There's a problem at 03:25 . This is not a low entropy state. It's the maximum possible entropy state for the universe. Complete thermal equlilibrium. What Penrose claims he can do is apply some mathematical magic, using only GR if I understand correctly, to make the entropy all go away. If you don't really understand it, you are in good company. Sean Carroll has read the book, and doesn't understand it either. And of course, Penrose's CMB find has been very strongly challenged.
This is not something new. The idea of a universe that is infinite in time has existed long ago. Stephen Hawking somehow disproved it. I don't know how but he did. Maybe he was wrong.
I just saw this for the first time. It only raises so many more questions and hypotheticals. I reflect on how far we have come in our technological phase, ie last 200 years? I think the only reason the universe would have re-banged is if (a) we evolved to other dimension and let the universe continue in its cycle, or (b) we became all knowing and let it continue it's cycle. is there a hidden message in these grav waves?
A universe still had to start from nothing which means at one point there was nothing at all for an infinite amount of time then the big bang happened. If the cycle does exist than we can see how many times this cycle has gone and what happened in the previous cycles. What I'm saying is something had to come from nothing.
Just letting you know the cosmic microwave background dates back NOT to the very begining of our universe but 350 000 000(around then) years after the big bang when the pulse of light was emitted through the cosmos. kk. i do like your videos though :)
Where on the WMAP are these circles? If the Concentric Circles are before the Big Bang; does that mean that the center of the universe is in the middle of those circles?
em... I didn't get.... isn't according to your video "Decay of heavens" and according to Stephen Hawking, the black holes are evaporating when very small "matter" with "negative" mass fall into it, they reduce the mass of the black hole and at the same time matter with "positive" escapes?... can you explain please?.. I'm a bit lost...
I don't think its unreasonable to assume that the Big Bang was the product of a system larger than our own. We barely understand subatomic states, so what gives us the impression that this is the highest order of structure and information?
2:40 - Would that paper for Conformal Cyclic Cosmology involve the Chaos Theory? That theory came to my mind when you started talking about the randomness.
Well when you think of it our universe could repeat after every big bang in the exact same way sowe could have already relived our exact lives 100000000000+ times before and its in a constant loop so when where seeing before the big bang we might actually be seeing into the future of somthing :3
I like this theory very much Conformal Cyclic Cosmology. and the name is very apropriate. and I believe it never END , concentric circles moving away from the center in a cyclic way apearing from the center out ! (because there is one dot surging in the middle isn't it ?) , when time is infinite , because this thing must be moving , like everithing in the Universe ; to slow for humans to perceived it in a life time civilization . great Discussion Point .
I'm glad that "before the big bang" is becoming an acceptable topic of discussion in science. I've always had a problem with the idea that science should stop at the big bang, it's an attitude that is akin to religious denial of anything before God. Science isn't about reaching a certain point and then giving up, it's about searching until there is nothing left to be answered.
we'd know 49% of everything. then we'd have to discover other 49% of all there is to know, which would probably be achieved by uniting the quantum theory and relativity. then we could just dedicate to all the rest there is to know :3
The CMBR is not from the Big Bang itself; it's from the epoch of last scattering, about 400k years after, when the universe became cool enough that atoms could form, the universe became more electrically neutral, and light could start moving freely.
I actually like this theory. That could explain how the big bang started... that has been a question no one has been able to answer before now. Unless of course we stick with the divine intelligence.
Thank you Tony. I can't wait for more information about this; I have always wondered what was there before the big bang. Recycling processes seem to be part of everything in the universe: things are destroyed but something new is created out of it. It makes sense this new theory, but as Tony warns, we ought to be careful about drawing premature conclusions.
@esamiga Yes, there are many who aren't buying this at all. The biggest problem seems to be that this is a 6 sigma discovery, one that would occur randomly in the standard model, so this is very controversial.
Thank you Tony for your answer and the link to the related information. I am looking forward to any news in this area (I am sure you will keep us up to date!)
That blows my mind, mostly because I've always thought that eventually black holes will "swallow" the entire universe only to repeat the cycle. In theory if this is what happens, who knows what cycle we're on.
@jayfulf Well, my problem with this lies with something I said in "The Decay of Heaven" where that process can't be completely efficient and each cycle would be a little longer than the previous one. Running the cycle backwards still gets us to one big bang without a precedent.
Fascinating stuff,Mr. Darnell. (I'm curious) Do the rings of standing gravitational waves appear to give a sense of direction as to their point of origin(epicenter) ? And does the epicenter coincide with observable galactic structures that the HST has already logged as being part of the very early universe ?
@sneakerset If you look at the rings, they do appear to have a center, but that would point to the center of the colliding black hole event. As far as I know, they don't coincide with any observable galactic structure in this universe.
