucretius1 Well, at least now I know where to look for it, and that's all I need. Thank you, and good vids btw.
timpani112 1 year ago
@timpani112 impromptus of schubert!
jbhkb1 10 months ago
@timpani112 the last one is an impromptu of schubert!
jbhkb1 10 months ago
When I look at the reactions of christians, it seems to me christianity is coming to an end. You are really clutching at straws and don't even sound christian anymore. Then again you barely ever have.
ThomasHaine 1 year ago
@ThomasHaine yes, it is very hard to argue about facts and evidence
derrixk 1 year ago
some people are crazy!
mikethunder84 1 year ago
When is science going to link the M Theory to the Big Bang Theory. Thanks :)
GSNass 1 year ago
Comment removed
kdc43 1 year ago
@kdc43
But we have observed this inflation in a way. We have observed Microwave Background Anisotropy, which means that the background radiation of the universe is incredibly uniform, down to a remarkable ~10e-5 degrees. This is exactly what inflation predicts.
Inflation also accounts for the exact energy density of the universe because the bubble of false of vacuum - which is the mechanism of inflation - accounts for the predicted ~10e90 grams of gravitational potential energy.
lynchmobb2000 1 year ago
@lynchmobb2000 I have a theory. "Cause and Effect". A god or gods or super beings from a another universe caused a Big Bang energy pulse which resulted in a tiny "bubble" which rapidly expanded 14 billion years ago to form our Universe.And thus the background radiation. They made basic life forms, which can not evolve into another life form. (ape-like to human). However the life forms use Darwinian Evolution to change into a different version of the same life form,IE, Darwin's Finches. Etc,Etc.
kdc43 1 year ago
@kdc43
You have a theory? You mean you pulled something out of your ass so that you can keep your god in the story?
So if you have a theory, what experiments have you done? What data have you collected?
How do you account for the existence of "god or gods or superbeings"?
What other evidence do you have of created beings who can created energy and/or matter to support your.... ahem.... hypothesis?
lynchmobb2000 1 year ago
@lync Such anger from a "dispassionate" science person! Cause: I push your god-phobic button. Effect: Your irrational anger. Simple Science. And it teaches C/E, the background radiation, evolution IE,finches.etc. "...keep my god in.."? I was approaching this in an AGNOSTIC way, keeping all possibilities on the table.Using your standards NO ONE can prove Asimov or Sagan or god ever existed! That's a closed mind. You ASSumed I had a god--makes you the ASS!
I listen to the liberal Thom Hartmann.
kdc43 1 year ago
@kdc43 Ok, but you really have avoided answering anything, and simply created another universe(s) AND complex intelligent beings without providing answers as to their formation.
It's like the Panspermia hypothesis. Simply saying it happened somewhere else now opens the can of worms of "where did it come from and how did THAT come about?" etc.
It's all well and good postulating something without evidence, but only if it actually attempts to explain something and is falsifiable.
Macque77 1 year ago
@Macque77 No, that's the Materialsts, they can not explain what caused the Big Bang and so they say (with out evidence or observation,mind you) our universe budded off another universe in a another dimension.So where did that one come from??? So they take this budding process,cosmos before cosmos, back to infinity-past. It's just a cop-out non-answer.
kdc43 1 year ago
@kdc43 I don't have enough space in this comments section to point out how many things are wrong with that reply.
Macque77 1 year ago
@jamestaylorguy
There wasn't "matter" to begin with. There was mass.
Matter came later.
That you do not understand this fundamental concept of physics means you wouldn't understand whatever else I tried to explain to you.
But what is certain is that the process did not involve a giant fairy wishing the mass into the universe.
BTW: You're also asking the wrong question, but again, you're clearly not educated enough to understand that, either. But, in any event, no giant fairy.
middlekk 1 year ago
I don't necessarily disagree with any of what is being taught here on this video. In theory, all things that are discovered about this topic is based on scientific assumptions consolidated with data from centuries past. Similarity to religious belief in my opinion. From an elementary statistical standpoint, a standard normal curve does not end definitely. Therefore, the probability of any of these "theories" being 100% true is 0. That's cut and dry.
mr2mchpayne 1 year ago
@mr2mchpayne No theory in science claims to be 100% true, this simply can not be as we do not know what we'll learn tomorrow.
