Amazing presentation. How can anyone not be awed by the splendour of natural laws and consciously choose to disregard discoveries in favour of prehistoric guesswork?
i'm sitting here amazed how man can go back in time, which as shown here is nothing but distance. this vid shows how the universe doesn't get rid of it's evidence! WOE!
In addition to the excellent content, the audio and video was beautifully edited together! Clearly a lot of thought and hard work has gone into making this - appreciate it!
I really do not understand how a "Bing Bang" with the expantion of "time and Space" and the "formation" of energy and matter from a atom "or nothing" isn't just another creation story trying to pst off as Scientific Theory no matter how many times the Catholic Priest/Cosmologist insists his religon has nothing to do with his Super Atom Theory
THe moon orbits Earth to counter gravity,the earth orbits sun to counter gravity
That Universe must expand to counter gravity or collapse under it=silly
@TheRealArchAngel "I really do not understand how a "Bing Bang" with the expantion of "time and Space" and the "formation" of energy and matter from a atom "or nothing" isn't just another creation story trying to pst off as Scientific Theory"
Really? You can't see the difference? Well it's quite simple. The standard cosmological model is the one that fits and describes the evidence we see. It predicted CMB, hence it is a convincing model.
"standard cosmological model is the one that fits "
Under the wrong pretense that the Universe must be expanding to counter gravity or be collapsing under the weight of gravity
Under Lemetre first believing in expansion and a "point of creation: first and then going looking for "proof" in Hubbles Data second only cherry picking the red shift he liked as "proof"
The Universe is not expanding,it is not collapsing, Gravity is countered by orbital motion (Moon around earth,earth around sun)
NOpe, the Catholic Priest, Goerge Lemetre, despite all his screaming it not a creation story, pulled a Creation Story over the "Big Bangers" eyes
There cant be something from nothing, so "Big Bang" is just a creation story posing as Scientific Theory
Moing to "Bubble <Multiverse " theory where this Universe errupted from elsewhere in existence asnd is but 1 reality of many cant dodge "Okay so where did the Multiverse come from"?(Or was it "always"?)
Even if you could spontanuosly create a universe of energy and matter from a single atom....the model states that realty expanded at faster then the speed of light as did the created matter and energy
If this was so then matter could have never coolese into stars flying away from each other at the speed of light and would be in a sphere around the blast point not filling the space evenly
Even in Science it can be hard to accept no need for "A beggining"
"Try reading about the standard cosmological model. You're not making any sense at the moment"
Which part of "Big Bang" is just another Creation story with cherry picked data as "proof" after the predisposition of there "must have been a beggining" isn't making sense?
The Universe isn't "expanding"
The Universe isn't "collapsing"
The "red shift" and "blue shift" is from relative orbital motion that is the mechanism that counters gravity
@TheRealArchAngel "Which part of "Big Bang" is just another Creation story with cherry picked data as "proof" after the predisposition of there "must have been a beggining" isn't making sense?" Err, the fact that it's a model with predictive power that isn't contradicted by any observations. And if you understand the first thing about General Relativity then you'll understand that talking about time outside of space, hence a 'beggining' (sic) is utterly meaningless.
@TheRealArchAngel "The "red shift" and "blue shift" is from relative orbital motion that is the mechanism that counters gravity(?!?!)" Counters gravity? What does that even mean?
Anyway, your statement here is testable. If red-shift is due to orbital motion, one half of a galaxy will be red-shifted and the other half blue-shifted. Is this what we see? What about galaxies that we see side on? Why are they red-shifted? Why are more distant galaxies more red-shifted than closer ones?
"If red-shift is due to orbital motion, one half of a galaxy will be red-shifted and the other half blue-shifted. Is this what we see?"
The Andromeda Gallaxy,M31, is blue shifted as it is on a collision course with the milky way
That Galaxies have collided in the past and still are coliding with each other has had some "thinker scientists"(Physists) revising their claim that it isn't actially matter "expanding" but "time/space"
Lemetre was a Catholic Priest, "big Bang" is creationist b.s.
@TheRealArchAngel "The Andromeda Gallaxy,M31, is blue shifted as it is on a collision course with the milky way" Yes. Well done. You may have noticed that although the universe has a large scale uniformity to it, on a smaller scale it is more lumpy. You, for example, are considerably denser than average when it comes to space. This doesn't pose a problem for the SCM, although it does raise questions as to the reason for the disparity between matter and antimatter.
"You, for example, are considerably denser than average when it comes to space"
Not neccisarily
"Space" is just the distance between Mass' and the reason why the "thinker scientists"(PHysists) calculations don't add up is because the spaces between the stars and galaxies isn't a "void" it is filled with hydrogen,hielium and other trace gases and material(It's only when near a star is any condesation noticable by illumination)
Bulk of a Galaxies mass is clumped gas not "dark matter"
@TheRealArchAngel "Bulk of a Galaxies mass is clumped gas not "dark matter""
'Clumped gas' wouldn't cause gravitational lensing. Nor would it contribute to the rate of rotation of galaxies that we observe. What it would do is show black body radiation. We don't know what dark matter is, but clumped gas it ain't.
@TheRealArchAngel but back to my question. Is one half of the Andromeda galaxy blue-shifted and the other half red-shifted? If not, your assertion that the shift in spectral lines is purely down to orbital motion can be safely ignored. So where is your evidence?
"but back to my question. Is one half of the Andromeda galaxy blue-shifted and the other half red-shifted? "
Yes.
But the suttle differences in "blue shift" vs "red shift" isn't what George Lemetre was looking for to prove his version of "In the Beggining"
He was looking for "red shift" under the pretense of the Dopler effect and already convinced there was a "big Bang" (people that believe something first then go looking for "proof" always find "it")
@TheRealArchAngel You missed the key part. Where is your evidence? Of course there is a *subtle* (note spelling) difference due to the relative velocities of the constituent matter relative to us, but the *average* velocity isn't zero, the whole thing's moving towards us. This is nothing that will surprise any astrophysicist. Spectral lines tell us useful stuff. We can use subtle shifts to detect the orbits of planets that we can't directly observe around their parent stars.
"You missed the key part. Where is your evidence? "
Right in Hubbles same data that Lemetre thumped on to prove God used a "big Bang" to make the Universe
"the *average* velocity isn't zero"
Of corse not
With Earths rotation,earth's orbit around sun,Sun orbit around galaxy, and Galaxy orbit around Hecules cluster everything is "red shifted" and "blue shifted" at same time
To claim "all galaxies are flying away from us" is ridicolous as the Hercules group is not
@TheRealArchAngel "To claim "all galaxies are flying away from us" is ridicolous (sic) as the Hercules group is not"
Nobody disputes that. But the data, on the whole, match Hubble's Law. If we're moving away from one galaxy due to our orbit etc, why are we moving faster away from a more distant galaxy? It makes no sense. And why, 6 months later when we should be moving towards it, is it still red-shifted? Why do we observe red shift in all distant galaxies? Surely one direction should be blue.
@TheRealArchAngel "Distance makes things farther away look like they "move more" when point of perspective chamges" Not true. Easy to demonstrate. Hold up your finger and look at it with one eye closed. Now switch eyes. Switch back. Which appears to "move more", your finger or the background?
"Not true. Easy to demonstrate. Hold up your finger and look at it with one eye closed. Now switch eyes. Switch back. Which appears to "move more", your finger or the background? "
Wrong way
Look at one end of a 25 mile mountain range 200 miles in the distance then turn your head till you are looking at the other end
Did your head travel 25 miles in the turn?
Of course not
compensating for earth rotation and earth orbit can't compensate for solar system motion,galaxy motion,cluster motion
@TheRealArchAngel "Did your head travel 25 miles in the turn?" And does red shift show motion perpendicular to the galaxy's displacement from us? Thanks for the pointless trip to nowhere #27.
You still haven't addressed the fact that even if we concede your absurd assertion that red-shift is purely due to orbital motion to be true, we appear to be moving away from all directions at once.
"even if we concede your absurd assertion that red-shift is purely due to orbital motion"
NO that light stretches and degrades over time and distance plays a role also..especially with the most distant observable objects
And know this isn't "my absurd notion" it's practical Astronomy 101 in the Science Building as aposed to Theoretical "Atrophysics" or "Cosmology" in the Math Building
"we appear to be moving away from all directions at once"
@TheRealArchAngel "NO that light stretches and degrades over time and distance plays a role also.." Yes. Quite. It's a concept called symmetry in physics. Red-shift can be considered a stretching of photons as space-time itself expands. But hang on, you're using valid physics to try and disprove the very thing you're using to disprove itself... If your university is limited to a solitary 'science building' then no wonder you're getting into this dire mess.
@TheRealArchAngel "Oh My, that would make us the "center"..lol" Gosh... it would now, wouldn't it? How on earth are we going to explain that? I do believe you're the first person ever to have noticed that! Physics will be turned on its head! The textbooks will have to be re-written - stop the printing press, I say! Your Nobel prize notification is in the post, and... oh, hang on, no. Lemaître explained all that. In 1927.
"say! Your Nobel prize notification is in the post, "
Oh that a Warmonger turned peacemonger feeling so bad that his invention killed millions making a "peace prize" is even sillier then a "expanding Universe"(from our perspective mind you)
"Lemaître explained all that. In 1927."
He was the first to propose that a "expanding Universe" expalins the observable "red shift" noticed as early as 1917 by Astronomers like Vesto Slipher
@TheRealArchAngel "Slow to be accepted,now slowly being marginalized" The Standard Cosmological Model is certainly up for some significant modifications, but not in the way you seem to think. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and a little knowledge is what you display. Red-shift gives us a very accurate picture of the relative motions of the galaxies. Nobody, nobody disputes the fact that the universe started with a very hot, very dense beginning and has and still is expanding.
"The Standard Cosmological Model is certainly up for some significant modifications, but not in the way you seem to think."
Slapping much older Multiverse Ideolgy from ancient Cosmology to try to hide the Creationist like "big Bang" start is a patch at best and grasping at straws at worse
Why does there have to be "a beggining" to existence?
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and a little knowledge is what you display."
"Nobody, nobody disputes the fact that the universe started with a very hot, very dense beginning and has and still is expanding."