First time I heard about the whole idea with brans and 10 spatial dimensions. I felt in my gut that the big bang was created by collisions of the brans. And that the universe would one day get back to a state where there is only black holes left. Those black holes will then start pulling the brans together again, as gravity is an interdimensional force. Now what you are telling me, give me a feeling I wasn't that far off. That gives me great satisfaction. Yeah!
@MsWanderer1 "You cannot have “energy” without a physical entity."
Look up Vacuum energy. Looking for answers and developing theories is not "faith" and it does not require any. Quit trying to lower science to the level of your Jesus myth.
Check my channel before making such asinine actuations.
I'm quite familiar with "vacuum energy"; are you familiar with "virtual particles" that cause it?
Theories are explanations of empirical data and observations; my concern is that some of those so called explanations are little better than saying "have faith and believe the experts". Let's not give the creationist grounds to justify their crap! Keep track of the probability; not the popularity!
@MsWanderer1 Who exactly is trying to turn Science into a religion? Names please! And what Bullshit are you talking about exactly? You do not have the intellect to understand that everything science says is verifiable. If I say Light travels at speed A you can measure it. If I say the mass of B is this, you can test it. If I say that the distance between these two stars is C you can check it. When you say God Did It you are repeating a Fairytale! Poor Diddums never paid attention in school.
For one; Brian Greene's promotion of "String Theory"; NO EVIDENCE of such structures and all the math fails! Over 40 years of wasted resources!
We measure gravity; do you know what it is? We measure mass; do you know what causes it? Is the speed of light constant or does the MEAUSUREMENT simply rendering the same value to all reference frames? Do you believe time is an entity or a MEASUREMENT?
@MsWanderer1 One at a time matey! Why do you say research into string theory was wasted? If the research brings results (of any kind) then it has some value. Imagine if after the discovery of the electron we just said well that's small enough lets get on with hover-cars! What if after Darwin showed off his finches we just said Ah so that's what happened lets look into hover-cars! The point of research is to find out what is next, not to pander to muppets who think everything is a conspiracy.
Respond to this video... Without resorting to Wiki as you appear to be I remember gravity as being the exchange of virtual gravitons which are almost mass-less and that produce a very small force that can build up to huge numbers dependent on the mass of the object. At this point in time no one knows 100% what gravity is and therefore you can not say that you now what it isn't either. And as tony puts it It Sucks...
You noticeably haven't any formal schooling or experience in any physics domain and don't seem to know why Relativity works (speed of light question). "Cause of mass"; read "the Feynman lectures". String theory; read Lee Smolin's books. Since you're not educated enough to comprehend my simple questions then yes; you should stop clogging this channel with your responses to me or anyone else for that matter..!..
@MsWanderer1 Wrong again! You are the Wiki expert who thinks the measurement of the speed of light is a conspiracy! What will you do when you run out of Wiki pages to cut and paste? I suppose you could start with wolframalpha! I look forward to your next copy and paste...
Well JAFI, I would suggest you stop using Wiki for any scientific information; it has too many errors!
WTF is wolframalpha? Never mind; I found it on Wiki. It’s another web site for the scientific illiterate? I wonder how did you happen to find that site? ..!..
@hrmarinkovic Sorry, my bad. I forgot to normalize the audio before I exported the movie. I corrected this in the podcast upload. I'll be more careful next time.
What if there was a universe before the universe which we discovered in our universe? How can we know if there was not one, but a dozen of universes swallowed by black holes before this one? It is possible, since space is infinite.
@Prometheukles I'm not sure they make these anymore. I haven't used it in years. All this interest in that phone has gotten me wondering if it still works. I'll plug it in and let you know.
Just to make it more complicated, I would also raise the theory about black holes. Since scientists start to think that black holes can lead to "smooth universe" and later to "recreate" it, it can be that first thing in the universe was an black hole. Furthermore, black holes can logically lead to universe expansion, and accelerating expansion could be explained by growing number of black holes in the universe. How it can happen? Don't ask me, I have nothing to do with cosmology :D Just an idea
In my opinion this is not so controversial theory. I think it has never been ruled out. As I understand, it means that universe can be infinitely old, with repeated cycles. The problem is that it is very difficult to comprehend with it. Current human mind cannot imagine infinity. However, I think it is more easy to accept it, than current big bang theory, when everything came out of nothing. Difficult days are coming up for our thinkers :)
@RemnantsOfBeauty: A cosmic singularity of that sort would have no reason or reasonable way of "exploding" as its event horizon would be larger than the universe. Part of the problem is the "inflationary model" that is used. It makes no more sense that anything else, but it's the closest fit for the evidence. We are still in the "etheric" epoch of cosmology where only wacky and contrived/convoluted models exist. Think of it this way, some models suggest we are INSIDE the event horizon of a BH.
@RyuDarragh We know very little about Black Holes. There could be a limit to how much they can hold. There could be implications involved when 2 supermassive black holes collide. I find this theory better than "spontaneous random fluctuations" creating all of the matter in the universe.
