Einstien's perception of "God" was more grounded on rational thought. That is, simply the force, the first in the chain of existence. He did not, in any shape of form, believe in the paternal fatherly figure on the cloud that allows his loved ones to burn in a furnace and justifies it on terms of "free will." Get a clue, people!
@DrunkenGamingMaster For that translation of what you think God to be I don't see how you validate your point. Many scientists I know are religious people, and for that reason work in conjunction with science to derive empirical objective data to anchor personal belief(s). Science is an effective tool for reductionists to disassemble the works of the divine and discover the true awe inspiring genius that lays the foundation of everything we have known, know, and will know.
There is only Reaity, which we are endeavoring to understand, and Reality Itself IS G-d. Therefore there is only G-d. All powers, all places, all information. Omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.
if one decribes this total, self-evident, inherently singular and necessarily subjective, and implicitly Conscious, as indicted by the fact that consciousness arises WITHIN IT, then we have an excellent description of Real God. Not a magical 'being' somehow separate from Reality, but Reality itself. The mere fact that from the expansion of space-time WE eventually emerged to discuss these matters is miraculous enough for me. People search for 'mythical' God, when Real God is all there is.
of course meant to describe everything that is, including space-time etc.. String Theory is meant to describe Reality. If one thinks of Reality itself, which is self-evident insofar as we recognize that existence exists, and hence subjective (like the original Hebrew expression I AM) outside of which there cannot be anything because Reality by definition is all inclusive, and in areas Conscious, as evidenced by the self evident fact that we are conscious entities and a part of the universe...
if one defines 'GOD' as some 'other' or 'separate' 'being' that 'created' a 'separate' universe then you are in the area of "The God Delusion", but if you penetrate the implications of the original conception, not the popular exoteric one, but rather the esoteric principles of Omniscience, Omnipresence, and Omnipotence, along with the original Hebrew expression for the what we call "God" in English, which was simpy The I AM, then you are really talking about total Reality. The Unified Theory is
2 Kings 18:18. 'Sennacherib' = "Dust", 'Hezekiah' = "Returns"... funny how the author of the Bible knew more about the Universe and neutrinos than science does today., much ado about nothing!
@ 29:00 he says "so if you tried to observe the vaccum you would disturb it" Whats he trying to say ? Is that on an atomic level we are controlling particals with our minds ?
@YamaKazoo He's referring to the general principle of getting information from A to B. By 'disturbing' he means that there has to be an interaction with the thing you're observing in order to verify that you're observing it. For example every object in your room reflects light in order for you to see it. And in the case of what he talks about precision is a very important. And to get precision at such scales you need to increase the precision of your apparatus.
@YamaKazoo And in this case the apparatus is light. The higher the precision of your appratus ( light ) which essentially means the higher frequency of it, the better your observation will be. But in the same case the energy of the light is so great with these frequencies at that scale that you're pretty much uncertain of the future state of the system you're observing. This doesn't have anything to do with your 'mind. He's referring to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
as a last resort in order to re-open negotiations with the administration on the subject of restrictions on political speech and action on campus. Among other grievances was the fact that four of their leaders were being singled out for punishment
I'm pretty disappointed. All this incredible science, we got a brief sneak peak at some, at least for me, unfathomable concepts. and all I see in top rated comments are discourses on religion. I hope the reverse will be true when I youtube Moses.
@AndyJohns100 Clearly, Religion may be more important to the individuals than what is in this video... Anyway, nothing of science has disproved God. Remarkable, isn't it. I believe in God and yet love science. Go figure.
@dirtybizz Einstein was Jewish by nationality and he was a atheist, as expampled by his writings concerning the bible. He considered the bible stories written to frighten children. Look it up on the Internet, it's all available.
@RayetWolf Einstein was in fact not Atheist. He even changed his laws of universal expansion, added an extra non-existent force to make the size of the universe constant, just to make the math match up with his beliefs.
@alliedtoasters I suggest you read about what Einstein said, not what he did. He was definitely an Atheist. He never added a force, he added a cosmological constant. Then he took it out of the equation, although he was right adding it because it matched what Hubble saw happening in the universe. Einstein considered the bible to be a book of fairy tales to scare children, and that was his own words.
I'm sorry, the claim I made was without evidence or support. I was repeating what my cosmology professor once told our class, but I didn't think to realize that perhaps what he was saying was myth. It seems I could have been a fool to take to heart what my educator told me.
Even still, I just want to say from an agnostic's standpoint, seriously, Atheists are assholes. I wouldn't describe Einstein to be Atheist based on this evidence, because Atheists are out to control the world.
@alliedtoasters It's better than having people that believe in the tooth fairy and spirit man in the sky control the world. From what I have seen in my life, Atheists are more rational minded than anyone that believes in myth. Just look at G. W. Bush's theocracy and what damage he did to knowledge. Also, who else is better to keep you theists from killing each other over a make believe deity.
@RayetWolf No, I don't think it's better. I, personally, think it's important for each individual to realize that he has no right to hurt any other individual. Several religious figures, such as the Islamic profit Mohammed (sorry Muslims, not gonna say PBUH until Islam stops producing combat-types), professed the very same idea. So why does it matter how somebody reaches pacifism, through religion or through reason? Some people are too simple to understand reason, and need a deity to teach peace
@RayetWolf Yes, religion will always breed war, but, in my opinion, modern religion breeds more good than it does evil. I think that a lot more people would be without morals had it not been for religious upbringings.
This is why I identify as a spiritual agnostic, NOT an Athiest.
@dirtybizz actually he was in a fundamental way, he believed in a God and he admited that his idea of God came from what he was taught by Christianity however, he did not believe as modern christians do that theres a little judgemental and ornery old man in a robe standing on cloud nine judging us all individually and sending 99% of us to hell because he can. So while he did believe in God it was more of a universal view and he did state to the press this had origins in christianity.
@dirtybizz actually he was cathloic, and in his early years when to a catholic school, and soon after joining said school, his believe in God failed. Then in his later years, he began to see a constrution to the universe. Thus he began believing in an Almight Person, he however, didn't believe in the God of Abraham. (spelling is not my focus so please forgive me if there are any grammerical issues.)
I'm no dr. But I think nothing should just be left to the work of others I.e. E=mc2 I'm not that bright but I'm smart enough to know that we have just scratched the surface matter time space and thier realationship to eachother.