Not the re-babbling Armcahjai thinker scientice(Physists) and wannabes anyway
Null physics,Stedy State(antiquated), and Cockwork Universe(multiverse) are other Cosmological Models that the average armchair physist and lay person may have never heard of given "Big Bang's" current "accepted" state
Those 3 models state the universe(multiverse) always existed
@TheRealArchAngel "Those 3 models state the universe(multiverse) always existed"
You've been watching too much science fiction, clearly. Either that or too much porn. You might like to read more than the first line of the Wikipedia article on "Cockwork universe".
"nobody disputes the fact that the universe started with a very hot, very dense beginning and has and still is expanding."
Really?
Where did this "very dense hot beggining" come from?
More importanly on the claim that the average peak tempature of the Interstellar medium proves "Big Bang"..it doesn't as it is a average tempature..all area can ne hotter or cooler and the 2.75K is a estimate,not a actual measurement that was INTERPETED as residue "Big Bang" radiation 20 year after first found
Ah yes, Hubbles noticing the large redshift on the most distance galaxies INTERPETED as the "dopler effect" with the furthest galaxies "travelling faster and faster"
Problem with that is the galaxies are still the same size as they were 80 years ago so while they are "redshifted" they are still exactly were they were the last time Hubble Looked
Light being a wave "stretches" over distance(think flashlight,not Sound wave) and naturally redshifts over time/distance
@TheRealArchAngel Jeeez, where do you get your "info"/hogwash from, really? I regret replying to you at all. By the way, your tin-foil hat is almost falling off now...
Pre-liberal inflitration of Education education WHen the US was #1 in Math and Science and Watching Al Gores movie and taking a petition for mommy and Daddy to sign wasn't part of the "Scientific Ciriculum"
"By the way, your tin-foil hat is almost falling off now..."
defensively I Can "Mind Maze" along with "split mnd" and Offensively I can "Eject",Thrust and "Phychic Scream"
"Light being a wave "stretches" over distance(think flashlight,not Sound wave) and naturally redshifts over time/distance"
Wht Astronomers observe as "redshif" getting larger and larger and COsmologist INTERPET as "proof of Big Bang" is nothing more then ancient light from those distant galaxies stretching more and more over distance not "galaxies traveling faster and faster the further away they are"(rollseyes)
Not only can they stretch light in the lab they can actually slow it to a crawl
Do remember that in the absence of gravity like substances tend to clump so proto-planent matter first clumps until gravity takes over at about a 1/4 mile diameter and the object gravity will force a "Sphere" at the size of 1/4 the oon
Stars likewise form from hydroden first clumping by friction in the absence of gravity..no "stiring" needed
I remember Ocean floor rock find ocean at leat 4.7 billion years old..same as oldest 1g Earth rock not cycled under via tectonics
Now what wsa the last thing I was trying to remember from cosmology/Astronoly classes in collges and other related material?
Ah, yes
The Hubble telescope can see about 27 billion light years so that the "Big Bang happened 14 billion years ago" is already bullshit
The highest estimates I ever heard was that the Universe is roughly 62 billion years old...assuming "Big Bang" and "Expansion" is true as took light 27 billion years to reach Huble
@TheRealArchAngel Yes, the universe IS 13.7 billion years old, and we are aware of the universe's size. But there is no mystery there or any conspiracy of science or whatever you're suggesting, it all adds up. And you don't have to be an astrophysicist to know why, neither do you have to ask NASA or JPL or any leading astrophysicist/cosmologists of why/how it adds up, wikipedia will probably suffice just fine. Or any beginner's book on the subject.: )
Wasn't even the 70's when the limit was 5 billionish and back in Hubles days the best telescopes saw distant galaxies as "blobs" at a few hundred million light years out
If they ever make a Telescope that can see 300 trillion. light years,(and counting) Big Bangers are fucked
"there is no mystery there or any conspiracy of science "
Astronomers and Cosmologists are 2 different things
@TheRealArchAngel That is NOT quite how we find/found out how old it is. Jeez, why don't you just look up "age of the universe" in wikipedia? Stick to wikipedia, man..they're awesome!! Peace!: )
"That is NOT quite how we find/found out how old it is"
Of course not
Relative triangulation shows that the furthest observed galaxy is 13.7 bil;lion light years agay
This means it took 13.7 billion light years for the light of a fully formed galaxy to reach earth thus the Universe is actually at least 13.7 billion yerars old plus the 13.7 billion years it took the light of a fully formed galaxy to reach us,plus how ever long it took that galaxy to fully form
"why don't you just look up "age of the universe" in wikipedia?"
Cause those that add to Wikipeda dont count the time it takes for a galaxy to form,plus the time it takes for light to travel
Any Physist worth their salt is taling about a 45 billion ro 65 billion year old universe to account for ully formed galaxies at the edge of what currently cn be sen plus light traveling up to 13.7 billion years
Plus where we see it now isn't where it actually is if the Universe is "expanding" as claimed
" neither do you have to ask NASA or JPL or any leading astrophysicist/cosmologists of why/how it adds up, wikipedia will probably suffice "
FOr what? Dulling you mind to not use reason and ask questions about why one field of science says 1 thing while another field of "science" likes to pull things out of their ass that isn't neccesarily falsifiable (There is no way to scientifically conclusively test that there was no Big Bang...you just have to have faith that red shift "proves it")
"And why, 6 months later when we should be moving towards it, is it still red-shifted? "
Because it's not the Earth's orbit causing the percieved "red shift"
The Sun travels 220 kilometers a second orbiting the Galaxy and it would take 225 million years before we see a universe full of "blue shifted galaxies (all different ones mind you)
The Mily way orbits the Hecules Group (also "local Group" at 300 kilometers per second
The local group travels 660 kilometers per second to Hydra group
@TheRealArchAngel "Because it's not the Earth's orbit causing the percieved "red shift". The Sun travels 220 kilometers a second orbiting the Galaxy"
And how is it managing to move away from things in every direction at once? The speed at which we're orbiting the galactic centre is negligible when compared to the rate of recession of distant galaxies.
And hang on, are we just going to ignore all these myriad ways in which you're demonstrably wrong? How does that work?
"And how is it managing to move away from things in every direction at once? "
Is it?
"Red shift" coul;d also mean a relatively close object is shrinking on itself at a acclerated rate (as in getting smaller as it condenses)
Besides light isn't "forever" and ends to "stetch" the further it travels causing natural "red shifting" the further it gets from it's source so what could be observed is very old light from a far away source not a source that is "rapidly moving away"
"The speed at which we're orbiting the galactic centre is negligible."
Really?
The sun travels at 220 kilometers a second, the Milkyway at 300 Kilometers a second and the Local group at 600 kilometers a second
The so called "expandsion" is clocked at 50 - 100 kilometers a second depending on which distant galaxy you look at and how good the telescope is at geosyncing
Why is the Local group on collision course with Hydra Group if the universe is "expanding" and they should be "flying away"?
@TheRealArchAngel "The sun travels at 220 kilometers a second, the Milkyway at 300 Kilometers a second and the Local group at 600 kilometers a second" And Hubble's Constant is around 70 km/s per Mpc. An order of magnitude approximation for a typical galaxy is around 1000 Mpc, so a rate of recession of around 70,000 km/s. You really don't know your stuff, do you?
"Why is the Local group on collision course with Hydra Group..?" GRAVITY. GRAVITY. Did I point you in the direction of Newton?
"order of magnitude approximation for a typical galaxy is around 1000 Mpc, so a rate of recession of around 70,000 km/s"
85 km/s was the highest consistant estimate observed with telescope with execellent geo-syinging, was actually being generous with the 100, 70 (wiout the ,000) was the low consistent estimate
"GRAVITY."
But what about "expansion" making every galaxy fly away from every other "as observed"?..lol
Even Physists now marginalize classic "big Bang" in favor of Mulktiverse Theory
@TheRealArchAngel "85 km/s was the highest consistant estimate observed with telescope with execellent geo-syinging" I have no idea what "geo-syinging" is. I think perhaps you mean 'geo-synching'? In which case I have news for you. The Ruskies have sent a machine into orbit. In fact, all together we've put up thousands of man-made satellites, including a thing called a 'space telescope', called, fittingly enough, Hubble. You might like to look into what we've learnt from it.
@TheRealArchAngel Oh, and multiverses don't replace the standard cosmological model. It's still the best model we've got. What else? Oh, yes. You've won the Cold War. Well done. And you've de-stabilised the Middle East. Well done.
Goodnight. My different time zone seems to have red-shifted me. lol etc.
@TheRealArchAngel "Right in Hubbles same data that Lemetre thumped on to prove God used a "big Bang" to make the Universe" Did *Lemaître* time travel? Because he put forth his hypothesis in 1927. Hubble published his data in 1929. Smells like you're making shit up as you go along.
"Did *Lemaître* time travel? Because he put forth his hypothesis in 1927. Hubble published his data in 1929. Smells like you're making shit up as you go along."
Nice try
Hubbles data was the "proof" Lemetre was looking for to "prove" his laughable theory "right"
@TheRealArchAngel Lemaître wasn't the only one that saw that Hubble's data matched his prediction. Everyone agrees it does. Lemaître could have been a crackpot, but if his prediction didn't match our observations he would have remained a nobody. He isn't. He's rightly regarded as the father of the SCM There are anomalous points on Hubble's chart, sure, but how would *you* put the main relationship between the distance to a galaxy and its speed of recession into words?
Yes, even eienstien said that it was the best explaination of how God created the Universe(smirk)
"how would *you* put the main relationship between the distance to a galaxy and its speed of recession into words?"
Light degradation of acient light sources...everyone was duped into believing an alternate creation story from faulty perception of the so called "observable evidence" without falsifying out all the other explaination for "red shift" at those distances
@TheRealArchAngel "Light degradation of acient (sic) light sources.." At last. A straight answer. And an old creationist chestnut at that. Thought you looked down on creationists. So what's this physical mechanism behind 'light degradation'? Where does the energy go?
The Screen Name is a old Flight Handle from my Worthog days
"Thought you looked down on creationists"
Why, long as they keep thier beliefs to themselves and don't get all preachy on me I have no problem with Creationist personally. Religion on the other hand is a means for one person to enslave another's mindset and I despise that
"So what's this physical mechanism behind 'light degradation'"
@TheRealArchAngel "You don't need time/space expanding to prevent the sun from falling into the Galactic Core, orbital motion prevents that" You're confused. Orbital motion is due to gravity. It doesn't counter gravity. You might like to look into the work of a fellow called Newton. He's managed to explain Kepler's Third Law of planetary motion mathematically. All very avant-garde stuff.