@RemnantsOfBeauty: Remember, the event horizon grows as the black hole becomes more massive. All the matter in the universe compressed into a black hole would have an event horizon about the size of the universe itself. That's hardly a "spontaneous random fluctuation".
@RyuDarragh The current standard is apparantly the "universe" created itself from nothing. I dont believe this, im more towards thinking it was created in someway by a black hole.
There is something about the cyclic theory which seems to tick all the boxes, and for that very reason I'll remain a little skeptical. However it does have the backing of people like Sir Roger Penrose, Neil Turok, Param Signh among many others. The good news of-course is that it is a testable theory. Time will tell, I just wish it would hurry up.
Great channel you have there, it's so refreshing to see someone who truly emits a deep fascination with his subject.
Wow. The more I ponder this, the more astounded I get. I realize that an awful lot of work lies ahead before this is proven (if it ever can be), but the implications of it are both mind-boggling and beautiful. Thanks for passing that along.
@tdarnell - Thank you. Is the CMB that we see with our instruments truly for the entire universe or for just our visible bubble? If we were to shift our perspective 100s of millions to billions of light years will the CMB still look the same? How about 60 billion light years and beyond? Does the CMB still look the same no matter what your perspective in our full universe? If the CMB is according to our perspective, then it might be important to state that instead of "entire universe".
@BigMTBrain Just for our visible bubble. The universe has no center so shifting our perspective won't change how it looks, as you point out, the universe looks the same regardless of where we are (at least the CMB part of the universe).
By entire universe, I mean the entire visible universe of course.
@tdarnell You say here the universe dont have a center? How can you be certain about this when the most logical explanation how it came to be, is from the big bang? which mean the expansion must have a center/starting point. The only reason to me for the universe not having a center would be if something was preventing it from expanding in a circle, and only letting it expand one direction
@Tarlev I'll take a stab at this. The term "Big Bang" is misleading because it wasn't an explosion like you understand a bomb. The Big Bang Theory actually says that the universe (that is, space itself) INFLATED nearly instantaneously, rather than exploded. There was no "space" outside of the universe, so there was no "center". The idea of center or middle is concerned with the three spatial dimensions WITHIN the universe. I could be way off. I'd be interested to hear other responses.
@brazentongue I follow what you say 100%.. But like many others say here, "how can everything come out of nothing?" So if the universe doesnt have a center, there must have been something, prio to the big bang, or inside the big bang, forcing it to expand only one direction. I'm probably way off to, guess I dont understand the meaning of this so called "universe"
@Tarlev The Big Bang Theory does not hold that everything came from nothing. It posits that before the universe inflated everything was condensed into an infinitely tiny point, a singularity, kind of like a black hole. The word "center" implies finite boundaries, but the Universe may not be finite. Imagine a sphere. There is no "center" on the surface of the sphere. It wraps around on itself; it is infinite. We humans have a hard time getting this because we experience a finite, 4 dimensional wo
Seriously very interesting material if admittedly brain stretching.
There is some objection to the idea of a cyclic universe I believe (although I can't remember what it is - anyone know?), however it does seem so much more satisfactory to suppose a cyclic universe rather than a 'one off' event.
Something that does strike me with this broadcast; there are 144 likes out of 303 views; that seems to me to be a very high level of comment in relation to the number of viewings.
Can you check the volume of your mic? It is always way quieter than the music. I enjoy your videos, but they would be better if the levels were corrected.
@ccassler3 Yes, sorry about that. I forgot to normalize the audio before posting this. It sounded fine on my computer. I've corrected this for the podcast version, so you can check that out for more clarity.
So basically this video says that the universe is endless... It's a continous cycle, which means that the Universe (maybe not this one, but the idea of a 'Universe') could be here from... Forever... It can have no end, and well there's no way to determine that it ever had a start...
So the universe recycles itself? It sounds a lot more realistic to me than there was just random energy there that came out of nowhere and it went boom.
space fan news is an excellent idea. thanks. Isnt conformal cyclic cosmology similar to the vedic ideas of the universe that it has undergone numerous cycles of birth and death?
If everything were to be compressed into a singularity, wouldn't it be mathmatically impossible to tell anything about the previous universe? Wouldn't all information of the previous universe be crushed into a completely smooth, uniform entity?
dont u love it when ppl post comments in these vids which seem like they dont know what they r talking bout but just want to seem smart. I dont know if its just me but sometimes i read a comment and i feel that...
Are you saying the universe goes through a cycle? That when all matter is consumed by black holes, and all that is left is energy. Then it will explode again? What started the cycle? What created the energy in the very beginning to even start the cycle?
i believe that in your mind you see yourself as flying in the face of hegemoneity but ultimately missing the fact that it is inescapable as all you are doing is shifting the hegemony from one value system to one that which is based upon your own system of values and thusly positioning marginally any subscriber to the former system. binarily opposing your own hegemony!!!