Sweet! I saw him give this speech when he came to the University of Kentucky in 2007. I only vaguely remember what it was about so I'm glad to be able to watch it again!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
IF there was a "big bang" that was the origin of the universe.....THEN where was the "big bang" before it banged? What did the "big bang" explode INTO? What/Where did it explode and how did it get there?
Evolution says first there was nothing...and then it exploded....also ignoring what this nothing exploded into...what was holding the "nothing" in place and where is that place?
No matter how one tries....God cannot be ignored. God is the only un-caused cause and he established all.
The concept of where the big bang "was" is a moot point, since all of space was condensed into a singularity the question of " where it was" shows your ignorance on the subject.
Gravity was holding all of the matter in the universe int a single point, it wasn't "nothing" but everything.
Just because science hasn't given all the answers yet, your feeble childlike mind must inject a deity so that you feel safe and correct.
@yuothineyesasian name calling aside, i agree with you about the singularity state of the universe. at the moment of the "big bang" (assuming thats how it happened) the dimensions of time, space, and everything else were suddenly evoked from nothing. So couldn't it be argued that the source of all existence, the foundation of all matter is not a particle or a wave or anything else, but nothingness itself?
"the dimensions of time, space, and everything else were suddenly evoked from nothing."
That is an assumption you are making, There is no current way to gauge the accuracy of that statement one way or the other. You've been told this (erroneously) and you simply regurgitate it as fact.
@SinclairNicholas why do you feel insignificant? or are you trying to become better than another in your life? one does not simply use such big words unless they are trying to be a dick. trying to give off the false appearance of being smart, or they feel insignificant, so which are you?
@TwoTekah I'm going to assume you meant that message for someone else, since "Go regurgitate your condescension somewhere else" is the only thing I've written above. But if you're message were intended for me, I would tell you not to construct false dilemmas.
@yuothineyesasian how do you know this for sure. ? was it realy like that. ? did the big bang realy happen ? im totaly not religious... but i still doubt the big bang theory..why is the univers a vacum..?
Every bit of astronomical data we have points directly to some form of big bang/inflationary cosmology. It's where the facts, current theories, and logic direct us to go. And it's backed up by mounds of indirect observational evidence and experimental data.
Just because we can't say that we're 100% sure, without a doubt, does not mean that all the knowledge and facts we've accumulated, all the truth we've found, doesn't give us a huge piece of the puzzle.
To all of the above: Yieri...meaningless....Eruditepolymath....child.......yuothineyesasian....where did this "singularity" come from?...hmmm?.....Scientists are the least objective people on the planet. They fight every innovation and paradigm shift until the bitter end. Just because you don't like God to be the creator does not mean he isn't. Something does NOT happen out of nothing....so there was something...you call it a singularity...but what caused that? You can't get away from God.
As I said before science, as of yet, cannot explain the origin of the universe or the singularity. But that does not such warrant such ignorance as unwavering belief in fairy tales.
You point out what you consider to be flaws in scientific theories such as the origin of the singularity, and then attempt to trump those ideas by insering your own unvalidated 'beliefs' that ignore the same points you made before. Such as god's inception. Where did he come from?
You state that your God is an 'uncaused cause' and then state that 'Something does not come from nothing', with apparently no recognition to the hypocrisy and inherent self defeating nature of your own argument.
I would love to believe nothing more than that there is a loving, benevolent, benefactor who will punish the wicked and honor the just, but there are two types of people in this world, the tough minded and the tender minded. Me being of the former I do not accept brass assuptions.
I triple dog dare you to come up with a completely logical verification for the statement that god is the uncaused cause. Or any rational argument that leads to the deduction that your assumptions are any closer to objective truth than exstensively proven scientific theories.
You are way out of your league here, you deny scientific truths of which you have not even the slightest education in, about, or of. Then inject baseless ideas simply because they fill the gaps you don't understand.
And if you are saying God is un-caused, how did he get here? Was he floating in space for an infinite amount of time prior to the creation of the universe, then one day decided, "HEY! I'll make some little people to worship me and follow my rules! If they don't follow my rules, I'll condemn them to eternal punishment!!" ??
Who created God?
The Big Bang something that has been all but proven 100% thanks mostly to Einstein.
I must admit that I find it very much to my chagrin to debate this over a computer, a piece of electronics that operates on the basis of quantum electrodynamics, which is the very branch of physics that explains so many of the intracacies of the origin of the universe. If only your ability to make an argument were enough to challenge me mentally, but so few of the people I engage this subject with can.
Exactly! With that Crazy650c who claims that scientists are not objective....
Scientists back track their models all the way to a singularity and therefore they have the decency of not saying anything beyond that. The scientific method is the most objective investigative method ever conceived.
And as you said, here you are arguing science with a device that would not work at all if it was not for quantum mechanics.
what god? thare are planty.. what? the stolen from the egiptians by the desert dwellers abrachamic adobted by the romans god or some other 'only' 'almighty' 'all-knowing' piece of human fears?
Obama won the nobel prize also so it can tell us a lot about what the nobel prize is about; it is a politically motivated prize and I bet most of those who get it are political spies or conformists of the criminals who control the world since the 1950's and eventually took over the whole world in the name of satan to destroy the world.
If you know how to map 11 dimensions into 3 plus time in a sensible manner then call your local String Theorist and let him know. I predict he'll be interested.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If i study this at university (physics/astrophysics/cosmology) what kind of job can I get? There must be alot of people studying this, NASA cant take everyone.. can we still make a good fortune? like at least 100,000/year ?
Being a physist insnt nessessarly about the money, if you want a high paying job you should become a medical doctor. But ive read that physists make about 90,000 to 120,000 a year
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
okay thats good enough?
but would a masters in science + minor in math , get me a 90,000 job? Cause lets see i expect to enter university at around 18, and i hope to beable to make $90k at around 25... or 26 , but no later than 28.. hm. i wonder if I would beable to afford an Audi S5...
Consider ... the laws of nature, our environment, and the conditions in which we journey through life may readily be understood by discovering and uncovering the underlying law of nature (singular).
Does it exist? What could it be?