"You're confused. Orbital motion is due to gravity. It doesn't counter gravity"
If A object is traveling fast enough to resist the pull of gravity but not fast enough to escape it then the ojbet "obits" ...please don't be a grammer/context distople..lol
" fellow called Newton"
Father of Modern Physics...Explained what gravity did, couldn't explain what it was..but still "the man"
"mathematically."
(rollseyes)
Gravity is the reaction between mass' collective em force,it isn't own "force"
@TheRealArchAngel "If A (sic) object...." Okay, where are you off to now? Stop. Come back to the relevant point. Where's this data showing that the spectral shifts we see in galaxies is only due to the orbital motion of its constituents?
@TheRealArchAngel "If A (sic) object...." Okay, where are you off to now? Stop. Come back to the relevant point. Where's this data showing that the spectral shifts we see in galaxies is only due to the orbital motion of its constituents?
@TheRealArchAngel "There is about 20 gallaxies (sic) orbiting each other in the Hercules Cluster"
And how do we know this unless we assume red-shifted spectral lines to show the relative rates of recession of galaxies, hmm? Aren't you using the very science you're trying to disprove in order to prove that it's wrong? Nothing wrong with lateral thinking, but I think you've fallen off the edge.
Ok maybe I get it... Its because light travels so fast that it was able to catch up to us. Some of the light does escape the universe, for all practical purposes. But light is typically emitted in all directions, so light on the opposite side of the universe traveling towards us would have to cross a distance that is expanding rapidly.
Rightrocks - I totally agree with your point. That has always confused me. Why would we be able to see light now that was emitted way back when we were much closer to the source of the light? Especially given that light travels faster than anything else. If everything is expanding from an initial point, why isn't the light that was first emitted completely inaccessible to any matter in the universe, like a continually expanding shell outside the rest of the universe? I guess that light (or spac
Fantastic video. However I'm confused on one point. Why is the cosmic 'background radiation' pointing towards the earth? If it originated from the big bang, shouldn't it have all travelled towards the farthest regions of the universe by now, and continue to head in that direction? Or is it being reflected back at us off the matter of the universe?
The big bang has so many fallacies it needs a tourniquet; but he didn't deal with that on the film huh. Nor did I hear anything about the origin of the big bang, but then again I did get pretty bored in the 2nd half but natural explanations for the formation of this grand effect in which we live will always fail since it's origin is not natural, God is the perfect antecedent cause (law of Causality,)
@coollaidmann Cause and effect is something that occurs in the universe. Tell me, how do you figure, by what logic / reasoning / evidence do you think that this law of causality was "present" in the absence of a universe. Don't disappear now and never answer, I'm sincerely curious for your answer.
@coollaidmann I find 'fallacies' an odd word to use in this context. Are you trying to say that the BB is built on ideas that are fallacies? If so, I feel that's wrong because although the BB is well know the premises on which it is based are not, so they can't be described as fallacies.
BTW what is the antecedent to the god you are describing?
"Advanced Theoretical Physics says that it's Hl*π/Ω=C"
Correction,it is claims to be Advanced Theoretical Physics and I meant it as a For example on a definition of "God"
My suspicion is some creationists claiming to be scientists haphazardly patched together the "pie" of a circle,hrequency of Hydrogen and (don't even know what the hell L is) relative to the speed of light (WTF?)
Another Definition is "the force that animates materr,gnerates life,and powers the soul"(No not Red Bull)
@coollaidmann ........... You speak of the singularity, fortunately scientist have already developed ground breaking theories that go past the singularity, take a look at String Theory or M Theory if you're interested. But based on your comment, I don't think you're really interested in learning the truth. As the narrator of this states, you are stuck on science from 100 years ago. Read up.
@potholer54 An astrophysicist to the rescue! Yes, stars can only produce elements up to and including Fe (via fusion), but keep in mind that only super massive stars can produce ANY considerable amount of metals (in astronomy, anything besides H and He) during its lifetime. That's why we have a balls-ton of H and He, much fewer metals up to and including Fe, and still fewer metals past Fe. Btw, potholer, I love ur videos. Keep up the great work!
You say that our universe may be one of several in time and space, but that our universe is an expansion of time and space itself. How is this possible?
@babypappa =You say that our universe may be one of several in time and space,= Some cosmologists hypothesize there may be an infinite number of universes. I'll tackle this in a later video.
If there are an infinite number of universes, their are an infinite number of different possible universes.
By that definition there should be atleast one universe that has a law of nature/fisics that consumes all other universes. Except if all universes are bound by the same rules or something preventing above statement. But wouldnt that create a paradox if the infinite number of universes is true?
@Appel1705 =By that definition there should be atleast one universe that has a law of nature/fisics that consumes all other universes= But if the number of universes is infinite there is no such thing as =all=.
@Appel1705 I think there's certain game plans that any such potential alternate universe can exist. The only possible evidence we have with such things are how an electron will travel through two places but chose one to actually go through it. It presents the possibility that time scales seperate in probability, but must follow similiar cause and effect rules. And a universe potential for a universe that cancels out all other universes can't exist to begin with. Divided by 0. LOL!
im not one for science. i mean i admire it, but i have a hard time understanding it. i dont understand how this disproves the posibility of a god. god could have easily started and guided the process of the universe's creation. can someone please clarify how this video disproves god? im not trying to be offensive or anything, by the way. im just curious
@liveslowlivesimple - This series explains science. I can't disprove whatever invisible gods you believe in, just as you can never disprove that I am being followed by an invisible pink rabbit, if that's what I choose to believe in. Your question was anticipated and has been answered in the last of this series: "About the Made Easy Series." Please watch it, and your comments are welcome.
@liveslowlivesimple it does not disprove god. god is more of a philosophical concept than a scientific principal. these videos do no attempt to disprove god, just sort of explain what happend, or if you prefer, what god did exactly. hope this helps.
@npoc But it does disprove the Gods of the bible, Torah, Koran, Hinduism etc because the story of the gods and how he made the universe in those religions don't fit with what we now know, and since all concepts of God come from those religions, it essentially makes the idea of God obsolete, not something worth thinking about anymore, but of course we can't discard it completely, just like we can't discard the idea of our universe just being a computer simulation, or someone's dream
What a brain do we have humans..read first 4 words and think who did assume the Big Bang theory and was he a Muslim? "Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing Then will they not believe? " so simply ALLAH or the one and only GOD we know talks about it what made the modern Muslims who read and hear about this theory hold there religion...read about Qura'an you will be surprised
@mhbnymn i don't think anyone can understand what you are trying to say.
"Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing Then will they not believe?"
Whose quote is this? it doesn't make any sense. What is your question?
Did you translate this entire comment? ( it didn't do a good job)
1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
2. Details of belief as taught or discussed.
science
1. The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Fire is energy release. Oxygen is needed in many chemical reactions that break molecules and release energy. Fusing the nuclei of atoms like hydrogen releases enery too but an atomic bombs worth
I am a christian but also a scientist, well not really a scientist but I study a bit of physics hahah, if God does exist then I feel he would transcend time and space itself. In the previous video the narrator was right, we are the first to realize in man kind just how massive this time and space really is.
@NZrukus Not possible to be a believing Christian, Muslim (or any other believer in the supernatural) and a scientist as well. There is zero evidence of religious belief of any kind - that's why, even in deeply religious America, the vast majority of scientists are non-believers. Religion is the antithesis of science. The reason most Americans - alone amongst the developed nations - are so deeply religious is because of a dreadful public education system, Faith Schools and Home-Schooling.
@MsOobii Science can't disprove god only clams about the universe that religions make. ex the world's flat, rainbows are the work of a god, the earth is the center of the universe, night and day came before the sun, and that life was intelligently destined. All of these are clams the bible makes but none are true.
@vjwebster We were created by something, were we not? Was what created us not intelligent? What is instinct? What is the driving force behind your behavioral inclinations? And by "what" I do not mean, explain why you think you do these things, I mean, explain what causes it. This has and never will be defined by science, so why be so arrogant as to say there is no creator? There clearly is, however the egoic mind denies what cannot be intellectually known or observed by the five senses.
@MsOobii I have no doubt you are totally sincere in your beliefs and they are understandable beliefs. Obviously I'm not going to convince you or anyone else in a sentence or two. I'm not being arrogant when I can't and don't believe something for which there is not a shred of evidence. As a medical scientist (if you doubt me, google "letter to an evangelical" - it's me) I ask you to read The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins, a book written for intelligent non-scientists like you.
@vjwebster I am not a non-scientist, nor religious,. Evolution may well be the truth & I don't disagree at all. It just does not necessarily disprove God either because however much we observe "what" has happened, we still cannot identify the how & why. There must be something CAUSING these processes to happen, but obviously this cause is immaterial becasue it's not possible to physically or intellectually understand, only the effects can be observed. Thanks for your info, I'll have a look :)
@MsOobii It's very hard to disprove anything. If I claimed there was a teapot orbiting jupiter no sane person would believe it without some evidence - but how can it be disproved? The problem with religion is: "We don't know the cause so a God must have done it!" There are lots of gaps in our knowledge, and there always will be - but to say God did it is just a cop-out. That just poses a bigger question - how did that god come to exist? A greater god made him? - you can go on forever like that.
@MsOobii ..And when I assumed you were not a scientist, I mean't no disrespect. It's just that most (but not all) scientists with an understanding of cosmology and evolution are non-believers in supernatural causes. There really doesn't have to be a purpose - some things just are.
@MsOobii Highlight what fact? Sorry, my brain started botching upon reading the latter of your comment. Science has hypothesized, tested and demonstrated every atom, photon and particle in the Observable Universe. Your God seems to be playing hide n' go seek with us....
@MsOobii Your comment couldn't be any dumber. First off, in order to reject a God, its ideology must make complete sense in order to arrive upon a rational conclusion. You must also be able to demonstrate what is a 'God'. Yes, we, life in general were created, but why assert a God here? Evolution is a fact. Creation is ridicule.
@RockAustinDXtakerRk0 Why NOT assert a God here, it's a very applicable term given that, at least in the eyes of logic, we have a creator. WHY ARGUE about specific words."Your comment couldn't be dumber" is no more than a "I am better than you" which stems from your ego. Also,evolution is actually a THEORY. "God" (creator - whatever) clearly intended for evolution to happen (if it is indeed the case) and "Creation is ridicule" -- that's even dumber than my comment. Do you exist?