Also, do realize that, as the make of the video said, a 'theory' is the highest attainable status for a hypothesis. These are backed up by mountains of (observable, testable) evidence . Also, any hypothesis needs to make predictions which must come true.
To claim that science is like a religion is so laughable that you could kill the most serious man alive from laughing.
tiaxanderson 1 year ago
Great video's TYVM!
TheStrangeControl 1 year ago
thank you. you explained it very well.
zulfitareen 1 year ago
Part 1: This video contains content from Sony Music Entertainment. It's no longer available in your country. I love Youtube..
bgbondage 1 year ago
The exponentially expanding of the universe seems like mass/stuff/energy which disappears from a sphere. That could explain the matter/antimatter question. Theres a feeding. Enerergy spews from the sphere.
Can the sphere be god?
Is all we know just coming from the hole in the sphere? Does god get less from the feeding?
Kolenschopper 1 year ago
Really nice video. I learned a lot, it was interesting and had good music.
dirtbones 1 year ago
Why do people have to come on this video and argue against science with Christanity? There are so many religions out there, and for me, I don't think we will ever know what will happen to us when we die. I also don't think the big bang theory is real either. Whatever created the universe is probably so beyond our imagination. That's why the Big Bang theory it is called a THEORY..to all you guys trollin' on this video. You don't have to believe this is what REALLY happened, cause it's not proven
xDisturbedDemon 1 year ago
@xDisturbedDemon
A theory is not a guess, it is a model, and the big bang does have evidence. The more evidence that supports the theory the stronger it is. Science 101
SexyArcanine666 9 months ago 4
so whats it expanding in to
YamaKazoo 1 year ago
great video!very educational my friend =]
ortegapeter 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
wow what an ending to yesterdays show, I just saw the episode again online at lastnightstvshows (.) com
dampnecessity3649 1 year ago
here is a answer to every religious idiot trying to put GOD in to this;
dont watch this video, go with your idiotic god storys elsewere and stop trying to convince us that god is real.... it wont work... that idiotic childrens story wont work...
JackSparrow424 1 year ago
What happen before big bang...?
williamwong6287 1 year ago
Thanks for this! I watched both videos, and I have a better grasp on this stuff for class now.
psych0tych0 1 year ago
@psych0tych0 haha me too... used his videos to help me for my "Black Holes and Beyond" final tomorrow!
bodymovingmusiq 1 year ago
@bodymovingmusiq Isn't YouTube a great learning tool? :P
psych0tych0 1 year ago
A few questions here! Did the gravity separate from the unified force BEFORE or AFTER the Planck era? In the map of CMB, the blue regions represents more matter density than the red ones?
Rabastan 1 year ago
Thank you for this. I'd like to hear about how dark matter plays into the whole synopsis.
drjones555 1 year ago
@drjones555
Atoms or elements that are produced during any one of the early phases that we don't have on earth.
roaming85 1 year ago
A big bang video without a Nephilimfree filibuster...how did you manage that? Seriously-great video-thanks for posting!
kingjoe99 1 year ago
Excellent intro... bravo.
8897670 1 year ago
Black holes!!!!
CloudsofBliss 2 years ago
I don't know about that map at 2:00. Take a close look. Don't those shapes look familiar? I see Africa in the middle, Australia on the right, New Guinea above and Antarctica below, a barely visible Europe, a speckling of South America... it's either a co-incidence or what was recorded was in fact just a reflection of the water density of Earth's surface.
I could be wrong here...
hismadjesty 2 years ago
Yep, you would be mistaken to think this was a map of the Earth. Look at a world map, and actually compare it to this. You'd see that there is no possible way to draw the conclusion you just did.
lucretius1 2 years ago 11
I did. Throw a little anthropomorphism in there and try again. It's a little warped, but several of the blue marks line up with parts of the world that don't have much water.
hismadjesty 2 years ago
I saw a bunny in a cloud.