The most effective and efficient approach we can take to understanding the way of all things is to question, seek out and identify this single, fundamental, underlying law of nature upon which all laws are based.
fundamental unity of all existence -- through a universal, all pervading, time and space transcending entity, you can call it UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS.
Seems everybody wants to "debunk" string theory and prove how smart they are. These debunkers never reveal what they think is really happening or come up with alternate theories.
very very interesting... string theory is a very interesting theory but i do not believe that it is true... i believe in the parallel universe theory which states that there are many universe out there and that there are multiple copes of each of us. These copies are different in many ways. They may be completely different or they may be very similar.
we do not yet posses the energy to prove that strings exist. as someone said, the f theory is 21st century physics that fell into the 20th century. i believe that with advancements in nuclear fusion we will gain the possibility to proves the mathematical models accurate.
"I was saying that unification is only necessary from an aesthetic point of view , not the other way around. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the universe should conform to our mathematical whims or expectations.
Strings sounds to me like the fable of bored physicist armed with over sophisticated maths, too much free time and not enough experimental data to work on. A mathematical paradigm with a "build in" impossible way of providing empirical evidence to back it up."
I think that the uiverse adheres to laws that are contiguous. As Einstein famously stated, "God does not play dice". I agree with you about the mathematics though. There should be some as yet undiscovered "Algebra" that can rectify the gaps in physics. Einstein actually suggested this before he died... Too bad Newton isn't around anymore to discover it.
I disagree completely...the more you understand the system, the more you can harnass the potential.
every single breakthrough in physics and QM has produced incredible breakthroughs shortly after...simply because the more we understand a system, the more we understand everything in general and make fun devices to use it
quantum entanglment...connected instant information universe...you really see no potential for tech in that..
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This is garbage. Where is the new knowledge? Where is the excitement of discovery? This is dog and pony, "look at me...I'll come and entertain you with my brain it you gawk at me" Too common. Einstein, Feinmen= rebels. Keep digging and come back with something real. Sorry if any feelings are hurt, but some of us only find real progress mentionable, thanks.
I was hoping this lecture would have been a bit more technical, Its inetresting nonetheless.
That being said, while i enjoy to dabble in physics i am not particularly fond of strings. It seems to me like a redundant theory that doesn't answers much and is over reliant on the necessity of unification ; Something that is only problematic from an aesthetic point of view, which seems to go against the conviction of science in general.
At 15:07 Gross said something i would attribute to strings imo.
Theories don't have to be "real". A good theory just predicts things in real life accurately. Otherwise mathematic and physical theories would be deemed entirely redundant.
I agree. Indeed theories are ,by definition , not required to be "real"... in the strict sense of the word anyway.
However the theory of string is often quoted has a "theory of everything" , which puts it at odds with it being a theory and would be more akin to a philosophy. Furthermore predictions it makes are far beyond what can be observed, many many times smaller than a plank length. Even from a mathematical sense it runs into Godel's incompleteness ,cutting it short of unification.
I disagree - Unification is not aesthetically problematic - its been the overriding "holy grail" of theoretical physics since quantum theory came about. String theory may in fact have achieved that goal. I agree though that the lecture was not challenging enough - I had not one issue trying to keep up intellectually and I am certainly not a physics student at CAL.
I was saying that unification is only necessary from an aesthetic point of view , not the other way around. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the universe should conform to our mathematical whims or expectations.
Strings sounds to me like the fable of bored physicist armed with over sophisticated maths, too much free time and not enough experimental data to work on. A mathematical paradigm with a "build in" impossible way of providing empirical evidence to back it up.
I misunderstood you perhaps. Still - any unnecessary complication is usually only the result of our incomplete understanding. For instance, before quantum theory, Einstein was able to unify the existing known forces when Im sure just 100 years earlier forces as gravity, electricity and magnetism seemed as diverse as a grain of sand and an apple.
There is a new physics theory that explains how steel reinforced concrete buildings can turn to powder and molten metal in just a few seconds. In mid air no less! Amazing yes, but new cartoon models made by NIST explains away any silly misconceptions about gravity or thermodynamics. Demolitions experts are now using kerosene in place of Thermate which is much cheaper and more predictable than previously thought. NIST proves it! Ha!!
I just discovered the cure for insomnia. I think I'll save this link in my blackberry. Ok, I like this stuff but it's way over my head. These are the people who actually remember what they were think about when were tripping on LSD.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
they need to get hotter chicks to bring these guys on stage. who cares that this chick is a professor? we didn't come to hear her speak, why does she need to be smart? why can't she just be hot?
Interesting that he concludes that our concept of time is not right. Spooky action at a distance in quantum correlation already seems to show that two events separated in time appear to happen as one 'thing'. Figuring out what this means sounds like a good starting point.
No. The more two quarks are separated from each other, the greater the attaction between them - like how springs work. This is unlike gravity, magnetism, etc. where the attraction tapers off as distance increases.
It seems that basically everyone knows the equation, as it's probably the most famous equation in the world, but not what it actually means. Most people probably just think that it has something to do with nuclear bombs, and nothing more.
(Cont'd) Frankly, I'm amazed that our flexible brains/minds, which surely were not selected for theoretical physics (or biology, or what-have-you) but which provide such "spandrels" for intellectual/cognitive cooption, have figured out as much reliable knowledge of the universe as it has! Pretty amazing.
People, play nice! I am a novice here, too, but have some background in history and philosophy of science, so I think I grasp the methodological issues around apparently untestable string theory. It is a revolutionary in that methodological regard, and a little worrisome to me. However, what is really interesting is that there is no guarantee that a contingently evolved intelligence such as our own will be so constructed as to be able to understand all aspects of the universe.
I understood nothing in this video, but I still enojoy watching and listening. It is amazing what is known know, and how much we still do not know. I can see now why geniuses go insane trying to figure everything out. Too may why's left to answer.
Then "openuniverse" why don't you do something, if all these physicists are doing nothing then you put some new theory and win NOBEL PRIZE OF 2008. man it's easy to make comment from outside world.. please do come and join us in this endeavor and then you will know that life is not so easy out here.. you will also enjoy it, just come and see.
Maybe the nuclear force is love, no?
ForexReviewsCentral 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
interesting video!
adelle0001 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No such thing as god.
xXDeapAbyssXx 4 months ago
Einstien's perception of "God" was more grounded on rational thought. That is, simply the force, the first in the chain of existence. He did not, in any shape of form, believe in the paternal fatherly figure on the cloud that allows his loved ones to burn in a furnace and justifies it on terms of "free will." Get a clue, people!