@RockAustinDXtakerRk0 So if you read, I was merely trying to express to another person the fact that there need not be a separation between God and Science. I am not even religious. If I was, it wouldn't matter anyway as we are all (for good reason) of different perception & no one regardless of mind capacity or ability to "observe," "demonstrate" or try to win against others in whatever way, is of any more value than anyone else.
@MsOobii How can you expect there to be no seperation between God and Science. They aren't compatible. God is a something we have never witnessed. If it's timeless, spaceless and immaterial that means it's nonexistant. Period. If I say there's a unicorn on Venus. Your default position would be a skeptic untill that unicorn on Venus has been proven. Science has given us the technological benefits of today and a better construction of the world around us. Where does this leave a 'God'...
@RockAustinDXtakerRk0 As you rightly said, it depends on what you define as God. I define God as our creator, and believe that there is such in existence as that which is timeless and immaterial - it is the nature of the mind (the ego) to deny that which is not observable by any the five senses, since it cannot be logically understood. I am all for science, but something that is immaterial is present within everything, as its driving force. Science/logic WILL never succeed in identifying this.
@RockAustinDXtakerRk0 Separation is an illusion of the form, by that I mean our everchanging life situation - the reason we feel different all the time. And by immaterial present within everything, I mean such things as "instinct" - how can you logically explain why a newborn knows how to feed, for instance. Perhaps the reason why it does, and all the aspects involved in its ability to do so can be observed, but how it happens -- this is an eternal mystery. Science will never be so complete.
@MsOobii Science has never claimed to know it all or be complete. You can't be completely knowledgable on something that has no end. That's an "eternal mystery". Not just a newborn, the same can be said for any life forms. When you tell a dog to sit down, how does his nervous system even perceive that he's being told to sit down? I don't expect an answer to everything, I'm just a learner. It's ignorance asserting a God of the gaps somewhere just because we have no explanation for it.
@RockAustinDXtakerRk0 The indefinable / immaterial aspect to all of life, such as in your example, is exactly where a God may apply, not as an explanation, but as a form of, shall we say, acceptance that there is more than the explicable. We never ever will identify thedriving force BEHIND life's processes. So would it be so mad as to choose a verbal definition to this missing piece? It doesn't matter what a person's beliefs are, it's simply a word to define what WILL, remain unknown.
@MsOobii "WILL, remain unknown". I disagree. Who would've thought centuries ago that we'd have rocket ships flying out into space, landing on the Moon, mechanical constructions which accelerate around 500km/h. Mankinds view of the Universe a couple centuries ago was geocentric. Over time, Science proved it wrong. Just because we haven't demonstrated something right now, doesn't mean it never will. That's what every skeptic said before it all ever happened.
@zooryanzoo123 No it's not just you. The reality of the cosmos and the evolution of life - in so far as we know it - is much more awe-inspiring and wondrous than any bronze-age mythology with all it's brutality and horror.
So, I have a (probably really stupid) question. Okay, you said that the first stars were made of hydrogen, and when they began vibrating fast enough, they turned into helium, and that released enough energy to ignite the star, and the heavier elements came after. So here's my question: I thought fire wouldn't burn unless there was oxygen. How would the star ignite if there was no oxygen?
This should be mandatory at every school. These are simply brilliant and it makes me sad how many people do not know the things explained in these series.
@themrjord As you've pointed out, stars only normally produce elements up to iron because it is energetically favourable. Elements above iron are only produced in meaningful amounts in a supernova.
@jeebersjumpincryst always felt the same myself.Its fantastically long for sure but doesn't seem long enough for what happened.Ah maybe we just have no concept of time scales....
If our sun orbits the galactic centre every 200 to 250 million years then the galaxy can't have rotated many times in 14B years (Especially considering the galaxy had to condense from the original cloud in that time) but I suppose a few spins is all it takes to start a swirl.
When you break it down it seems like a short time period.
Potholer54, I believe you have your stellar death explanation incorrect. As I have read, stars gradually produce heavier elements in increasing amounts, and there are certain elements that have a very high or very low thermal density in comparison to their actual density. Iron is the first major variant, and it is very common that when stars produce iron in large amounts, it absorbs heat rapidly and cools the star, causing it to collapse rapidly. The momentum from the collapse destabilizes it.
@Misterb0z It's not at the same temperature. The moment it becomes iron, its thermal density greatly increases. Since there is still the same amount of thermal energy in it, its temperature drops greatly. This causes it to absorb thermal energy from surrounding material, thus cooling it.
@TheReaverOfDarkness If you're going to discuss physics, then could you at least use correct terminology? What do you mean by 'thermal density'? SHC?
Temperature is a relative term, and depends on the extent to which energy is transferred from one body to another. The fusion of two lighter nuclei will itself release energy, which will manifest itself in the a) the kinetic energy of the products and b) the separation of the particles in question. Simply put, the energy of the particles increases.
@TheReaverOfDarkness Thanks for the link. So it's a quantum mechanical way of dealing with statistical thermodynamics. But that doesn't answer the point I made above.
@Misterb0z In layman's terms, thermal density is the amount of thermal energy it takes, relative to the object's mass, to raise its temperature by a specific amount. An object with high thermal density requires more thermal energy to raise its temperature by a specific amount than does an object of low thermal density.
Water has a particularly high thermal density, and most metals have a lower thermal density than water. That is why water makes a great insulating agent.
@TheReaverOfDarkness "In layman's terms, thermal density is the amount of thermal energy it takes, relative to the object's mass, to raise its temperature by a specific amount." No. That's specific heat capacity. But now I know that you're talking about SHC we can move on to my point. So again, how can the temperature of a star drop if the energy of its constituent particles is increasing?
You should be an very calm guy... to take all the comments from creationists and don't get angry hehehe
alandanweiss 3 hours ago
uh oh . 194 religious people were surprised when this video came on to there question.
William81Edge10 5 days ago in playlist potholer54
Amazing presentation. How can anyone not be awed by the splendour of natural laws and consciously choose to disregard discoveries in favour of prehistoric guesswork?
BggProductions 1 week ago
So fetch-making.
nicolechenowethxo 2 weeks ago
Mind = Blown.
ToTeff 2 weeks ago
Thank you for these two wonderfully succinct videos.
If only such videos attracted as much attention as the reality show tripe and other flotsam of YouTube.
I will make sure that my children watch these videos and are hopefully inspired to watch more science based programming.
EricLDunn 3 weeks ago
0:30 Wait, processes we understand? So we know understand and know what caused "The Big Bang"?
Whitescorpian101 1 month ago
@Whitescorpian101 He didn't say that. He was referring to the creation of stars, planets, and galaxies.
dwkjo 2 weeks ago
so do we know what caused the big bang yet? or no?
hbk1995 1 month ago
@hbk1995 No
MrThaPatrick 1 month ago
Nice touch with the Rodrigo music; one of my favorites of Spanish classical guitar.
bannor99 1 month ago
in its strange way, it's so poetic! Thank you for this wonderful explanation for a uneducated mind like mine(in science, at least;) ).
keep up the good work;)
schpoutns 1 month ago
Comment removed
epilepticPvP 2 months ago
i'm sitting here amazed how man can go back in time, which as shown here is nothing but distance. this vid shows how the universe doesn't get rid of it's evidence! WOE!
saladooq 2 months ago
In addition to the excellent content, the audio and video was beautifully edited together! Clearly a lot of thought and hard work has gone into making this - appreciate it!
Tapiola2007 3 months ago
I really do not understand how a "Bing Bang" with the expantion of "time and Space" and the "formation" of energy and matter from a atom "or nothing" isn't just another creation story trying to pst off as Scientific Theory no matter how many times the Catholic Priest/Cosmologist insists his religon has nothing to do with his Super Atom Theory
THe moon orbits Earth to counter gravity,the earth orbits sun to counter gravity
That Universe must expand to counter gravity or collapse under it=silly
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "I really do not understand how a "Bing Bang" with the expantion of "time and Space" and the "formation" of energy and matter from a atom "or nothing" isn't just another creation story trying to pst off as Scientific Theory"
Really? You can't see the difference? Well it's quite simple. The standard cosmological model is the one that fits and describes the evidence we see. It predicted CMB, hence it is a convincing model.
Misterb0z 4 months ago
"standard cosmological model is the one that fits "
Under the wrong pretense that the Universe must be expanding to counter gravity or be collapsing under the weight of gravity
Under Lemetre first believing in expansion and a "point of creation: first and then going looking for "proof" in Hubbles Data second only cherry picking the red shift he liked as "proof"
The Universe is not expanding,it is not collapsing, Gravity is countered by orbital motion (Moon around earth,earth around sun)
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
"You can't see the difference? "
NOpe, the Catholic Priest, Goerge Lemetre, despite all his screaming it not a creation story, pulled a Creation Story over the "Big Bangers" eyes
There cant be something from nothing, so "Big Bang" is just a creation story posing as Scientific Theory
Moing to "Bubble <Multiverse " theory where this Universe errupted from elsewhere in existence asnd is but 1 reality of many cant dodge "Okay so where did the Multiverse come from"?(Or was it "always"?)
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
"hence it is a convincing model."
Even if you could spontanuosly create a universe of energy and matter from a single atom....the model states that realty expanded at faster then the speed of light as did the created matter and energy
If this was so then matter could have never coolese into stars flying away from each other at the speed of light and would be in a sphere around the blast point not filling the space evenly
Even in Science it can be hard to accept no need for "A beggining"
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel Try reading about the standard cosmological model. You're not making any sense at the moment.
Misterb0z 4 months ago
"Try reading about the standard cosmological model. You're not making any sense at the moment"
Which part of "Big Bang" is just another Creation story with cherry picked data as "proof" after the predisposition of there "must have been a beggining" isn't making sense?
The Universe isn't "expanding"
The Universe isn't "collapsing"
The "red shift" and "blue shift" is from relative orbital motion that is the mechanism that counters gravity
There was no "Beggining"
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "Which part of "Big Bang" is just another Creation story with cherry picked data as "proof" after the predisposition of there "must have been a beggining" isn't making sense?" Err, the fact that it's a model with predictive power that isn't contradicted by any observations. And if you understand the first thing about General Relativity then you'll understand that talking about time outside of space, hence a 'beggining' (sic) is utterly meaningless.
Misterb0z 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "The "red shift" and "blue shift" is from relative orbital motion that is the mechanism that counters gravity(?!?!)" Counters gravity? What does that even mean?