@ImJustOldMate Are you stereotyping me because I'm an atheist and and I listen to death metal? I don't feel any dominance over anyone. I believe one thing, you believe in something else. I don't only listen to death metal, I also listen to melodic death metal, deathcore, metalcore, alternative metal, all the sub-genres that lay within metal. You don't know my values so don't judge me. You said what you believe in although I was thinking it was sarcasm, I said my opinion, which neither is better.
i love how you are convinced that anyone other than yourself cares about what you outwardly display as your identity by labelling yourself as "athiest". by overdoing the eyeshadow in you uploads. by stating you love "death metal" as indicative of how you want the third person perspective to be formed.
Not sure I want to hear my scientific boffins say "I dont really understand it myself." Seriously though, beyond a certain point a lot of this is pure conjecture, ask 1000 science geeks to explain this, or anything about the universe, and you'll get a thousand different answers. All interesting though.
When all the matter is consumed by black holes and emitted as radiation, wouldn't that radiation be defuse, rather than concentrated to a point from which it can expand?
CMB does not mark the Big Bang moment, but instead it marks the moment of transparency when the plasma that existed before the CMB cooled down enough for the atoms to form.
Wow I kinda thought we would find some way of seeing beyond the CMB some time in the future, but I didnt think it would happen so soon! I hope this turns out to be verified as true. Thanks Tony!!
@pronoob1983 well keep in mind, IF the universe is in fact expanding and accelerating, we won't be able to see beyond the CMB depending how far in the future we look
@schmidtbag No no thats not what I meant. I see that I should have written it more clearly. When I say "in the future" I mean that maybe we will invent some new device in the coming years that would allow us to see further into the past beyond the CMB. But after reading your response again, im not sure I know what you are saying. We cannot actually look into the future. But yeah, in about 100 bllion years, we probably won't be able to see the CMB because of the universe acceleration.
ok wait, did i catch that right? those circles are from black holes in a universe quite like ours + about a 100 trillion trillion trillion trillion years? then that one collapsed into a tiny spec, a singularity, which combined the 4 fundamental forces all over again, then that dot went boom, broke apart the fundamental forces again and and 13.7 billion years later, here we are? is that correct or did i miss something?
@sorry8140 yes I had this theory about blackholes were the cause of the big bang cause I mean if you think about it Blackholes keeps swallowing matters and I thought eventually all the blackholes in the universe will merge together and will get bigger and bigger until it got to the point where it will no longer hold together and cause the BIg bang so I thought it was just really a cycle.
@sorry8140 until I found out about stephens hawking theory that Black holes eventually dies when nothing feeds it cause majority matter falls into it while a fracture is ejected.
@sorry8140 - " then that one collapsed into a tiny spec, a singularity," - The wiki doesn't say the previous aeon collapsed. Rather the end of one aeon feeds into the start of the next one, because the end of an aeon is smooth like the beginning of the next one needs to be. What I don't get is that the new one is extremely small and the old one is countless trillions of light years across.
Were the inhabitants of the old eaon sub-microscopic little things compared to us?
@sorry8140 The claim is that those circles are from a previous universe, the one before ours. As to how long ago, it isn't stated nor is a claim made and I'm not sure how one would find that out. Just the idea of seeing something from a previous universe is already pretty extraordinary.
Cause and effect loops in on itself too infinity, a troubling prospect for any philosopher when pondering the origins of everything. We will probably never fully understand the mystery of reality; "The ultimate truth" will always elude us. For every horizon we peer over, there will be a new horizon looming in the distance.
I know this is probably an extremely over simplified way of putting things but I had always understood that "space/time" was called into being by the Big Bang itself. The idea of "before" and "after" and even the concepts of "something" or "nothing" before the big bang in that context feel strange.
I like to think I understand enough basic physics to follow a lot of astronomical documentaries and most of your videos but this is one field that does not compute with me :)
loved the video as always, but whenever you explained how some areas are hotter than other in the universe i couldnt help but think of it being kind of like a sun, and how sun spots are different in temperature. How cool would it be if we were inside of a sun in another universe. haha highly unlikely but i like to think outside the box it keeps me thinking constantly and a life without questions isnt a life worth living to me.
@OrginalKork No respectable scientists claim the Universe came from nothing. The Big Bang is the beginning of the Universe as we know it; the beginning of the Universe in its current form. "Everything from Nothing" is a creation from the opposition; created by the creationists to argue the Big Bang, none of which actually understand it.
Besides, did you even watch the video or did you just come here to instigate and argue? The answer was in the video.
if that's true then maybe I've written this comment countless times ,but then being aware of the causation would cause feed back ,meh my brain hurts back to my Beer ,good vid .
Why does anything even exist. Why couldn't there just be nothing at all. Not even energy. Maybe its just impossible for energy not to exist.
How far could we go back in time to reach the absolute beginning. Once it is reached is there anything beyond that?