DrunkenGamingMaster 4 months ago
@DrunkenGamingMaster For that translation of what you think God to be I don't see how you validate your point. Many scientists I know are religious people, and for that reason work in conjunction with science to derive empirical objective data to anchor personal belief(s). Science is an effective tool for reductionists to disassemble the works of the divine and discover the true awe inspiring genius that lays the foundation of everything we have known, know, and will know.
S0uRxCHAMPAGNE 4 months ago
@DrunkenGamingMaster he believed in spinoza's god
occupynow 3 weeks ago
This guy is a low level physicist to say the least. Never would have made it through MIT, I assure you!
alameda1212 6 months ago
@alameda1212 likely one of the most absurd comments i have seen in a very long time
slovakmath 5 months ago 2
@alameda1212 he has a nobel prize in physics wtf are u talking about?
rsfanlvl108 4 months ago
@alameda1212 are you FUCKING retarded?
mannyfriq 1 month ago
Please read the following in reverse order.. Thank you. Peace. And G-Dd Bless.
108vasudeva 6 months ago
There is only Reaity, which we are endeavoring to understand, and Reality Itself IS G-d. Therefore there is only G-d. All powers, all places, all information. Omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.
108vasudeva 6 months ago
if one decribes this total, self-evident, inherently singular and necessarily subjective, and implicitly Conscious, as indicted by the fact that consciousness arises WITHIN IT, then we have an excellent description of Real God. Not a magical 'being' somehow separate from Reality, but Reality itself. The mere fact that from the expansion of space-time WE eventually emerged to discuss these matters is miraculous enough for me. People search for 'mythical' God, when Real God is all there is.
108vasudeva 6 months ago
of course meant to describe everything that is, including space-time etc.. String Theory is meant to describe Reality. If one thinks of Reality itself, which is self-evident insofar as we recognize that existence exists, and hence subjective (like the original Hebrew expression I AM) outside of which there cannot be anything because Reality by definition is all inclusive, and in areas Conscious, as evidenced by the self evident fact that we are conscious entities and a part of the universe...
108vasudeva 6 months ago
if one defines 'GOD' as some 'other' or 'separate' 'being' that 'created' a 'separate' universe then you are in the area of "The God Delusion", but if you penetrate the implications of the original conception, not the popular exoteric one, but rather the esoteric principles of Omniscience, Omnipresence, and Omnipotence, along with the original Hebrew expression for the what we call "God" in English, which was simpy The I AM, then you are really talking about total Reality. The Unified Theory is
108vasudeva 6 months ago
It's like after the quarks are married they lose interest in each other, ha ha. Maybe the nuclear force is love, no?
octohorse 7 months ago
Why do I find her voice sexy? :/
Splinta141 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Splinta141 i do not know.
LIAMpants 7 months ago
2 Kings 18:18. 'Sennacherib' = "Dust", 'Hezekiah' = "Returns"... funny how the author of the Bible knew more about the Universe and neutrinos than science does today., much ado about nothing!
KaOssis 8 months ago
lol comments
autojack 8 months ago
He called him self socially Jewish but spiritualy sceptical. Go read "Einsteins God"
jamestheincredible 9 months ago
This guy's voice sounds exactly like social speaker and ex-singer for the Dead Kennedys Jello Biafra!
ghostinthemean 10 months ago
How does one take virtually every particle out of a container to create minus gravity? Plus there is also the particles that make up the container.
Mr4thGeorge 11 months ago
Astronomy + Physics = My favorite subjects.
AgilitySeed 1 year ago
I am the only one that is finding the woman in the beginning obnoxious? Besides that it's a great lecture.
milosQaX 1 year ago
@ 29:00 he says "so if you tried to observe the vaccum you would disturb it" Whats he trying to say ? Is that on an atomic level we are controlling particals with our minds ?
YamaKazoo 1 year ago
@YamaKazoo He's referring to the general principle of getting information from A to B. By 'disturbing' he means that there has to be an interaction with the thing you're observing in order to verify that you're observing it. For example every object in your room reflects light in order for you to see it. And in the case of what he talks about precision is a very important. And to get precision at such scales you need to increase the precision of your apparatus.
tigrushina 1 year ago
@YamaKazoo And in this case the apparatus is light. The higher the precision of your appratus ( light ) which essentially means the higher frequency of it, the better your observation will be. But in the same case the energy of the light is so great with these frequencies at that scale that you're pretty much uncertain of the future state of the system you're observing. This doesn't have anything to do with your 'mind. He's referring to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
tigrushina 1 year ago
@tigrushina
Well stated. The Uncertainty principle can be difficult to explain sometimes.
yuothineyesasian 1 year ago
@tigrushina Thanks for the reply, that makes much more sense
YamaKazoo 1 year ago
The Cranberries sense obv... rollyeyes
Grim4566 1 year ago
HITLER WAS A ZOMBIE!
Grim4566 1 year ago
@Grim4566 in which sense of the word? ZOMBIE
creamyshats 1 year ago
you know I love how we can not answer ALL the questions of the universe. God is good. if we can not see his contructions then we are fools.
HardyManful 1 year ago
What the hell? the CLOSER THEY ARE THE WEAKER THEY ATTRACT? The further apart the stronger the attraction? That makes NO SENSE. NO SENSE AT ALL.
Zurround100 1 year ago
@Zurround100 actually in anti-matter, and anti-energy it would make perfect sense.
HardyManful 1 year ago
Sproul Hall
as a last resort in order to re-open negotiations with the administration on the subject of restrictions on political speech and action on campus. Among other grievances was the fact that four of their leaders were being singled out for punishment
k9thru12 1 year ago
I'm pretty disappointed. All this incredible science, we got a brief sneak peak at some, at least for me, unfathomable concepts. and all I see in top rated comments are discourses on religion. I hope the reverse will be true when I youtube Moses.
AndyJohns100 1 year ago 3
@AndyJohns100 Clearly, Religion may be more important to the individuals than what is in this video... Anyway, nothing of science has disproved God. Remarkable, isn't it. I believe in God and yet love science. Go figure.