Anyway, your statement here is testable. If red-shift is due to orbital motion, one half of a galaxy will be red-shifted and the other half blue-shifted. Is this what we see? What about galaxies that we see side on? Why are they red-shifted? Why are more distant galaxies more red-shifted than closer ones?
Misterb0z 4 months ago
"If red-shift is due to orbital motion, one half of a galaxy will be red-shifted and the other half blue-shifted. Is this what we see?"
The Andromeda Gallaxy,M31, is blue shifted as it is on a collision course with the milky way
That Galaxies have collided in the past and still are coliding with each other has had some "thinker scientists"(Physists) revising their claim that it isn't actially matter "expanding" but "time/space"
Lemetre was a Catholic Priest, "big Bang" is creationist b.s.
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "The Andromeda Gallaxy,M31, is blue shifted as it is on a collision course with the milky way" Yes. Well done. You may have noticed that although the universe has a large scale uniformity to it, on a smaller scale it is more lumpy. You, for example, are considerably denser than average when it comes to space. This doesn't pose a problem for the SCM, although it does raise questions as to the reason for the disparity between matter and antimatter.
Misterb0z 4 months ago
"You, for example, are considerably denser than average when it comes to space"
Not neccisarily
"Space" is just the distance between Mass' and the reason why the "thinker scientists"(PHysists) calculations don't add up is because the spaces between the stars and galaxies isn't a "void" it is filled with hydrogen,hielium and other trace gases and material(It's only when near a star is any condesation noticable by illumination)
Bulk of a Galaxies mass is clumped gas not "dark matter"
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRealArchAngel "Bulk of a Galaxies mass is clumped gas not "dark matter""
'Clumped gas' wouldn't cause gravitational lensing. Nor would it contribute to the rate of rotation of galaxies that we observe. What it would do is show black body radiation. We don't know what dark matter is, but clumped gas it ain't.
Misterb0z 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel but back to my question. Is one half of the Andromeda galaxy blue-shifted and the other half red-shifted? If not, your assertion that the shift in spectral lines is purely down to orbital motion can be safely ignored. So where is your evidence?
Misterb0z 4 months ago
"but back to my question. Is one half of the Andromeda galaxy blue-shifted and the other half red-shifted? "
Yes.
But the suttle differences in "blue shift" vs "red shift" isn't what George Lemetre was looking for to prove his version of "In the Beggining"
He was looking for "red shift" under the pretense of the Dopler effect and already convinced there was a "big Bang" (people that believe something first then go looking for "proof" always find "it")
just like Earths EM static = "BBBN"
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel You missed the key part. Where is your evidence? Of course there is a *subtle* (note spelling) difference due to the relative velocities of the constituent matter relative to us, but the *average* velocity isn't zero, the whole thing's moving towards us. This is nothing that will surprise any astrophysicist. Spectral lines tell us useful stuff. We can use subtle shifts to detect the orbits of planets that we can't directly observe around their parent stars.
Misterb0z 4 months ago
"You missed the key part. Where is your evidence? "
Right in Hubbles same data that Lemetre thumped on to prove God used a "big Bang" to make the Universe
"the *average* velocity isn't zero"
Of corse not
With Earths rotation,earth's orbit around sun,Sun orbit around galaxy, and Galaxy orbit around Hecules cluster everything is "red shifted" and "blue shifted" at same time
To claim "all galaxies are flying away from us" is ridicolous as the Hercules group is not
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "To claim "all galaxies are flying away from us" is ridicolous (sic) as the Hercules group is not"
Nobody disputes that. But the data, on the whole, match Hubble's Law. If we're moving away from one galaxy due to our orbit etc, why are we moving faster away from a more distant galaxy? It makes no sense. And why, 6 months later when we should be moving towards it, is it still red-shifted? Why do we observe red shift in all distant galaxies? Surely one direction should be blue.
Misterb0z 4 months ago
"But the data, on the whole, match Hubble's Law."
That's rich considering the law was devised to try to explain what is observed in the data
"If we're moving away from one galaxy due to our orbit etc,"
Not so much "moving away" as relative perspective from relative point in orbit(s)
"why are we moving faster away from a more distant galaxy"
Distance makes things farther away look like they "move more" when point of perspective chamges
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "Distance makes things farther away look like they "move more" when point of perspective chamges" Not true. Easy to demonstrate. Hold up your finger and look at it with one eye closed. Now switch eyes. Switch back. Which appears to "move more", your finger or the background?
Misterb0z 4 months ago
"Not true. Easy to demonstrate. Hold up your finger and look at it with one eye closed. Now switch eyes. Switch back. Which appears to "move more", your finger or the background? "
Wrong way
Look at one end of a 25 mile mountain range 200 miles in the distance then turn your head till you are looking at the other end
Did your head travel 25 miles in the turn?
Of course not
compensating for earth rotation and earth orbit can't compensate for solar system motion,galaxy motion,cluster motion
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "Did your head travel 25 miles in the turn?" And does red shift show motion perpendicular to the galaxy's displacement from us? Thanks for the pointless trip to nowhere #27.
You still haven't addressed the fact that even if we concede your absurd assertion that red-shift is purely due to orbital motion to be true, we appear to be moving away from all directions at once.
Misterb0z 4 months ago
"even if we concede your absurd assertion that red-shift is purely due to orbital motion"
NO that light stretches and degrades over time and distance plays a role also..especially with the most distant observable objects
And know this isn't "my absurd notion" it's practical Astronomy 101 in the Science Building as aposed to Theoretical "Atrophysics" or "Cosmology" in the Math Building
"we appear to be moving away from all directions at once"
Oh My, that would make us the "center"..lol
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "NO that light stretches and degrades over time and distance plays a role also.." Yes. Quite. It's a concept called symmetry in physics. Red-shift can be considered a stretching of photons as space-time itself expands. But hang on, you're using valid physics to try and disprove the very thing you're using to disprove itself... If your university is limited to a solitary 'science building' then no wonder you're getting into this dire mess.
Misterb0z 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "Oh My, that would make us the "center"..lol" Gosh... it would now, wouldn't it? How on earth are we going to explain that? I do believe you're the first person ever to have noticed that! Physics will be turned on its head! The textbooks will have to be re-written - stop the printing press, I say! Your Nobel prize notification is in the post, and... oh, hang on, no. Lemaître explained all that. In 1927.
Misterb0z 4 months ago
"say! Your Nobel prize notification is in the post, "
Oh that a Warmonger turned peacemonger feeling so bad that his invention killed millions making a "peace prize" is even sillier then a "expanding Universe"(from our perspective mind you)
"Lemaître explained all that. In 1927."
He was the first to propose that a "expanding Universe" expalins the observable "red shift" noticed as early as 1917 by Astronomers like Vesto Slipher
Slow to be accepted,now slowly being marginalized
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "Slow to be accepted,now slowly being marginalized" The Standard Cosmological Model is certainly up for some significant modifications, but not in the way you seem to think. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and a little knowledge is what you display. Red-shift gives us a very accurate picture of the relative motions of the galaxies. Nobody, nobody disputes the fact that the universe started with a very hot, very dense beginning and has and still is expanding.
Misterb0z 4 months ago
"The Standard Cosmological Model is certainly up for some significant modifications, but not in the way you seem to think."
Slapping much older Multiverse Ideolgy from ancient Cosmology to try to hide the Creationist like "big Bang" start is a patch at best and grasping at straws at worse
Why does there have to be "a beggining" to existence?
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and a little knowledge is what you display."
Thatis not the context of the expresion..lol
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
"Nobody, nobody disputes the fact that the universe started with a very hot, very dense beginning and has and still is expanding."
Not the re-babbling Armcahjai thinker scientice(Physists) and wannabes anyway
Null physics,Stedy State(antiquated), and Cockwork Universe(multiverse) are other Cosmological Models that the average armchair physist and lay person may have never heard of given "Big Bang's" current "accepted" state
Those 3 models state the universe(multiverse) always existed
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRealArchAngel "Those 3 models state the universe(multiverse) always existed"
You've been watching too much science fiction, clearly. Either that or too much porn. You might like to read more than the first line of the Wikipedia article on "Cockwork universe".
Misterb0z 3 months ago
"nobody disputes the fact that the universe started with a very hot, very dense beginning and has and still is expanding."
Really?
Where did this "very dense hot beggining" come from?
More importanly on the claim that the average peak tempature of the Interstellar medium proves "Big Bang"..it doesn't as it is a average tempature..all area can ne hotter or cooler and the 2.75K is a estimate,not a actual measurement that was INTERPETED as residue "Big Bang" radiation 20 year after first found
TheRealArchAngel 3 months ago
"and still is expanding."
Ah yes, Hubbles noticing the large redshift on the most distance galaxies INTERPETED as the "dopler effect" with the furthest galaxies "travelling faster and faster"
Problem with that is the galaxies are still the same size as they were 80 years ago so while they are "redshifted" they are still exactly were they were the last time Hubble Looked
Light being a wave "stretches" over distance(think flashlight,not Sound wave) and naturally redshifts over time/distance
TheRealArchAngel 3 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel Jeeez, where do you get your "info"/hogwash from, really? I regret replying to you at all. By the way, your tin-foil hat is almost falling off now...
winterstellar 2 months ago
"where do you get your "info"/hogwash from"
Pre-liberal inflitration of Education education WHen the US was #1 in Math and Science and Watching Al Gores movie and taking a petition for mommy and Daddy to sign wasn't part of the "Scientific Ciriculum"
"By the way, your tin-foil hat is almost falling off now..."
defensively I Can "Mind Maze" along with "split mnd" and Offensively I can "Eject",Thrust and "Phychic Scream"
Im one of the people tin hat people fear
Tin hats do shit to stop me
TheRealArchAngel 2 months ago
"Light being a wave "stretches" over distance(think flashlight,not Sound wave) and naturally redshifts over time/distance"
Wht Astronomers observe as "redshif" getting larger and larger and COsmologist INTERPET as "proof of Big Bang" is nothing more then ancient light from those distant galaxies stretching more and more over distance not "galaxies traveling faster and faster the further away they are"(rollseyes)
Not only can they stretch light in the lab they can actually slow it to a crawl
TheRealArchAngel 3 months ago
"A little knowledge,"
Do remember that in the absence of gravity like substances tend to clump so proto-planent matter first clumps until gravity takes over at about a 1/4 mile diameter and the object gravity will force a "Sphere" at the size of 1/4 the oon
Stars likewise form from hydroden first clumping by friction in the absence of gravity..no "stiring" needed
I remember Ocean floor rock find ocean at leat 4.7 billion years old..same as oldest 1g Earth rock not cycled under via tectonics
TheRealArchAngel 3 months ago
" A little knowledge is a dangerous thing"
Now what wsa the last thing I was trying to remember from cosmology/Astronoly classes in collges and other related material?