Conclusion: Bunnies can fly
sam4084 2 years ago 5
yeesh. never mind. there's too much stupidity on youtube for anyone to even consider a neat little co-incidence like that funny.
hismadjesty 2 years ago
Great vid. Concise and researched. I just didn't like the way that theory was pushed as if it was fact. If Theory means guess in layman terms, it should not law to others. the way that it sounded like a bible thumper just with facts, still feels bad to the listener.
Chaxar 2 years ago
Yes, [theory] does mean [guess] in layman's terms, but in scientific terms a [guess] is called a [hypothesis], and a [theory] is as close to the layman's [fact] as you can get. This misalignment is often used by creationists to confuse people, often deliberately, because they don't expect you to read a dictionary.
hismadjesty 2 years ago
I'm just a curious musician, so take this w/a grain of salt and patronize me if warranted, BUT...if everything we know CAME from the big bang, then how can we still LOOK back at it's radiation/EM waves? Are we essentially looking back onto ourselves? This is how I would simply conceptualize this. So, how then can we exist in one place yet look at ourselves in the past at the same time? There has to be something to this "expansion of space time" that I don't get. Is there math 4 it? lol
stevegregorymusic 2 years ago
It takes sun light 8 minutes to arrive at earth. If the sun were to go out it would take us 8 minutes to know. Essentially if you were to look at the sun you are looking at the sun as it was 8 minutes ago. You are looking back in time. The closest star to the sun is 4 light years away, if you look at it you are looking at it as it appeared 4 years ago. Therefore if you can look far enough away you can see galaxies that existed 13 billion years ago.
RysskiiKrolik 2 years ago
@RysskiiKrolik you gave me goosebumps
DonSelwashington 1 year ago
Awesome, thank you man.
Also, I don't think anyone could read those credits... not that it matters much. xD
ebonymoonwalk 2 years ago
Nice videos lucretius1, keep doing :).
Loa4EVER 2 years ago
You put a picture of Plank while it should be Heizenberg
ffxme 2 years ago
Any video about the big bang will attract religious visitors. If you believe that God created everything, then believe in your faith and do not watch this video.
Laoch121 2 years ago 6
@Laoch121
Their faith about god? You mean their poison and fairy tales
SexyArcanine666 9 months ago
Incredibly well-presented and informative video. And your voice is always so pleasant to listen to.
Thank you for putting this video together. You represented the theory and the scientific community excellently!
Smudge4C 2 years ago
I liked it as well. The only constructive criticism I would give is that at times, the music seems louder than your voice so I had to carefully listen (the music was perfect for the vid, btw, just on the loud side). Good presentation.
Ripley747 2 years ago
I have a doubt. When we talk about big bang, the first thing comes to me is red shifting: all galaxies moving away from us and from themselves thus creating more space between them. What explains andromeda galaxy lights blue shifting? Thanks
nanatzu 2 years ago
Local gravitational attraction in the galaxy cluster overpowers the current expansion. Thus, the galaxy moves towards us.
lucretius1 2 years ago 3
Exactly. The Milky Way and Andromeda are converging and will eventually collide to form a single galaxy.
coconutlulz 1 year ago
I completed my report because of this video. 5 stars. Subscribe. And friends!
JhonnyBoyLive 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
good video! thanks
andyman8300 2 years ago
Question is the cosmic backgound map round when they took a picture?
Ginji989 2 years ago
That "round" (actually elliptical) cosmic map is a two-dimensional computer generated projection compiled from thousands of telescope photos of the three dimensional celestial sphere all around us. Just like similar elliptical projections you've seen of the map of the world.
mosquitobight 2 years ago
ic thanx
Ginji989 2 years ago
Ginji989
The CMB map is a composite of images looking in all directions with the earth at the centre. The real "shape" of the image is the inner surface of a sphere seen from the centre, like a star map.
The shape you see is like a map of the earth, it depends on the projection you use to display it onto a flat surface. They usually show it as an oval, but don't forget that it represents the whole sky.
You can represent it better on the external surface of a sphere - like a "Night Sky Globe".