Perhaps we are in a sub-dimension inside a superior dimension.
mjc71189 1 month ago
that would finally end a question ive always had about what was there before the big bang. a universe that is locked in its own circle of life
garethkielty 2 months ago
There's a problem at 03:25 . This is not a low entropy state. It's the maximum possible entropy state for the universe. Complete thermal equlilibrium. What Penrose claims he can do is apply some mathematical magic, using only GR if I understand correctly, to make the entropy all go away. If you don't really understand it, you are in good company. Sean Carroll has read the book, and doesn't understand it either. And of course, Penrose's CMB find has been very strongly challenged.
sbergman27 5 months ago
If you think about it from all the scientific data up to date this theory is actually quite plausible!
meatfactory 5 months ago
This is not something new. The idea of a universe that is infinite in time has existed long ago. Stephen Hawking somehow disproved it. I don't know how but he did. Maybe he was wrong.
Anduy 6 months ago
I just saw this for the first time. It only raises so many more questions and hypotheticals. I reflect on how far we have come in our technological phase, ie last 200 years? I think the only reason the universe would have re-banged is if (a) we evolved to other dimension and let the universe continue in its cycle, or (b) we became all knowing and let it continue it's cycle. is there a hidden message in these grav waves?
xshoreLS1 7 months ago
Comment removed
xshoreLS1 7 months ago
Wow i feel so smart now i had the theory of the universe repeating even before i knew about the theory.
nuclearpuddin 7 months ago
A universe still had to start from nothing which means at one point there was nothing at all for an infinite amount of time then the big bang happened. If the cycle does exist than we can see how many times this cycle has gone and what happened in the previous cycles. What I'm saying is something had to come from nothing.
MrAwesomesauce101 7 months ago
Just letting you know the cosmic microwave background dates back NOT to the very begining of our universe but 350 000 000(around then) years after the big bang when the pulse of light was emitted through the cosmos. kk. i do like your videos though :)
awdawdwdwadwad 11 months ago
does the duck phone quack when it rings?
THCIFilms 11 months ago
thanks for the vidzzzzzzzzzzzzz i watch all of your videos
mgthaking 11 months ago
Where on the WMAP are these circles? If the Concentric Circles are before the Big Bang; does that mean that the center of the universe is in the middle of those circles?
kenny8331 11 months ago
You should make an audiobook or something, that i could listen to while going to sleep TD.
sass666 11 months ago
why do you say that is a picture of the entire universe?
kenny8331 11 months ago
em... I didn't get.... isn't according to your video "Decay of heavens" and according to Stephen Hawking, the black holes are evaporating when very small "matter" with "negative" mass fall into it, they reduce the mass of the black hole and at the same time matter with "positive" escapes?... can you explain please?.. I'm a bit lost...
DrKillaser 11 months ago
I don't think its unreasonable to assume that the Big Bang was the product of a system larger than our own. We barely understand subatomic states, so what gives us the impression that this is the highest order of structure and information?
ZacksEnder 11 months ago
2:40 - Would that paper for Conformal Cyclic Cosmology involve the Chaos Theory? That theory came to my mind when you started talking about the randomness.
CapPicard 11 months ago
how can something come from nothing?......it can't (string theory)
mgthaking 11 months ago
how can something come from nothing?......it can't
mgthaking 11 months ago
Thats mountain dew can is still their. lawl.
thedirtywhitesock 11 months ago
Well when you think of it our universe could repeat after every big bang in the exact same way sowe could have already relived our exact lives 100000000000+ times before and its in a constant loop so when where seeing before the big bang we might actually be seeing into the future of somthing :3
joshuabugman 11 months ago
What's with the fancy duck in the background? kk
djungbremen 11 months ago
Thank you, I enjoy your videos.
blastoidboy 11 months ago
I like this theory very much Conformal Cyclic Cosmology. and the name is very apropriate. and I believe it never END , concentric circles moving away from the center in a cyclic way apearing from the center out ! (because there is one dot surging in the middle isn't it ?) , when time is infinite , because this thing must be moving , like everithing in the Universe ; to slow for humans to perceived it in a life time civilization . great Discussion Point .
PhysMexRay 11 months ago
I'm glad that "before the big bang" is becoming an acceptable topic of discussion in science. I've always had a problem with the idea that science should stop at the big bang, it's an attitude that is akin to religious denial of anything before God. Science isn't about reaching a certain point and then giving up, it's about searching until there is nothing left to be answered.
Nice video anyhow!
himselfe 11 months ago
so basicelly isn't that the big crunch-theorie...?
MrKees66 11 months ago
wow.... before the big bang,
we'd know 49% of everything. then we'd have to discover other 49% of all there is to know, which would probably be achieved by uniting the quantum theory and relativity. then we could just dedicate to all the rest there is to know :3
Nemejester 11 months ago
haha nice duck telephone.
captainbatguano 11 months ago
I swear every video you look younger and younger
ItsMoist 11 months ago
@ItsMoist That's because time runs backward for me.
tdarnell 11 months ago
Thanks Tony,
your clips are great and I'm sure Mr Sagan would be proud you've taken the batten and run with it!