TheSKeB 2 weeks ago
ok, this looks more attractive than business
aizik2005 1 year ago
hahaha i cant believe people still believe in god.
CropDuster33 1 year ago
@CropDuster33 ?
bizybozo 1 year ago
@CropDuster33 Actually scientists way smarter than your whole pathetic family combine believed in God so don’t haha.
Y2H 1 year ago
@dirtybizz ...christians.
FenixofWow 1 year ago
I want to become a theoretical physicist.
CookieMonzta1995 1 year ago
@CookieMonzta1995 ME TOO!!! The only problem I run into is making money... that whole eating thing always gets me down.
Lilbitfuller 1 year ago
Gordon freeman should have been there
fishboard123 1 year ago
@fishboard123 hes stuck in g mod and hes got to get through episode 3 first
GTcrazykid212 1 year ago
Einstein was not a christian. Where do people come up with this nonsense?
dirtybizz 1 year ago 58
@dirtybizz Einstein was Jewish by nationality and he was a atheist, as expampled by his writings concerning the bible. He considered the bible stories written to frighten children. Look it up on the Internet, it's all available.
RayetWolf 1 year ago
@RayetWolf Einstein was in fact not Atheist. He even changed his laws of universal expansion, added an extra non-existent force to make the size of the universe constant, just to make the math match up with his beliefs.
alliedtoasters 1 year ago
@alliedtoasters I suggest you read about what Einstein said, not what he did. He was definitely an Atheist. He never added a force, he added a cosmological constant. Then he took it out of the equation, although he was right adding it because it matched what Hubble saw happening in the universe. Einstein considered the bible to be a book of fairy tales to scare children, and that was his own words.
RayetWolf 1 year ago
@RayetWolf
I'm sorry, the claim I made was without evidence or support. I was repeating what my cosmology professor once told our class, but I didn't think to realize that perhaps what he was saying was myth. It seems I could have been a fool to take to heart what my educator told me.
Even still, I just want to say from an agnostic's standpoint, seriously, Atheists are assholes. I wouldn't describe Einstein to be Atheist based on this evidence, because Atheists are out to control the world.
alliedtoasters 1 year ago
@alliedtoasters It's better than having people that believe in the tooth fairy and spirit man in the sky control the world. From what I have seen in my life, Atheists are more rational minded than anyone that believes in myth. Just look at G. W. Bush's theocracy and what damage he did to knowledge. Also, who else is better to keep you theists from killing each other over a make believe deity.
RayetWolf 1 year ago
@RayetWolf No, I don't think it's better. I, personally, think it's important for each individual to realize that he has no right to hurt any other individual. Several religious figures, such as the Islamic profit Mohammed (sorry Muslims, not gonna say PBUH until Islam stops producing combat-types), professed the very same idea. So why does it matter how somebody reaches pacifism, through religion or through reason? Some people are too simple to understand reason, and need a deity to teach peace
alliedtoasters 1 year ago
@RayetWolf Yes, religion will always breed war, but, in my opinion, modern religion breeds more good than it does evil. I think that a lot more people would be without morals had it not been for religious upbringings.
This is why I identify as a spiritual agnostic, NOT an Athiest.
alliedtoasters 1 year ago
@dirtybizz actually he was in a fundamental way, he believed in a God and he admited that his idea of God came from what he was taught by Christianity however, he did not believe as modern christians do that theres a little judgemental and ornery old man in a robe standing on cloud nine judging us all individually and sending 99% of us to hell because he can. So while he did believe in God it was more of a universal view and he did state to the press this had origins in christianity.
the1tigglet 1 year ago
@the1tigglet exactly
HardyManful 1 year ago
@dirtybizz
And hitler wasn't a jew
Grim4566 1 year ago
@Grim4566 he was actually
HardyManful 1 year ago
@HardyManful
No he was only Jewish
Grim4566 1 year ago
@Grim4566 he was jewish, and went to a catholic school, read his bio, its awesome story.
HardyManful 1 year ago
@dirtybizz actually he was cathloic, and in his early years when to a catholic school, and soon after joining said school, his believe in God failed. Then in his later years, he began to see a constrution to the universe. Thus he began believing in an Almight Person, he however, didn't believe in the God of Abraham. (spelling is not my focus so please forgive me if there are any grammerical issues.)
HardyManful 1 year ago
@dirtybizz and jesus wasnt a physicist .
PTMSELLS1 11 months ago
@dirtybizz and Jesus was'nt a physicist .
PTMSELLS1 11 months ago
@dirtybizz this are religious people that like to draw everything to there believe...to support there statements.. stupid isnt it....
opiated666 10 months ago
@dirtybizz that is right> he was a Jew> Not a super religious Jew but he was a Jew.
legendary7708 9 months ago
@dirtybizz He may not have been a Christian but he neither was he an atheist
WTF5930 7 months ago
@dirtybizz he was as jewish as they come. einSTEIN? holy hell thats a jewish name
huntbug1 6 months ago
All of theses theorys are based on measurmentsmade in square in or square cm but is sq the u.o.m. For a reason does nature operate on cubes alone
Igotsdis 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@immaxpage Einstein was very Christian despite his scientific belieifs... Just putting that out there
Igotsdis 2 years ago
And what Iean is that things should be approached from a different view
Igotsdis 2 years ago
And what I mean is that other avenues should be explored
Igotsdis 2 years ago
I'm no dr. But I think nothing should just be left to the work of others I.e. E=mc2 I'm not that bright but I'm smart enough to know that we have just scratched the surface matter time space and thier realationship to eachother.
Igotsdis 2 years ago
Sweet! I saw him give this speech when he came to the University of Kentucky in 2007. I only vaguely remember what it was about so I'm glad to be able to watch it again!
SpazzzDog 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
IF there was a "big bang" that was the origin of the universe.....THEN where was the "big bang" before it banged? What did the "big bang" explode INTO? What/Where did it explode and how did it get there?
Evolution says first there was nothing...and then it exploded....also ignoring what this nothing exploded into...what was holding the "nothing" in place and where is that place?
No matter how one tries....God cannot be ignored. God is the only un-caused cause and he established all.
crazy650c 2 years ago
"Evolution says first there was nothing...and then it exploded...."
Do you have even the slightest idea as to what evolution is?
Yieri 2 years ago 2
@crazy650c
Your user name is apt.