Nilguiri 2 years ago
I pretty much fucking love you! im up at 2am just finished an assignment for an Astronomy class that would of taken me SOOOOOOOO much longer if you had not of put this video up
THANKS SOOOOOOOO MUCH
GeoffStuartWebb 2 years ago
indeed this theory is very interesting and should be explored, but thats just the thing, it almost seems like we were born to explore the universe and its beauty, to look forward to the unimaginable and see it is as possible, this is the very starting point of science. why shouldn't i believe in god? i do not believe in limit.
herolink0 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What your saying is that a library exploded and a dictionary was formed out of the explosion. Think about this if God did not create us then why do we have emotions unlike the animals but we supposedly evolved from animals. This makes no sense animals have no morals yet we do. Kind of amazing coming from something that was created out of a puddle of "Goo". Now I can tell you your wrong 100% since I explained your misconstrued view of creation, but please think with common since. THINK!!PLZ
jtwet 2 years ago
ok muppet, listen I know the bible and all the fairy tales in it. You must first learn about science and then have a discussion. The nonsense you come up with is hilarious and you look like a total ass. Nothing was created out of a puddle of goo, look up abiogenesis and learn.
smitmick 2 years ago
Great vid for us non-scientific (but interested) types.
eric67t 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Catholic Church Thought up the big bang theory science just adopted it! And the "Little Dot" from the first video was God!
chaoticcrab 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Except, no one has ever seen Stars form. If they did, there are no records of it.
The existence of stars is not evidence that they can form and evolve by themselves.
I know it is impossible for us to watch the formatting of stars according to a law in science, but if its impossible then its all just a theory which is no better than another theory.
boos405 2 years ago
Comment removed
seborinos 2 years ago
It's called the BEST theory. No one is pretending it is 100% correct (unlike religious types who claim their various desert gods "just making it" is a superior idea).
When a better one comes along, this one will be shelved. More likely, though, this one will just continue to be revised as we learn more.
AtheistdotEDU 2 years ago 2
Best scientific* theory.
I'm in no doubt it will improve over time. I'm predicting energy will replace this little dot, or relate to how the dot appeared in the future. :P
boos405 2 years ago
No need to qualify it with "scientific". It IS THE BEST THEORY. Period. There is no theory in any other discipline that compares to it in terms of explaining the cosmos. There is no qualifier needed.
AtheistdotEDU 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Im guessing that your an atheist searching for the 100% true answer but you shun all truth therefore you will not here the truth. please read without rolling the eyes. If you have no religious beliefs then your religion is atheist, but isnt atheism a religion lol. I am not apart of any religion I only believe in the truth. Religion has destroyed and hidden the truth. The truth is that God created the earth and that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation not Religion. Read it for yourself
jtwet 2 years ago
Seriously? You are one of those people who think atheism is a religion? It is NOT a religion, it has NO characteristics of a religion, and atheists are generally only interested in REASONS, not beliefs.
Your religion is an attempt to explain the universe. Because it was an attempt made by pre-scientific desert nomads thousands of years ago, it is a poor attempt and intellectually bankrupt. It is embarassing that you still hold it out as true. Join modernity.
AtheistdotEDU 2 years ago 3
interesting that you know the history of my book. Modernity is the attempt to lean on ones self for explanation yet we have no thought process at all. Name one thing that you do that you did not use a conglomeration of memories to acheive. No man is an island. So why do we look toward other people who are no more intelligent than we are. Are you saying that you are less important than the scientist who came up with the idea. You must be because you lean to his understanding and not your own.
jtwet 2 years ago
I have never claimed the things you are saying I claimed. I know how knowledge is acquired. I also know that the ideas formerly heralded as brilliant have now been eclipsed by new ideas that built upon those and often rejected them, in whole or in part, and so evolved over time.
Modernity has a "thought process" called the scientific method. You shuld learn about it. It is the quest for truth while recognizing that you can be wrong, but the cumulative effect is to move mankind forward.
AtheistdotEDU 2 years ago
Knowledge is nothing without understanding. If you have partial knowledge then you have no knowledge at all. But remember that there is a difference between knowledge and wisdom. The bible says "the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom". Well what is wisdom. The bible says "true wisdom brings life to the living". So what is true wisdom. What is life but a vapor in the vast eternity. So life must mean eternal life, and true wisdom must be the Bible.
jtwet 2 years ago
I dfo not fear your imaginary god, and I think it is embarassing that you do. The Bible is stories made up by Bronze Age desert-dwelling nomads who had no science. If there had been science, there would be no gods to explain things. Unfortunately, imagination reigned before the scientific method was established as the way to uncover "truth" as best we are able as simple primates.