Keep looking up!
lienrodeo 11 months ago 2
The CMBR is not from the Big Bang itself; it's from the epoch of last scattering, about 400k years after, when the universe became cool enough that atoms could form, the universe became more electrically neutral, and light could start moving freely.
Hooya2 11 months ago
@Hooya2 Yes, you're correct. I should have been more clear when I talked about that.
tdarnell 11 months ago
Beyond enough amount of time, wait a minute i just saw a dime, so all we want to find turns over and hide, as dime to the pocket slide.
arvidmr 11 months ago
I actually like this theory. That could explain how the big bang started... that has been a question no one has been able to answer before now. Unless of course we stick with the divine intelligence.
CRXspeedshift 11 months ago
Man, I knew it! ...silly Roger Penrose again :P
DigitizedSelf 11 months ago
Another interesting fact is that Tony's left ear is lower than his right ear! Fascinating!!!
TacticalAtheist 11 months ago
@TacticalAtheist That's because the left side of my head is more dense than the right. Gravity sucks.
tdarnell 11 months ago
Thank you Tony. I can't wait for more information about this; I have always wondered what was there before the big bang. Recycling processes seem to be part of everything in the universe: things are destroyed but something new is created out of it. It makes sense this new theory, but as Tony warns, we ought to be careful about drawing premature conclusions.
esamiga 11 months ago
@esamiga Yes, there are many who aren't buying this at all. The biggest problem seems to be that this is a 6 sigma discovery, one that would occur randomly in the standard model, so this is very controversial.
tdarnell 11 months ago
@tdarnell
Thank you Tony for your answer and the link to the related information. I am looking forward to any news in this area (I am sure you will keep us up to date!)
esamiga 11 months ago
Awesome vid
azzTwild 11 months ago
my brain just fried lol
dopehousex3 11 months ago
Mind blowing, but perhaps less mind blowing than the current model if more observation and study on this provides more weight to the idea.
MtlRedAtheist 11 months ago
thank you for explaining this so well Tony. Humble as always. I love being a space fan.
zcxvasdfqwer1234 11 months ago
"The Matrix is older than you know......"
Benegizer 11 months ago
That blows my mind, mostly because I've always thought that eventually black holes will "swallow" the entire universe only to repeat the cycle. In theory if this is what happens, who knows what cycle we're on.
jayfulf 11 months ago
@jayfulf Well, my problem with this lies with something I said in "The Decay of Heaven" where that process can't be completely efficient and each cycle would be a little longer than the previous one. Running the cycle backwards still gets us to one big bang without a precedent.
tdarnell 11 months ago
My mind is officially blown.
Now, if you'll excuse me I need to go pick up the bits of my mind all over my room.
grimwatcher 11 months ago
Fascinating stuff,Mr. Darnell. (I'm curious) Do the rings of standing gravitational waves appear to give a sense of direction as to their point of origin(epicenter) ? And does the epicenter coincide with observable galactic structures that the HST has already logged as being part of the very early universe ?
sneakerset 11 months ago
@sneakerset If you look at the rings, they do appear to have a center, but that would point to the center of the colliding black hole event. As far as I know, they don't coincide with any observable galactic structure in this universe.
tdarnell 11 months ago
@tdarnell Thank you,skipper.
sneakerset 11 months ago
Thank you, Mr. darnell
BYMYSYD 11 months ago
First time I heard about the whole idea with brans and 10 spatial dimensions. I felt in my gut that the big bang was created by collisions of the brans. And that the universe would one day get back to a state where there is only black holes left. Those black holes will then start pulling the brans together again, as gravity is an interdimensional force. Now what you are telling me, give me a feeling I wasn't that far off. That gives me great satisfaction. Yeah!
HiJaQue 11 months ago
Comment removed
HiJaQue 11 months ago
bottom line is that there was a universe before ours???? that the universe keeps on recycling itself????
silverbullet1979 11 months ago
If anyone believes that crock then I would like to talk to them about the purchase of a bridge in Brooklyn.
The event that started this universe was quite likely a collision event.
The four forces of nature are NOT fundamental.
You cannot have “energy” without a physical entity.
Physics and cosmology requires a better paradigm to describe existence; otherwise it may as well be another religion that requires one’s faith.
MsWanderer1 11 months ago
@MsWanderer1 "You cannot have “energy” without a physical entity."
Look up Vacuum energy. Looking for answers and developing theories is not "faith" and it does not require any. Quit trying to lower science to the level of your Jesus myth.
Infidelisification 11 months ago
@Infidelisification
Check my channel before making such asinine actuations.
I'm quite familiar with "vacuum energy"; are you familiar with "virtual particles" that cause it?
Theories are explanations of empirical data and observations; my concern is that some of those so called explanations are little better than saying "have faith and believe the experts". Let's not give the creationist grounds to justify their crap! Keep track of the probability; not the popularity!