Ah, yes
The Hubble telescope can see about 27 billion light years so that the "Big Bang happened 14 billion years ago" is already bullshit
The highest estimates I ever heard was that the Universe is roughly 62 billion years old...assuming "Big Bang" and "Expansion" is true as took light 27 billion years to reach Huble
TheRealArchAngel 3 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel Yes, the universe IS 13.7 billion years old, and we are aware of the universe's size. But there is no mystery there or any conspiracy of science or whatever you're suggesting, it all adds up. And you don't have to be an astrophysicist to know why, neither do you have to ask NASA or JPL or any leading astrophysicist/cosmologists of why/how it adds up, wikipedia will probably suffice just fine. Or any beginner's book on the subject.: )
winterstellar 2 months ago
"Yes, the universe IS 13.7 billion years old,"
No that is the farthest current telescops can see
Wasn't even the 70's when the limit was 5 billionish and back in Hubles days the best telescopes saw distant galaxies as "blobs" at a few hundred million light years out
If they ever make a Telescope that can see 300 trillion. light years,(and counting) Big Bangers are fucked
"there is no mystery there or any conspiracy of science "
Astronomers and Cosmologists are 2 different things
TheRealArchAngel 2 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel That is NOT quite how we find/found out how old it is. Jeez, why don't you just look up "age of the universe" in wikipedia? Stick to wikipedia, man..they're awesome!! Peace!: )
winterstellar 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"That is NOT quite how we find/found out how old it is"
Of course not
Relative triangulation shows that the furthest observed galaxy is 13.7 bil;lion light years agay
This means it took 13.7 billion light years for the light of a fully formed galaxy to reach earth thus the Universe is actually at least 13.7 billion yerars old plus the 13.7 billion years it took the light of a fully formed galaxy to reach us,plus how ever long it took that galaxy to fully form
It isn't just 13.7 billion
TheRealArchAngel 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"why don't you just look up "age of the universe" in wikipedia?"
Cause those that add to Wikipeda dont count the time it takes for a galaxy to form,plus the time it takes for light to travel
Any Physist worth their salt is taling about a 45 billion ro 65 billion year old universe to account for ully formed galaxies at the edge of what currently cn be sen plus light traveling up to 13.7 billion years
Plus where we see it now isn't where it actually is if the Universe is "expanding" as claimed
TheRealArchAngel 2 months ago
" neither do you have to ask NASA or JPL or any leading astrophysicist/cosmologists of why/how it adds up, wikipedia will probably suffice "
FOr what? Dulling you mind to not use reason and ask questions about why one field of science says 1 thing while another field of "science" likes to pull things out of their ass that isn't neccesarily falsifiable (There is no way to scientifically conclusively test that there was no Big Bang...you just have to have faith that red shift "proves it")
TheRealArchAngel 2 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "That's rich considering the law was devised to try to explain what is observed in the data"
No, the law is putting the relationship seen between the variables into words. It is an observation, and generally it holds true.
Misterb0z 4 months ago
"And why, 6 months later when we should be moving towards it, is it still red-shifted? "
Because it's not the Earth's orbit causing the percieved "red shift"
The Sun travels 220 kilometers a second orbiting the Galaxy and it would take 225 million years before we see a universe full of "blue shifted galaxies (all different ones mind you)
The Mily way orbits the Hecules Group (also "local Group" at 300 kilometers per second
The local group travels 660 kilometers per second to Hydra group
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "Because it's not the Earth's orbit causing the percieved "red shift". The Sun travels 220 kilometers a second orbiting the Galaxy"
And how is it managing to move away from things in every direction at once? The speed at which we're orbiting the galactic centre is negligible when compared to the rate of recession of distant galaxies.
And hang on, are we just going to ignore all these myriad ways in which you're demonstrably wrong? How does that work?
Misterb0z 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"And how is it managing to move away from things in every direction at once? "
Is it?
"Red shift" coul;d also mean a relatively close object is shrinking on itself at a acclerated rate (as in getting smaller as it condenses)
Besides light isn't "forever" and ends to "stetch" the further it travels causing natural "red shifting" the further it gets from it's source so what could be observed is very old light from a far away source not a source that is "rapidly moving away"
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
"The speed at which we're orbiting the galactic centre is negligible."
Really?
The sun travels at 220 kilometers a second, the Milkyway at 300 Kilometers a second and the Local group at 600 kilometers a second
The so called "expandsion" is clocked at 50 - 100 kilometers a second depending on which distant galaxy you look at and how good the telescope is at geosyncing
Why is the Local group on collision course with Hydra Group if the universe is "expanding" and they should be "flying away"?
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "The sun travels at 220 kilometers a second, the Milkyway at 300 Kilometers a second and the Local group at 600 kilometers a second" And Hubble's Constant is around 70 km/s per Mpc. An order of magnitude approximation for a typical galaxy is around 1000 Mpc, so a rate of recession of around 70,000 km/s. You really don't know your stuff, do you?
"Why is the Local group on collision course with Hydra Group..?" GRAVITY. GRAVITY. Did I point you in the direction of Newton?
Misterb0z 4 months ago
"order of magnitude approximation for a typical galaxy is around 1000 Mpc, so a rate of recession of around 70,000 km/s"
85 km/s was the highest consistant estimate observed with telescope with execellent geo-syinging, was actually being generous with the 100, 70 (wiout the ,000) was the low consistent estimate
"GRAVITY."
But what about "expansion" making every galaxy fly away from every other "as observed"?..lol
Even Physists now marginalize classic "big Bang" in favor of Mulktiverse Theory
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "85 km/s was the highest consistant estimate observed with telescope with execellent geo-syinging" I have no idea what "geo-syinging" is. I think perhaps you mean 'geo-synching'? In which case I have news for you. The Ruskies have sent a machine into orbit. In fact, all together we've put up thousands of man-made satellites, including a thing called a 'space telescope', called, fittingly enough, Hubble. You might like to look into what we've learnt from it.
Misterb0z 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel Oh, and multiverses don't replace the standard cosmological model. It's still the best model we've got. What else? Oh, yes. You've won the Cold War. Well done. And you've de-stabilised the Middle East. Well done.
Goodnight. My different time zone seems to have red-shifted me. lol etc.
Misterb0z 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "Right in Hubbles same data that Lemetre thumped on to prove God used a "big Bang" to make the Universe" Did *Lemaître* time travel? Because he put forth his hypothesis in 1927. Hubble published his data in 1929. Smells like you're making shit up as you go along.
Misterb0z 4 months ago
"Did *Lemaître* time travel? Because he put forth his hypothesis in 1927. Hubble published his data in 1929. Smells like you're making shit up as you go along."
Nice try
Hubbles data was the "proof" Lemetre was looking for to "prove" his laughable theory "right"
here is leimetre's biograpgy
theor(dot)jinr(dot)ru/~kuzemsky/glembio(dot)html
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel Lemaître wasn't the only one that saw that Hubble's data matched his prediction. Everyone agrees it does. Lemaître could have been a crackpot, but if his prediction didn't match our observations he would have remained a nobody. He isn't. He's rightly regarded as the father of the SCM There are anomalous points on Hubble's chart, sure, but how would *you* put the main relationship between the distance to a galaxy and its speed of recession into words?
Misterb0z 4 months ago
"Everyone agrees it does."
Yes, even eienstien said that it was the best explaination of how God created the Universe(smirk)
"how would *you* put the main relationship between the distance to a galaxy and its speed of recession into words?"
Light degradation of acient light sources...everyone was duped into believing an alternate creation story from faulty perception of the so called "observable evidence" without falsifying out all the other explaination for "red shift" at those distances
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "Light degradation of acient (sic) light sources.." At last. A straight answer. And an old creationist chestnut at that. Thought you looked down on creationists. So what's this physical mechanism behind 'light degradation'? Where does the energy go?
Misterb0z 4 months ago
"And an old creationist chestnut at that"
HAh
The Screen Name is a old Flight Handle from my Worthog days
"Thought you looked down on creationists"
Why, long as they keep thier beliefs to themselves and don't get all preachy on me I have no problem with Creationist personally. Religion on the other hand is a means for one person to enslave another's mindset and I despise that
"So what's this physical mechanism behind 'light degradation'"
being part wave and particle it slowly disapates
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
Comment removed
Misterb0z 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRealArchAngel "being part wave and particle it slowly disapates" No, it's a soliton. Solitons don't *dissipate*.
Misterb0z 3 months ago
"Counters gravity? What does that even mean?"
You don't need time/space expanding to keep the moon from crashing into the Earth, orbital motion prevents that
You don't need time/space expanding to keep the Earh from plumeting into the Sun,orbital motion prevents that
You don't need time/space expanding to prevent the sun from falling into the Galactic Core, orbital motion prevents that
There is about 20 gallaxies orbiting each other in the Hercules Cluster that Milky Way is part of
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "You don't need time/space expanding to prevent the sun from falling into the Galactic Core, orbital motion prevents that" You're confused. Orbital motion is due to gravity. It doesn't counter gravity. You might like to look into the work of a fellow called Newton. He's managed to explain Kepler's Third Law of planetary motion mathematically. All very avant-garde stuff.
Misterb0z 4 months ago
"You're confused. Orbital motion is due to gravity. It doesn't counter gravity"
If A object is traveling fast enough to resist the pull of gravity but not fast enough to escape it then the ojbet "obits" ...please don't be a grammer/context distople..lol
" fellow called Newton"
Father of Modern Physics...Explained what gravity did, couldn't explain what it was..but still "the man"
"mathematically."
(rollseyes)
Gravity is the reaction between mass' collective em force,it isn't own "force"
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "If A (sic) object...." Okay, where are you off to now? Stop. Come back to the relevant point. Where's this data showing that the spectral shifts we see in galaxies is only due to the orbital motion of its constituents?
Misterb0z 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRealArchAngel "If A (sic) object...." Okay, where are you off to now? Stop. Come back to the relevant point. Where's this data showing that the spectral shifts we see in galaxies is only due to the orbital motion of its constituents?