You do not understand the ideas you reject.
You and your imaginary friend can lick my sack.
TheEruditepolymath 2 years ago 3
The concept of where the big bang "was" is a moot point, since all of space was condensed into a singularity the question of " where it was" shows your ignorance on the subject.
Gravity was holding all of the matter in the universe int a single point, it wasn't "nothing" but everything.
Just because science hasn't given all the answers yet, your feeble childlike mind must inject a deity so that you feel safe and correct.
The god of the gaps as usual.
yuothineyesasian 2 years ago 16
@yuothineyesasian name calling aside, i agree with you about the singularity state of the universe. at the moment of the "big bang" (assuming thats how it happened) the dimensions of time, space, and everything else were suddenly evoked from nothing. So couldn't it be argued that the source of all existence, the foundation of all matter is not a particle or a wave or anything else, but nothingness itself?
spaceghost996 1 year ago
@spaceghost996 Said
"the dimensions of time, space, and everything else were suddenly evoked from nothing."
That is an assumption you are making, There is no current way to gauge the accuracy of that statement one way or the other. You've been told this (erroneously) and you simply regurgitate it as fact.
yuothineyesasian 1 year ago
@yuothineyesasian
Go regurgitate your condescension somewhere else
SinclairNicholas 1 year ago
@SinclairNicholas
Shit on a dick.
yuothineyesasian 1 year ago
@SinclairNicholas why do you feel insignificant? or are you trying to become better than another in your life? one does not simply use such big words unless they are trying to be a dick. trying to give off the false appearance of being smart, or they feel insignificant, so which are you?
TwoTekah 1 year ago
@TwoTekah I'm going to assume you meant that message for someone else, since "Go regurgitate your condescension somewhere else" is the only thing I've written above. But if you're message were intended for me, I would tell you not to construct false dilemmas.
SinclairNicholas 1 year ago
@yuothineyesasian how do you know this for sure. ? was it realy like that. ? did the big bang realy happen ? im totaly not religious... but i still doubt the big bang theory..why is the univers a vacum..?
opiated666 10 months ago
@opiated666
Every bit of astronomical data we have points directly to some form of big bang/inflationary cosmology. It's where the facts, current theories, and logic direct us to go. And it's backed up by mounds of indirect observational evidence and experimental data.
Just because we can't say that we're 100% sure, without a doubt, does not mean that all the knowledge and facts we've accumulated, all the truth we've found, doesn't give us a huge piece of the puzzle.
yuothineyesasian 10 months ago
@opiated666 answer THAT and you will be the leader of our race...till that time, buy this story and go to bed
karthikbing 9 months ago
@karthikbing nah tis is al speculations... maybe's and if what when if's stil i love this as a bed time story thou....
opiated666 9 months ago
@yuothineyesasian who is to say a diety is not certain representation of a frequency? HUmans are symbolic. It was mystic science
wellwellwellall 6 months ago
And what is this 'IF' there was a big bang crap?
If you have any inkling of intelligence you would know what red doppler shift is and you wouldn't make such ignorant statements.
No matter how one tries... We can't make you any more retarded and misinformed than you are now
yuothineyesasian 2 years ago
To all of the above: Yieri...meaningless....Eruditepolymath....child.......yuothineyesasian....where did this "singularity" come from?...hmmm?.....Scientists are the least objective people on the planet. They fight every innovation and paradigm shift until the bitter end. Just because you don't like God to be the creator does not mean he isn't. Something does NOT happen out of nothing....so there was something...you call it a singularity...but what caused that? You can't get away from God.
crazy650c 2 years ago
As I said before science, as of yet, cannot explain the origin of the universe or the singularity. But that does not such warrant such ignorance as unwavering belief in fairy tales.
You point out what you consider to be flaws in scientific theories such as the origin of the singularity, and then attempt to trump those ideas by insering your own unvalidated 'beliefs' that ignore the same points you made before. Such as god's inception. Where did he come from?
yuothineyesasian 2 years ago
You state that your God is an 'uncaused cause' and then state that 'Something does not come from nothing', with apparently no recognition to the hypocrisy and inherent self defeating nature of your own argument.
I would love to believe nothing more than that there is a loving, benevolent, benefactor who will punish the wicked and honor the just, but there are two types of people in this world, the tough minded and the tender minded. Me being of the former I do not accept brass assuptions.
yuothineyesasian 2 years ago
I triple dog dare you to come up with a completely logical verification for the statement that god is the uncaused cause. Or any rational argument that leads to the deduction that your assumptions are any closer to objective truth than exstensively proven scientific theories.
You are way out of your league here, you deny scientific truths of which you have not even the slightest education in, about, or of. Then inject baseless ideas simply because they fill the gaps you don't understand.
yuothineyesasian 2 years ago
This is an extremely bad thought process. Just accept ignorance.
niilzon 2 years ago
Evolution does not involve the Big Bang... idiot.
And if you are saying God is un-caused, how did he get here? Was he floating in space for an infinite amount of time prior to the creation of the universe, then one day decided, "HEY! I'll make some little people to worship me and follow my rules! If they don't follow my rules, I'll condemn them to eternal punishment!!" ??
Who created God?
The Big Bang something that has been all but proven 100% thanks mostly to Einstein.
iammaxpage 2 years ago
I must admit that I find it very much to my chagrin to debate this over a computer, a piece of electronics that operates on the basis of quantum electrodynamics, which is the very branch of physics that explains so many of the intracacies of the origin of the universe. If only your ability to make an argument were enough to challenge me mentally, but so few of the people I engage this subject with can.
yuothineyesasian 2 years ago
What are your qualifications?
SpazzzDog 2 years ago
Exactly! With that Crazy650c who claims that scientists are not objective....
Scientists back track their models all the way to a singularity and therefore they have the decency of not saying anything beyond that. The scientific method is the most objective investigative method ever conceived.
And as you said, here you are arguing science with a device that would not work at all if it was not for quantum mechanics.