It is pathetic and embarassing that you spread these lies.
AtheistdotEDU 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
jtwet that's the most shameful display of reasoning i've ever seen. i really hope you aren't a model of the majority.
magnesiumchloride77 2 years ago
Im not trying to push you into "Religion". Like is said "religion" has made a mockery of the importance and values illustrated in the bible. Saying that people can say a magical prayer and be saved that is impossible. First you must look at the facts and then it will be much more clear as to whether it is true or not. There are about 2400 seperate prophecies (predictions of future events) that have come true for example. Israel was reborn as a a nation in 1948.
jtwet 2 years ago
In 1966(6 day war the jews regained control of jerusalem. In 1917 the jews were emancipated from austria hungary. Why was the war only six days, because on the seventh God had to give his people rest. What is so amazing is that the US is supposedly the strongest nation in the world yet we are still fighting in Iraq, but the Jews as small as there numbers are won a war and regained control of a whole country in six days. Please level with me and read it. You wont be dissappointed I promise.
jtwet 2 years ago
Such nonsense! You are not paying attention to the THOUSANDS of other wars that were won under unlikely conditions, some of which might have even numerically fulfilled prophecy of some sort or other. This is how conspiracy theorists think: Look only at select facts and a very narrow picture. If you take a longer view of the world, you realize how insignificant it really is.
Your religion is like all the others, and will in time be deposited in the dustbin of myth. The Jews are just people.
AtheistdotEDU 2 years ago
The Bible was not written by desert nomads, it was put together by a Council headed by the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, based on texts considered holy written by Helenized Jewish Philosophers, If you are going to throw insults at people with different beliefs than you, at least have an idea as to what you are talking about.
For the record, Atheists are people who believe no God(s) exists, and strive to constantly shove that belief down everyones throat.
Logotheot 2 years ago
No, you are wrong. It was begun in the Bronze Age by desert nomads, and was compiled and EDITED by Constantine, then later edited again by Roman committees -- because apparently that is how Christians determine the truth.
Your beliefs are based upon lies and political manipulation. Time to just own it. It's not an indefensible position, but it sure makes it all seem like a load of ancient nonsense to me.
AtheistdotEDU 2 years ago 19
There was no bible before Constantine. His people put it together from a selection of 300 holy texts from Christians. They decided on 30 which most accurately reflected the spiritual and moralistic values of Roman culture at the time. The other 270 declared heresy and burned, with the punishment of death for possessing heretical writings.
Nomads are almost by rule illiterate, sticking to oral tradition. The original texts were written by helenized jews with ties to mystic cults.
Logotheot 2 years ago
// There was no bible before Constantine //
That's not quite accurate. The Jewish Scriptures were completed before Constantine. "Christian" books were written (some destroyed) by the 2nd century. The First Council of Nicea was 325 CE. Constantine died in 337 CE. The Western Christian version of the NT was listed by Athanasius in 367 CE. To this day, not all Christian denominations use the same version of the Bible.
musekiteer 2 years ago
@Logotheot
Not to mention the old testament was copy catted from non Abrahamic religions of Mesopotamia
SexyArcanine666 9 months ago
For the record, you have labelled all non-believers and claimed that all of us act the same way - constantly striving to "shove that belief down everyones throat", yet (as usual for theists) provide no evidence or show any signs that you know what you are talking about.
How can you believe that the Bible is the absolute truth when it was composed/modified by a 'council' over 1500 years ago - how can "God's truth" be determined by those few mere mortals?
Smudge4C 2 years ago
I suppose I should point out a couple of things. First, I was speaking about people who label themselves Atheists. Second, you are guilty of exactly what you accuse me of, making an assumption.
For the record, I am not a theist, I don't subscribe to any doctrine whether it be organized religion or spiritual, nor do I believe anyone on Earth knows the truth about the full nature of the kosmos. However, from observation I can easily see the common nature of people who label themselves atheist.