Misterb0z 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRealArchAngel "There is about 20 gallaxies (sic) orbiting each other in the Hercules Cluster"
And how do we know this unless we assume red-shifted spectral lines to show the relative rates of recession of galaxies, hmm? Aren't you using the very science you're trying to disprove in order to prove that it's wrong? Nothing wrong with lateral thinking, but I think you've fallen off the edge.
Misterb0z 4 months ago
Ok maybe I get it... Its because light travels so fast that it was able to catch up to us. Some of the light does escape the universe, for all practical purposes. But light is typically emitted in all directions, so light on the opposite side of the universe traveling towards us would have to cross a distance that is expanding rapidly.
soyqueen01 4 months ago
Rightrocks - I totally agree with your point. That has always confused me. Why would we be able to see light now that was emitted way back when we were much closer to the source of the light? Especially given that light travels faster than anything else. If everything is expanding from an initial point, why isn't the light that was first emitted completely inaccessible to any matter in the universe, like a continually expanding shell outside the rest of the universe? I guess that light (or spac
soyqueen01 4 months ago
Comment removed
jmitterii2 5 months ago
Fantastic video. However I'm confused on one point. Why is the cosmic 'background radiation' pointing towards the earth? If it originated from the big bang, shouldn't it have all travelled towards the farthest regions of the universe by now, and continue to head in that direction? Or is it being reflected back at us off the matter of the universe?
RightRocks 5 months ago
The big bang has so many fallacies it needs a tourniquet; but he didn't deal with that on the film huh. Nor did I hear anything about the origin of the big bang, but then again I did get pretty bored in the 2nd half but natural explanations for the formation of this grand effect in which we live will always fail since it's origin is not natural, God is the perfect antecedent cause (law of Causality,)
coollaidmann 5 months ago
@coollaidmann Cause and effect is something that occurs in the universe. Tell me, how do you figure, by what logic / reasoning / evidence do you think that this law of causality was "present" in the absence of a universe. Don't disappear now and never answer, I'm sincerely curious for your answer.
AR333 5 months ago
@coollaidmann I find 'fallacies' an odd word to use in this context. Are you trying to say that the BB is built on ideas that are fallacies? If so, I feel that's wrong because although the BB is well know the premises on which it is based are not, so they can't be described as fallacies.
BTW what is the antecedent to the god you are describing?
pigsbishop99 5 months ago
@coollaidmann Because God can't be proven, fact.
WarriorOfWriters 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Because God can't be proven, fact."
1) Depends on what you call "God" and 2) Advanced Theoretical Physics says that it's Hl*π/Ω=C
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
"Advanced Theoretical Physics says that it's Hl*π/Ω=C"
Correction,it is claims to be Advanced Theoretical Physics and I meant it as a For example on a definition of "God"
My suspicion is some creationists claiming to be scientists haphazardly patched together the "pie" of a circle,hrequency of Hydrogen and (don't even know what the hell L is) relative to the speed of light (WTF?)
Another Definition is "the force that animates materr,gnerates life,and powers the soul"(No not Red Bull)
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@coollaidmann ........... You speak of the singularity, fortunately scientist have already developed ground breaking theories that go past the singularity, take a look at String Theory or M Theory if you're interested. But based on your comment, I don't think you're really interested in learning the truth. As the narrator of this states, you are stuck on science from 100 years ago. Read up.
Arutha258 4 months ago in playlist From Big Bang to Us -- Made Easy
i might be wrong but a star will only fuse up to iron
you need energy to fuse but iron absorbed's energy so fusing above iron is imposable
and how they rest of the elements are formed?
in the supernova there is a split second when heavier elements are made
that's why we have so little
spenore 5 months ago
@spenore =i might be wrong but a star will only fuse up to iron= That's right. I corrected this in the errata video.
potholer54 5 months ago
@potholer54 you still keep on eyes on comment!!!
good
crazykailash 5 months ago
@potholer54 An astrophysicist to the rescue! Yes, stars can only produce elements up to and including Fe (via fusion), but keep in mind that only super massive stars can produce ANY considerable amount of metals (in astronomy, anything besides H and He) during its lifetime. That's why we have a balls-ton of H and He, much fewer metals up to and including Fe, and still fewer metals past Fe. Btw, potholer, I love ur videos. Keep up the great work!
CarlSagan6 4 months ago
Dude this was uploaded on my birthday back in 2007, kinda cool.
Anyway.. yeah I have some questions for you later. For now, Im just gonna finish these series. Very nice and well put together.
hohohoho578 6 months ago
Sorry if this has been answered before;
0:40 to 0:56
You say that our universe may be one of several in time and space, but that our universe is an expansion of time and space itself. How is this possible?
I'd really like to understand this.
Great channel, by the way. :)
babypappa 6 months ago
@babypappa =You say that our universe may be one of several in time and space,= Some cosmologists hypothesize there may be an infinite number of universes. I'll tackle this in a later video.
potholer54 5 months ago
@potholer54
If there are an infinite number of universes, their are an infinite number of different possible universes.
By that definition there should be atleast one universe that has a law of nature/fisics that consumes all other universes. Except if all universes are bound by the same rules or something preventing above statement. But wouldnt that create a paradox if the infinite number of universes is true?
Appel1705 5 months ago
@Appel1705 =By that definition there should be atleast one universe that has a law of nature/fisics that consumes all other universes= But if the number of universes is infinite there is no such thing as =all=.
potholer54 5 months ago
@potholer54
True ^^
Appel1705 5 months ago
@Appel1705 I think there's certain game plans that any such potential alternate universe can exist. The only possible evidence we have with such things are how an electron will travel through two places but chose one to actually go through it. It presents the possibility that time scales seperate in probability, but must follow similiar cause and effect rules. And a universe potential for a universe that cancels out all other universes can't exist to begin with. Divided by 0. LOL!
jmitterii2 5 months ago
@potholer54 Ill be looking foreward to that video for sure... The multiverse is a truly mind boggling prospect
luker4459 5 months ago
@babypappa ..... take a look at M Theory or google Michio Kaku, he's very good at explaining it.
Arutha258 4 months ago in playlist From Big Bang to Us -- Made Easy
be not deceived, God is not mocked
ikerocky98 6 months ago
im not one for science. i mean i admire it, but i have a hard time understanding it. i dont understand how this disproves the posibility of a god. god could have easily started and guided the process of the universe's creation. can someone please clarify how this video disproves god? im not trying to be offensive or anything, by the way. im just curious
liveslowlivesimple 6 months ago
@liveslowlivesimple - This series explains science. I can't disprove whatever invisible gods you believe in, just as you can never disprove that I am being followed by an invisible pink rabbit, if that's what I choose to believe in. Your question was anticipated and has been answered in the last of this series: "About the Made Easy Series." Please watch it, and your comments are welcome.
potholer54 6 months ago
@liveslowlivesimple it does not disprove god. god is more of a philosophical concept than a scientific principal. these videos do no attempt to disprove god, just sort of explain what happend, or if you prefer, what god did exactly. hope this helps.
npoc 6 months ago
@npoc But it does disprove the Gods of the bible, Torah, Koran, Hinduism etc because the story of the gods and how he made the universe in those religions don't fit with what we now know, and since all concepts of God come from those religions, it essentially makes the idea of God obsolete, not something worth thinking about anymore, but of course we can't discard it completely, just like we can't discard the idea of our universe just being a computer simulation, or someone's dream
robokoroboko 6 months ago
@liveslowlivesimple You cannot disprove good (which is very unfortunate). But this surely disprove modern religions.
MrG0TH1ER 6 months ago
@MrG0TH1ER except scientology :/
shadowmax889 5 months ago
What a brain do we have humans..read first 4 words and think who did assume the Big Bang theory and was he a Muslim? "Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing Then will they not believe? " so simply ALLAH or the one and only GOD we know talks about it what made the modern Muslims who read and hear about this theory hold there religion...read about Qura'an you will be surprised
mhbnymn 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mhbnymn Allah was created by humans, my friend. Not the other way around.
GluttonForSex 6 months ago
@mhbnymn i don't think anyone can understand what you are trying to say.
"Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing Then will they not believe?"
Whose quote is this? it doesn't make any sense. What is your question?
Did you translate this entire comment? ( it didn't do a good job)
KELBYL 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Science should be declared as a religion.
sudhanshugupta20able 6 months ago
@sudhanshugupta20able
Religion
1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
2. Details of belief as taught or discussed.
science
1. The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
not the same thing.
zooryanzoo123 6 months ago
@LiliFromHali
Fire is energy release. Oxygen is needed in many chemical reactions that break molecules and release energy. Fusing the nuclei of atoms like hydrogen releases enery too but an atomic bombs worth
drbarry00 6 months ago
I am a christian but also a scientist, well not really a scientist but I study a bit of physics hahah, if God does exist then I feel he would transcend time and space itself. In the previous video the narrator was right, we are the first to realize in man kind just how massive this time and space really is.
NZrukus 6 months ago
@NZrukus Not possible to be a believing Christian, Muslim (or any other believer in the supernatural) and a scientist as well. There is zero evidence of religious belief of any kind - that's why, even in deeply religious America, the vast majority of scientists are non-believers. Religion is the antithesis of science. The reason most Americans - alone amongst the developed nations - are so deeply religious is because of a dreadful public education system, Faith Schools and Home-Schooling.
vjwebster 5 months ago
is it just me or is science more beautiful than any religon?
zooryanzoo123 6 months ago
@zooryanzoo123
amen!
speciwacy 6 months ago
@zooryanzoo123 Does science disprove God? It only seems to highlight the fact that we have a creator with intelligence.
MsOobii 5 months ago
@MsOobii Science can't disprove god only clams about the universe that religions make. ex the world's flat, rainbows are the work of a god, the earth is the center of the universe, night and day came before the sun, and that life was intelligently destined. All of these are clams the bible makes but none are true.
zooryanzoo123 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MsOobii "Does science disprove God? It only seems to highlight the fact that we have a creator with intelligence."
Really? How does it do that, pray tell?
vjwebster 5 months ago
@vjwebster We were created by something, were we not? Was what created us not intelligent? What is instinct? What is the driving force behind your behavioral inclinations? And by "what" I do not mean, explain why you think you do these things, I mean, explain what causes it. This has and never will be defined by science, so why be so arrogant as to say there is no creator? There clearly is, however the egoic mind denies what cannot be intellectually known or observed by the five senses.