God? Perhaps but he never helped me cook my eggs.
jceepf 2 years ago
what god? thare are planty.. what? the stolen from the egiptians by the desert dwellers abrachamic adobted by the romans god or some other 'only' 'almighty' 'all-knowing' piece of human fears?
xlnt2new 1 year ago
Obama won the nobel prize also so it can tell us a lot about what the nobel prize is about; it is a politically motivated prize and I bet most of those who get it are political spies or conformists of the criminals who control the world since the 1950's and eventually took over the whole world in the name of satan to destroy the world.
mayabelldotcom 2 years ago
I can't wait for the LHC to disprove string theory. Assuming it actually is a falsifiable theory.
lennyhome 2 years ago 2
Do you think it will be falsified? Why... I thought it was all pretty well calculated?
Elvikowsky 2 years ago
If you know how to map 11 dimensions into 3 plus time in a sensible manner then call your local String Theorist and let him know. I predict he'll be interested.
lennyhome 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If i study this at university (physics/astrophysics/cosmology) what kind of job can I get? There must be alot of people studying this, NASA cant take everyone.. can we still make a good fortune? like at least 100,000/year ?
virgozero 2 years ago
Being a physist insnt nessessarly about the money, if you want a high paying job you should become a medical doctor. But ive read that physists make about 90,000 to 120,000 a year
MrCharlesBarkley 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
okay thats good enough?
but would a masters in science + minor in math , get me a 90,000 job? Cause lets see i expect to enter university at around 18, and i hope to beable to make $90k at around 25... or 26 , but no later than 28.. hm. i wonder if I would beable to afford an Audi S5...
virgozero 2 years ago
Physicists don't make 100,000 a year
Monatee 2 years ago 2
see, people? physics lectures can be hilarious after all... i'm wondering what i should do after getting my mphys... hmm...
NingyoAijin 2 years ago
Consider ... the laws of nature, our environment, and the conditions in which we journey through life may readily be understood by discovering and uncovering the underlying law of nature (singular).
Does it exist? What could it be?
The most effective and efficient approach we can take to understanding the way of all things is to question, seek out and identify this single, fundamental, underlying law of nature upon which all laws are based.
Unlikely? What of Star-Trek's communicator?
bando8000 2 years ago
fundamental unity of all existence -- through a universal, all pervading, time and space transcending entity, you can call it UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS.
lsjtifo 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Master Pol Pot........knew.....we must eradicate the learned....they are the rot of humanity
timray99 2 years ago
I think Pol Pot was misguided. Just my opinion.
S2Cents 2 years ago
Seems everybody wants to "debunk" string theory and prove how smart they are. These debunkers never reveal what they think is really happening or come up with alternate theories.
herlequinstar 2 years ago
very true. but at the same time they should always try to disprove the results.
keggerous 2 years ago 2
Agreed, thats one of the most important things about science that makes it different from other approaches to understanding the universe.
herlequinstar 2 years ago
I disagree. There are a lot of alternative approaches. See Roger Penrose's Road to Reality.
mathinvestor 2 years ago
very very interesting... string theory is a very interesting theory but i do not believe that it is true... i believe in the parallel universe theory which states that there are many universe out there and that there are multiple copes of each of us. These copies are different in many ways. They may be completely different or they may be very similar.
spartenforver 2 years ago
we do not yet posses the energy to prove that strings exist. as someone said, the f theory is 21st century physics that fell into the 20th century. i believe that with advancements in nuclear fusion we will gain the possibility to proves the mathematical models accurate.
MrRandomnewb 2 years ago
"I was saying that unification is only necessary from an aesthetic point of view , not the other way around. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the universe should conform to our mathematical whims or expectations.
Strings sounds to me like the fable of bored physicist armed with over sophisticated maths, too much free time and not enough experimental data to work on. A mathematical paradigm with a "build in" impossible way of providing empirical evidence to back it up."
MrRandomnewb 2 years ago
I think that the uiverse adheres to laws that are contiguous. As Einstein famously stated, "God does not play dice". I agree with you about the mathematics though. There should be some as yet undiscovered "Algebra" that can rectify the gaps in physics. Einstein actually suggested this before he died... Too bad Newton isn't around anymore to discover it.
eapst28 2 years ago
I disagree completely...the more you understand the system, the more you can harnass the potential.
every single breakthrough in physics and QM has produced incredible breakthroughs shortly after...simply because the more we understand a system, the more we understand everything in general and make fun devices to use it
quantum entanglment...connected instant information universe...you really see no potential for tech in that..
finally...electron particle wave splitters = evindence #1
GoldieTalon 2 years ago
how is this over 10mins?
wcooper97 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
FUNDING FINDINGS! All Theroy no proof, big magnets, lots of electricity and papers explaining their theroy how they THINK it might work!
Intellectual RETARDS!
johnnyboypdq 2 years ago
why has this comment been voted down - this lecture is indeed bullshit
dibbuck 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is garbage. Where is the new knowledge? Where is the excitement of discovery? This is dog and pony, "look at me...I'll come and entertain you with my brain it you gawk at me" Too common. Einstein, Feinmen= rebels. Keep digging and come back with something real. Sorry if any feelings are hurt, but some of us only find real progress mentionable, thanks.
marclab1 2 years ago
yus yus - this lecture is not credible
dibbuck 2 years ago
Can someone please tell me what he said just after 32:45.
"They split because of this phenomenon of _______"
Help would be appreciated :)
wimmadabimma 3 years ago
I think he says: "they split because of this phenomenon of "symmetry breaking". At least that's what i keep hearing.
silversalvo 3 years ago
yes "symmetry breaking"
DSamSebe 3 years ago
I was hoping this lecture would have been a bit more technical, Its inetresting nonetheless.
That being said, while i enjoy to dabble in physics i am not particularly fond of strings. It seems to me like a redundant theory that doesn't answers much and is over reliant on the necessity of unification ; Something that is only problematic from an aesthetic point of view, which seems to go against the conviction of science in general.
At 15:07 Gross said something i would attribute to strings imo.
silversalvo 3 years ago
Theories don't have to be "real". A good theory just predicts things in real life accurately. Otherwise mathematic and physical theories would be deemed entirely redundant.
wimmadabimma 3 years ago 3
I agree. Indeed theories are ,by definition , not required to be "real"... in the strict sense of the word anyway.