Logotheot 2 years ago
I support the evidence, its more probably correct. We could be wrong, because anyone can.
dmcgraye 2 years ago
without theists there would be no "atheist's". I always thought "atheist" was a derogatory term similar to heathen used by "theists" to point out non believers. "Atheism" has just developed into another belief when really it is the rejection of belief's, There are many kinds of Atheism and all children are born Atheists for they do not know of god. If someone has never been taught of god they will accept science because it employs logic and evidence. just some thoughts :P
Bradtomshore 2 years ago 2
Love it!
b1gr1g 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I've heard that evolution is a theory for the judicious...
And so, thinking logical, if You see a wooden tower in a forest
You are sure, that somebody have built it there some time before.
But... next to it, there is also a perfectly organized 'city': an ant-hill.
It's full of working hard, similar to miniature robots, insects.
COULD THIS appear without an intelligence?
(And could intelligence exist without a personality and a mind?)
Is THIS judicious?
ZooropaDweller 2 years ago
stupid creationist
waspboy1 2 years ago
Hey Waspboy!
the power of Your argument just blown me away...
ZooropaDweller 2 years ago 2
wow well i was making a point evolution doesn't need a divine intervention and the whole argument if u see it and looks complex somebody made it now thats just silly life is complex but not perfect ur eye isn't prefect it has blind spots and u have organs u don't need y would a creator do that?
waspboy1 2 years ago
The difference between a wooden tower and a tree/anthill is this:
We have good scientific reason to assume that the wooden tower was 'created'. There is someone claiming to be the creator, we can get the creator's designs, we can observe this creator doing the creating, and we can see the creation's individual parts.
Also: the anthill was created by the ants! There's no intelligence needed for that. Perhaps you can argue that the ants themselves need a creator/designer, but not the anthill.
Smudge4C 2 years ago
thats the dumbest thing I've ever heard, ants are plenty intelligent, and most importantly they are life forms. Get it?
dmcgraye 2 years ago
Brilliant
blauwen 2 years ago
For anyone asking the question "But what came before this? Who started it, why did it happen?"
Think about this, and don't think about it like you normally would. Expand your brain.
There is no start to time. Time is man-made. It is infinite in both directions. Nobody started, and there's no reason for it to have happened. It just happened. And there is no "God". Humans are nothing on this spectrum.
Dikfore 2 years ago 2
I like what you're trying to say, but I must point out one problem with what you said.
Time is not man made - time existed before man, before animals, before Earth.
Smudge4C 2 years ago
Yeah, you're right. I should rephrase that. I meant the concept of "time" is man made. I don't think we can possibly understand time. What we set down as "units of time", such as minutes, hours, days, years, they're all set by revolutions of Earth and orbit around the sun, and divisions of that to make it easier to express in words. To set something around Earth (which is just another rock going around a star) is ridiculous.. it's such a tiny part of the big picture, but it's all we know.
Dikfore 2 years ago
Pretty cool video... and very good explanation too, honestly... Lucretius1, I really think you have done a very good video that teach real science... respectfully, A minor observation that shouldn't discourage you: Don't do self-serving bias by stating that scientist do have an idea but can't come with a theory... you're having faith, a good thing when founded on reality, but recognize limitations (You did it at part 1 by saying "we really don't know")- Overall pretty good job, really
CentenoxVillager 2 years ago
accepting creationism is fairly stupid. Science has proved soooo many things in our lives, and provides a visual explanation for life and possibly the future. All creationism has done is provide us with a story, no facts, no proof, no realism. Until religious people provide facts and proof of their belief , it will still just be another theory in my mind. Nothing against religion, but "JUST BELIEVE" only works for so long when facts and proof is right in front of us. Religion is ignorant.
robofriven 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i have heard so many theories and yet still not convinced about the big bang theory, can't anybody accept creationism
jackdonekings 2 years ago
No. Nobody can accept creationism, because it is proven wrong.
You can measure the background radiation leftover from the Big Bang. We can see the beginnings of the universe with radiotelescopes.