MsWanderer1 11 months ago
@MsWanderer1 You can stop speaking now!
TacticalAtheist 11 months ago
@TacticalAtheist
I'll stop speaking when some scientists stop hyping bull shit and trying to convert science into a faith based system of "believe the experts".
You need to start thinking and stop that YouTube masturbating that you think makes you appear to be so clever; you’re NOT..!..
MsWanderer1 11 months ago
@MsWanderer1 Who exactly is trying to turn Science into a religion? Names please! And what Bullshit are you talking about exactly? You do not have the intellect to understand that everything science says is verifiable. If I say Light travels at speed A you can measure it. If I say the mass of B is this, you can test it. If I say that the distance between these two stars is C you can check it. When you say God Did It you are repeating a Fairytale! Poor Diddums never paid attention in school.
TacticalAtheist 11 months ago
@TacticalAtheist
For one; Brian Greene's promotion of "String Theory"; NO EVIDENCE of such structures and all the math fails! Over 40 years of wasted resources!
We measure gravity; do you know what it is? We measure mass; do you know what causes it? Is the speed of light constant or does the MEAUSUREMENT simply rendering the same value to all reference frames? Do you believe time is an entity or a MEASUREMENT?
Want to chat in more detail then use a PM.
MsWanderer1 11 months ago
@MsWanderer1 One at a time matey! Why do you say research into string theory was wasted? If the research brings results (of any kind) then it has some value. Imagine if after the discovery of the electron we just said well that's small enough lets get on with hover-cars! What if after Darwin showed off his finches we just said Ah so that's what happened lets look into hover-cars! The point of research is to find out what is next, not to pander to muppets who think everything is a conspiracy.
TacticalAtheist 11 months ago
Respond to this video... Without resorting to Wiki as you appear to be I remember gravity as being the exchange of virtual gravitons which are almost mass-less and that produce a very small force that can build up to huge numbers dependent on the mass of the object. At this point in time no one knows 100% what gravity is and therefore you can not say that you now what it isn't either. And as tony puts it It Sucks...
TacticalAtheist 11 months ago
@MsWanderer1 And as I understand it Mass is the ability for a unpopular politician to move through a crowd unhindered :)
And as for the speed of light measurements being wrong. I have no words to do justice to that comment.
Now it is about time we stopped clogging up this channel with your inane rantings don't you think!
TacticalAtheist 11 months ago
@TacticalAtheist
You noticeably haven't any formal schooling or experience in any physics domain and don't seem to know why Relativity works (speed of light question). "Cause of mass"; read "the Feynman lectures". String theory; read Lee Smolin's books. Since you're not educated enough to comprehend my simple questions then yes; you should stop clogging this channel with your responses to me or anyone else for that matter..!..
MsWanderer1 11 months ago
@MsWanderer1 Wrong again! You are the Wiki expert who thinks the measurement of the speed of light is a conspiracy! What will you do when you run out of Wiki pages to cut and paste? I suppose you could start with wolframalpha! I look forward to your next copy and paste...
TacticalAtheist 11 months ago
@TacticalAtheist
Well JAFI, I would suggest you stop using Wiki for any scientific information; it has too many errors!
WTF is wolframalpha? Never mind; I found it on Wiki. It’s another web site for the scientific illiterate? I wonder how did you happen to find that site? ..!..
MsWanderer1 11 months ago
@MsWanderer1 And there is the proof (if any where needed) you are a Troll. Goodbye...
TacticalAtheist 11 months ago
Can you please adjust the audio in next video because it is really hard to hear you with my headphones? i believe many people will agree with me
hrmarinkovic 11 months ago
@hrmarinkovic Sorry, my bad. I forgot to normalize the audio before I exported the movie. I corrected this in the podcast upload. I'll be more careful next time.
tdarnell 11 months ago
@Cammaronn
The question presupposes that there had to be a first big bang,
WeedGreenPowerRanger 11 months ago
mMy jaw just droped so far I hurt my chin! I hope you do a follow up to this.
sidesho666 11 months ago
OMG A DUCKPHONE!!!
xASxDragoon 11 months ago
What if there was a universe before the universe which we discovered in our universe? How can we know if there was not one, but a dozen of universes swallowed by black holes before this one? It is possible, since space is infinite.
mettalx1 11 months ago
"I can feel parts of my brain falling away like a wet cake."
Brilliant vid TD. I'm going to share this one defintely.
Jammsbro1 11 months ago 19
This has been flagged as spam show
holy crap its just like xenosaga.
flik221 11 months ago
Sometimes, instead of watching porn, i watch your videos to get mind fucked.
THCIFilms 11 months ago 27
@THCIFilms Pretty sure you struggle with women..
TyroneCrawford 11 months ago
Universe creation and destruction is much likely to be a cyclic event.
bygota 11 months ago
I am sure if this turns out to be creditable & much more evidence is found to back it up then the Bible & the Quran predicted it first!! LOL!