However the theory of string is often quoted has a "theory of everything" , which puts it at odds with it being a theory and would be more akin to a philosophy. Furthermore predictions it makes are far beyond what can be observed, many many times smaller than a plank length. Even from a mathematical sense it runs into Godel's incompleteness ,cutting it short of unification.
silversalvo 3 years ago
I disagree - Unification is not aesthetically problematic - its been the overriding "holy grail" of theoretical physics since quantum theory came about. String theory may in fact have achieved that goal. I agree though that the lecture was not challenging enough - I had not one issue trying to keep up intellectually and I am certainly not a physics student at CAL.
DSamSebe 3 years ago
I was saying that unification is only necessary from an aesthetic point of view , not the other way around. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the universe should conform to our mathematical whims or expectations.
Strings sounds to me like the fable of bored physicist armed with over sophisticated maths, too much free time and not enough experimental data to work on. A mathematical paradigm with a "build in" impossible way of providing empirical evidence to back it up.
silversalvo 3 years ago
Just to be sure: I"m not upset or ranting in anyway.
For some reason after re-reading what i said it sounded aggressive. Its not meant to be ;)
Cheers.
silversalvo 3 years ago
haha didnt take it as such. just engaging in healthy discussion. take care.
DSamSebe 3 years ago
I misunderstood you perhaps. Still - any unnecessary complication is usually only the result of our incomplete understanding. For instance, before quantum theory, Einstein was able to unify the existing known forces when Im sure just 100 years earlier forces as gravity, electricity and magnetism seemed as diverse as a grain of sand and an apple.
DSamSebe 3 years ago
Yeah I totally agree
Sverigenono 2 years ago
its offical....this is why civilizations fall and decline...
kingrexrex666 3 years ago
There is a new physics theory that explains how steel reinforced concrete buildings can turn to powder and molten metal in just a few seconds. In mid air no less! Amazing yes, but new cartoon models made by NIST explains away any silly misconceptions about gravity or thermodynamics. Demolitions experts are now using kerosene in place of Thermate which is much cheaper and more predictable than previously thought. NIST proves it! Ha!!
GnosticNinja 3 years ago
I just discovered the cure for insomnia. I think I'll save this link in my blackberry. Ok, I like this stuff but it's way over my head. These are the people who actually remember what they were think about when were tripping on LSD.
sheepdog48 3 years ago
baaaaaaaahahahah
ataylor0002 3 years ago
how do you make a link that brings you to a certain time?
endertrask 3 years ago
I find it amazing, that people who watch educational videos on here, know how to spell. I love it! Good video. LAter!
Icarus780001 3 years ago 6
This makes me want to go into physics again... -sigh-
141lyon 3 years ago 3
Same here...
JabberKiwi 3 years ago
ya im doing a masters in engineering but i often think of studying physics... it just sucks - i've come so far down this road - then to switch... man
endertrask 3 years ago
It is never too late. I have a BS in CHE and 39 credits in MS Mfg Eng. and guess What? I going back to Physics at 38.
italouruguayricano 3 years ago 14
Ha, I'm doing my PhD in theoretical physics and am thinking about changing to engineering!
griff868686 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO IT FAGGOT
BrendanIsCool 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
they need to get hotter chicks to bring these guys on stage. who cares that this chick is a professor? we didn't come to hear her speak, why does she need to be smart? why can't she just be hot?
dougerber 3 years ago
Dont you just hate the new youtube? The videos wont load. Especially the good long ones.
IcyNami 3 years ago
Interesting that he concludes that our concept of time is not right. Spooky action at a distance in quantum correlation already seems to show that two events separated in time appear to happen as one 'thing'. Figuring out what this means sounds like a good starting point.
coastwalker 3 years ago
is there anyway to isolate a single quark? And is that how you spell queark?
alejandro15187 3 years ago
No. The more two quarks are separated from each other, the greater the attaction between them - like how springs work. This is unlike gravity, magnetism, etc. where the attraction tapers off as distance increases.
BirdValiant 3 years ago
The energy you have to put into separating 2 quarks eventually creates a new pair of quarks.
goldreserve 3 years ago 2
Isn't that cool? Everybody knows the famous E=mc^2, but few actually know what it means or its implications.
BirdValiant 3 years ago 2
every1 with 1/2 a brain knows, or shud do
mjaykk 3 years ago
It seems that basically everyone knows the equation, as it's probably the most famous equation in the world, but not what it actually means. Most people probably just think that it has something to do with nuclear bombs, and nothing more.
BirdValiant 3 years ago
cant isolate, but can measure the properities of a quark plasma (more behaves like liquid, not plasma)
ofey137 3 years ago
The unified field theory has been discovered!!! You can view it at my channel!
BrentJarvis 3 years ago
This is such a good use of youtube. Thank you .
paperscraper 3 years ago 18
This comment has received too many negative votes show
THIS IS SPARTA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!lolololllolllololololololololo
L0ckon 4 years ago
(Cont'd) Frankly, I'm amazed that our flexible brains/minds, which surely were not selected for theoretical physics (or biology, or what-have-you) but which provide such "spandrels" for intellectual/cognitive cooption, have figured out as much reliable knowledge of the universe as it has! Pretty amazing.
tarnopol 4 years ago
People, play nice! I am a novice here, too, but have some background in history and philosophy of science, so I think I grasp the methodological issues around apparently untestable string theory. It is a revolutionary in that methodological regard, and a little worrisome to me. However, what is really interesting is that there is no guarantee that a contingently evolved intelligence such as our own will be so constructed as to be able to understand all aspects of the universe.
tarnopol 4 years ago
glad to hear something from an objective mind!!!!
paulnsal 3 years ago
the mere fact we can comprehend it at all is insane. it almost seems like the world we live in is ment to be, in fact, lived in.
keggerous 2 years ago
No it doesn't.
gamesbok 2 years ago 2
i dont share ur opinion, but its still valid.
keggerous 2 years ago
I understood nothing in this video, but I still enojoy watching and listening. It is amazing what is known know, and how much we still do not know. I can see now why geniuses go insane trying to figure everything out. Too may why's left to answer.
svtbmg 4 years ago
Then "openuniverse" why don't you do something, if all these physicists are doing nothing then you put some new theory and win NOBEL PRIZE OF 2008. man it's easy to make comment from outside world.. please do come and join us in this endeavor and then you will know that life is not so easy out here.. you will also enjoy it, just come and see.
onlyforsoumya 4 years ago
The point is String theory is being promoted way in excess of its contribution or promise
dibbuck 2 years ago