The fact that you don't understand it is an "argument from ignorance". Just because YOU don't get it, doesn't mean it isn't real.
I'm sure you don't get quantum physics, yet it runs your computer.
middlekk 2 years ago 16
OK, middle KK, where did ANY water come from?
How about matter & energy itself?
aquaiz 2 years ago
The matter and energy of all the universe came from the Big Bang. The Big Bang came from a singularity. The singularity came from an interaction at the boundary of the multiverse.
You know, there are lots and lots of books on this subject. Maybe you should read one before you sound like more of a moron.
middlekk 2 years ago 4
well water is H2O so it came from a mixture of Big bang Nulceosynthesis (this giving H) and stealler Nulceosynthesis (this giving O). oh and matter is Atoms. And as for energy due to E=mc2 energy and matter are the same thing.
ConradCserjen 2 years ago
I most certainly have learned quite a bit from this. I must admit that I don't understand it anywhere near as well as you clearly do, but I understand more than I did before watching the video. I think VenomFangX should watch this. It kinda destroys a lot of Kent Hovind's arguments.
Mitchillio 2 years ago
Hey guys, is it just me, or do the 'darker' regions in the cosmic background radiation look a hell of a lot like a map of earth? I seem to notice North and South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, even Australia!
Waranoa 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
thats because he does not know all he is doing is making assumptions based on his study
jackdonekings 2 years ago
Can you be more specific? Btw, don't give this guy negative feedback for replying with his honest opinion. We will be civilized.
Waranoa 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hey stop talking about evidence. The more I listen to you the more i realize you have no evidence. Youre just trying to make everything sound factual but they are purely conjectures. You seem to keep forgetting that youre basing everthing on theories (quantum theories, etc). Theories are not facts. Smart really smart!
HOMERJALZFFER 2 years ago
he's just explaining the theory...
Ihatepeople666z 2 years ago 3
shut ur pie hole
at least were learning wat the big bang theory is
i dont see u making anything except insults because ur too slow to make this so shut the hell up
manageo01 2 years ago
I hope you're one of the people who actually believes that god decided to create light and light appeared, because if not you're just stupid. The big bang is a theory weaved from other theories. I'll listen and take seriously what you haev to say when you've come back with a PhD in a relevant subject and know what you're talking about.
226906 2 years ago
Great idea! why dont you ask the author of this video if he has one.
AVillanueva83 2 years ago
"You seem to keep forgetting that youre basing everthing on theories (quantum theories, etc). Theories are not facts. Smart really smart!" How about you drag your ass off to wikipedia and learn the scientific definition of "theory". then come back.
manhunt48 2 years ago 6
Comment removed
BjornVH12 2 years ago
Comment removed
BjornVH12 2 years ago
But if the big bang was before anything and at the beginning of every "thing" (non-living) shouldn't it have had some part in the living part? How are they connected?
pitudog 2 years ago
The Big Bang is a theory that tell us how our universe began and changed on a large scale. Abiogenesis, while it takes place after the Big Bang, is a different field of study which looks at the origin of life. Just like evolution and the Big Bang are not the same thing, even though biological evolution happened after the Big Bang did, they are two different theories which seek to answer radically different questions.
lucretius1 2 years ago
They're not, except that without the BB, hydrogen wouldn't have formed, and without H, stars wouldn't have formed, and without stars, other elements wouldn't have formed, and without other elements, the solar system wouldn't have formed, and without the solar system, Earth wouldn't be here and without Earth, life on Earth wouldn't have started.
It's a pretty long line. 13.7 billion years long. Only 5 billion for our solar system. 3.5 for life on Earth.
middlekk 2 years ago
Quick question. Going past how the big bang formed planets and elements...how did the big bang create life? Where did life begin? How did it begin? Does the big bang explain the beginning of all life? Do you have another video for that?--thanks
pitudog 2 years ago
The Big Bang is not the theory to study if you want to understand the origin of life. I'd take a look at abiogenesis. It is a theory built around understanding the origin of life on Earth. A good book to read is called "Genesis" by Robert M. Hazen on the matter. One of the newest books on the field of study.
lucretius1 2 years ago
awesome video man well done!!
kyleabr17 2 years ago