MsOobii 5 months ago
@MsOobii I have no doubt you are totally sincere in your beliefs and they are understandable beliefs. Obviously I'm not going to convince you or anyone else in a sentence or two. I'm not being arrogant when I can't and don't believe something for which there is not a shred of evidence. As a medical scientist (if you doubt me, google "letter to an evangelical" - it's me) I ask you to read The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins, a book written for intelligent non-scientists like you.
vjwebster 5 months ago
@vjwebster I am not a non-scientist, nor religious,. Evolution may well be the truth & I don't disagree at all. It just does not necessarily disprove God either because however much we observe "what" has happened, we still cannot identify the how & why. There must be something CAUSING these processes to happen, but obviously this cause is immaterial becasue it's not possible to physically or intellectually understand, only the effects can be observed. Thanks for your info, I'll have a look :)
MsOobii 5 months ago
@MsOobii It's very hard to disprove anything. If I claimed there was a teapot orbiting jupiter no sane person would believe it without some evidence - but how can it be disproved? The problem with religion is: "We don't know the cause so a God must have done it!" There are lots of gaps in our knowledge, and there always will be - but to say God did it is just a cop-out. That just poses a bigger question - how did that god come to exist? A greater god made him? - you can go on forever like that.
vjwebster 5 months ago
@MsOobii ..And when I assumed you were not a scientist, I mean't no disrespect. It's just that most (but not all) scientists with an understanding of cosmology and evolution are non-believers in supernatural causes. There really doesn't have to be a purpose - some things just are.
vjwebster 5 months ago
@MsOobii Highlight what fact? Sorry, my brain started botching upon reading the latter of your comment. Science has hypothesized, tested and demonstrated every atom, photon and particle in the Observable Universe. Your God seems to be playing hide n' go seek with us....
RockAustinDXtakerRk0 5 months ago
@RockAustinDXtakerRk0 You do not know anything about my beliefs or "God" for a start. Are you trying to say that we weren't created?
MsOobii 5 months ago
@MsOobii Your comment couldn't be any dumber. First off, in order to reject a God, its ideology must make complete sense in order to arrive upon a rational conclusion. You must also be able to demonstrate what is a 'God'. Yes, we, life in general were created, but why assert a God here? Evolution is a fact. Creation is ridicule.
RockAustinDXtakerRk0 5 months ago
@RockAustinDXtakerRk0 Why NOT assert a God here, it's a very applicable term given that, at least in the eyes of logic, we have a creator. WHY ARGUE about specific words."Your comment couldn't be dumber" is no more than a "I am better than you" which stems from your ego. Also,evolution is actually a THEORY. "God" (creator - whatever) clearly intended for evolution to happen (if it is indeed the case) and "Creation is ridicule" -- that's even dumber than my comment. Do you exist?
MsOobii 5 months ago
@MsOobii I'm sure there is a fine line between Natural Selection and Creationism. Yes, I exist. I get what you mean, but still it's a weak analogy.
RockAustinDXtakerRk0 5 months ago
@RockAustinDXtakerRk0 So if you read, I was merely trying to express to another person the fact that there need not be a separation between God and Science. I am not even religious. If I was, it wouldn't matter anyway as we are all (for good reason) of different perception & no one regardless of mind capacity or ability to "observe," "demonstrate" or try to win against others in whatever way, is of any more value than anyone else.
MsOobii 5 months ago
@MsOobii How can you expect there to be no seperation between God and Science. They aren't compatible. God is a something we have never witnessed. If it's timeless, spaceless and immaterial that means it's nonexistant. Period. If I say there's a unicorn on Venus. Your default position would be a skeptic untill that unicorn on Venus has been proven. Science has given us the technological benefits of today and a better construction of the world around us. Where does this leave a 'God'...
RockAustinDXtakerRk0 5 months ago
@RockAustinDXtakerRk0 As you rightly said, it depends on what you define as God. I define God as our creator, and believe that there is such in existence as that which is timeless and immaterial - it is the nature of the mind (the ego) to deny that which is not observable by any the five senses, since it cannot be logically understood. I am all for science, but something that is immaterial is present within everything, as its driving force. Science/logic WILL never succeed in identifying this.
MsOobii 5 months ago
@RockAustinDXtakerRk0 Separation is an illusion of the form, by that I mean our everchanging life situation - the reason we feel different all the time. And by immaterial present within everything, I mean such things as "instinct" - how can you logically explain why a newborn knows how to feed, for instance. Perhaps the reason why it does, and all the aspects involved in its ability to do so can be observed, but how it happens -- this is an eternal mystery. Science will never be so complete.
MsOobii 5 months ago
@MsOobii Science has never claimed to know it all or be complete. You can't be completely knowledgable on something that has no end. That's an "eternal mystery". Not just a newborn, the same can be said for any life forms. When you tell a dog to sit down, how does his nervous system even perceive that he's being told to sit down? I don't expect an answer to everything, I'm just a learner. It's ignorance asserting a God of the gaps somewhere just because we have no explanation for it.
RockAustinDXtakerRk0 5 months ago
@RockAustinDXtakerRk0 The indefinable / immaterial aspect to all of life, such as in your example, is exactly where a God may apply, not as an explanation, but as a form of, shall we say, acceptance that there is more than the explicable. We never ever will identify thedriving force BEHIND life's processes. So would it be so mad as to choose a verbal definition to this missing piece? It doesn't matter what a person's beliefs are, it's simply a word to define what WILL, remain unknown.
MsOobii 5 months ago
@MsOobii "WILL, remain unknown". I disagree. Who would've thought centuries ago that we'd have rocket ships flying out into space, landing on the Moon, mechanical constructions which accelerate around 500km/h. Mankinds view of the Universe a couple centuries ago was geocentric. Over time, Science proved it wrong. Just because we haven't demonstrated something right now, doesn't mean it never will. That's what every skeptic said before it all ever happened.
RockAustinDXtakerRk0 5 months ago
@zooryanzoo123 No it's not just you. The reality of the cosmos and the evolution of life - in so far as we know it - is much more awe-inspiring and wondrous than any bronze-age mythology with all it's brutality and horror.
vjwebster 5 months ago
@The420Community Okay, thanks. I just heard the word "ignite" and I automatically thought of fire.
LiliFromHali 7 months ago
Great video, really enjoy your commentary. Subscribing!
drwugong 7 months ago
How can some dislike this videos...?
just1Tanu 7 months ago
@just1Tanu Some people dislike observable facts that don't fit their religious theories.
EqualAndFree 7 months ago
Hey potholer. Love your vids.
So, I have a (probably really stupid) question. Okay, you said that the first stars were made of hydrogen, and when they began vibrating fast enough, they turned into helium, and that released enough energy to ignite the star, and the heavier elements came after. So here's my question: I thought fire wouldn't burn unless there was oxygen. How would the star ignite if there was no oxygen?
LiliFromHali 7 months ago
I watched this video for the first time about 2 years ago. It still gives me chills. Thank you.
Ryan44567 7 months ago
This should be mandatory at every school. These are simply brilliant and it makes me sad how many people do not know the things explained in these series.
FcK2420 7 months ago
This series reminds me of Carl Sagan's Cosmos series.
Baeloth 7 months ago
i love these
CristianApostol 7 months ago
how is it that stars continue to produce heavier elements such as uranium by nuclear fusion when it is not energy efficient for them to do so?
(due to binding energy per nucleon)
themrjord 7 months ago
@themrjord As you've pointed out, stars only normally produce elements up to iron because it is energetically favourable. Elements above iron are only produced in meaningful amounts in a supernova.
Misterb0z 7 months ago
to me, 14B years just does not seem old enough.
jeebersjumpincryst 8 months ago
@jeebersjumpincryst always felt the same myself.Its fantastically long for sure but doesn't seem long enough for what happened.Ah maybe we just have no concept of time scales....
ah4fecksake 8 months ago
@jeebersjumpincryst
I know what you mean.
If our sun orbits the galactic centre every 200 to 250 million years then the galaxy can't have rotated many times in 14B years (Especially considering the galaxy had to condense from the original cloud in that time) but I suppose a few spins is all it takes to start a swirl.
When you break it down it seems like a short time period.
internetloevmachine 7 months ago
@jeebersjumpincryst Remember that a Billion is one thousand millions.
shagoosty 7 months ago
Potholer54, I believe you have your stellar death explanation incorrect. As I have read, stars gradually produce heavier elements in increasing amounts, and there are certain elements that have a very high or very low thermal density in comparison to their actual density. Iron is the first major variant, and it is very common that when stars produce iron in large amounts, it absorbs heat rapidly and cools the star, causing it to collapse rapidly. The momentum from the collapse destabilizes it.
TheReaverOfDarkness 8 months ago
@TheReaverOfDarkness Why is the iron going to absorb heat rapidly when it is already at the same temperature as the rest of the sun?
Misterb0z 8 months ago
@Misterb0z It's not at the same temperature. The moment it becomes iron, its thermal density greatly increases. Since there is still the same amount of thermal energy in it, its temperature drops greatly. This causes it to absorb thermal energy from surrounding material, thus cooling it.
TheReaverOfDarkness 8 months ago
@TheReaverOfDarkness If you're going to discuss physics, then could you at least use correct terminology? What do you mean by 'thermal density'? SHC?
Temperature is a relative term, and depends on the extent to which energy is transferred from one body to another. The fusion of two lighter nuclei will itself release energy, which will manifest itself in the a) the kinetic energy of the products and b) the separation of the particles in question. Simply put, the energy of the particles increases.
Misterb0z 8 months ago
@Misterb0z militzer.berkeley.edu/diss/node13.html
TheReaverOfDarkness 8 months ago
@TheReaverOfDarkness Thanks for the link. So it's a quantum mechanical way of dealing with statistical thermodynamics. But that doesn't answer the point I made above.
Misterb0z 8 months ago
@Misterb0z In layman's terms, thermal density is the amount of thermal energy it takes, relative to the object's mass, to raise its temperature by a specific amount. An object with high thermal density requires more thermal energy to raise its temperature by a specific amount than does an object of low thermal density.
Water has a particularly high thermal density, and most metals have a lower thermal density than water. That is why water makes a great insulating agent.
TheReaverOfDarkness 8 months ago
@TheReaverOfDarkness "In layman's terms, thermal density is the amount of thermal energy it takes, relative to the object's mass, to raise its temperature by a specific amount." No. That's specific heat capacity. But now I know that you're talking about SHC we can move on to my point. So again, how can the temperature of a star drop if the energy of its constituent particles is increasing?
Misterb0z 8 months ago