Viracocha711 11 months ago
It's just logical that universe is never ending. It's infinite in every possible way.
SuperiorApostate 11 months ago
It's just logical that universe is never ending. It's infinite in every possible way.
SuperiorApostate 11 months ago
Where can I get a Duckphone like yours?'' =D
Prometheukles 11 months ago 4
@Prometheukles I'm not sure they make these anymore. I haven't used it in years. All this interest in that phone has gotten me wondering if it still works. I'll plug it in and let you know.
tdarnell 11 months ago
Just to make it more complicated, I would also raise the theory about black holes. Since scientists start to think that black holes can lead to "smooth universe" and later to "recreate" it, it can be that first thing in the universe was an black hole. Furthermore, black holes can logically lead to universe expansion, and accelerating expansion could be explained by growing number of black holes in the universe. How it can happen? Don't ask me, I have nothing to do with cosmology :D Just an idea
Vanquishas 11 months ago
In my opinion this is not so controversial theory. I think it has never been ruled out. As I understand, it means that universe can be infinitely old, with repeated cycles. The problem is that it is very difficult to comprehend with it. Current human mind cannot imagine infinity. However, I think it is more easy to accept it, than current big bang theory, when everything came out of nothing. Difficult days are coming up for our thinkers :)
Vanquishas 11 months ago
And combined with the idea that even protons decay....
RyuDarragh 11 months ago
oh sweet jesus, the duck is a phone!
SuperHighFiveGuy 11 months ago
I've always thought the universe was created by an Ultra Massive Black Hole exploding.
RemnantsOfBeauty 11 months ago
@RemnantsOfBeauty: A cosmic singularity of that sort would have no reason or reasonable way of "exploding" as its event horizon would be larger than the universe. Part of the problem is the "inflationary model" that is used. It makes no more sense that anything else, but it's the closest fit for the evidence. We are still in the "etheric" epoch of cosmology where only wacky and contrived/convoluted models exist. Think of it this way, some models suggest we are INSIDE the event horizon of a BH.
RyuDarragh 11 months ago
@RyuDarragh We know very little about Black Holes. There could be a limit to how much they can hold. There could be implications involved when 2 supermassive black holes collide. I find this theory better than "spontaneous random fluctuations" creating all of the matter in the universe.
RemnantsOfBeauty 11 months ago
@RemnantsOfBeauty: Remember, the event horizon grows as the black hole becomes more massive. All the matter in the universe compressed into a black hole would have an event horizon about the size of the universe itself. That's hardly a "spontaneous random fluctuation".
RyuDarragh 11 months ago
@RyuDarragh The current standard is apparantly the "universe" created itself from nothing. I dont believe this, im more towards thinking it was created in someway by a black hole.
RemnantsOfBeauty 11 months ago
That is just mind-boggling, I can't wait for further observation regarding this.
PureBullcrap 11 months ago
The cyclic theory always seemed right to me, it's the theory I'll lean towards until more evidence becomes available.
BeardedBill86 11 months ago
Why does the telescope make a enormous eye of Satan?
MrTrueConservative 11 months ago
There is something about the cyclic theory which seems to tick all the boxes, and for that very reason I'll remain a little skeptical. However it does have the backing of people like Sir Roger Penrose, Neil Turok, Param Signh among many others. The good news of-course is that it is a testable theory. Time will tell, I just wish it would hurry up.
Great channel you have there, it's so refreshing to see someone who truly emits a deep fascination with his subject.
THEHARMONIKZ 11 months ago
That's the thing about absolutely Everything...there's always more of it that you think.
bshieldsbb01 11 months ago
Wow. The more I ponder this, the more astounded I get. I realize that an awful lot of work lies ahead before this is proven (if it ever can be), but the implications of it are both mind-boggling and beautiful. Thanks for passing that along.
BeefPies 11 months ago
Can i pleeeeease have your duck phone?
TorinGlasenapp 11 months ago
@tdarnell - @1:50 - Aren't the blue areas simply our Milky Way galaxy? And the oranges and reds the actual slight temperature differences of the CMB?
BigMTBrain 11 months ago
@BigMTBrain Yes. This image still has the galaxy in it. I can't find a version with it subtracted out, but I'll continue looking.
tdarnell 11 months ago
@tdarnell - Thank you. Is the CMB that we see with our instruments truly for the entire universe or for just our visible bubble? If we were to shift our perspective 100s of millions to billions of light years will the CMB still look the same? How about 60 billion light years and beyond? Does the CMB still look the same no matter what your perspective in our full universe? If the CMB is according to our perspective, then it might be important to state that instead of "entire universe".
BigMTBrain 11 months ago
@BigMTBrain Just for our visible bubble. The universe has no center so shifting our perspective won't change how it looks, as you point out, the universe looks the same regardless of where we are (at least the CMB part of the universe).
By entire universe, I mean the entire visible universe of course.
tdarnell 11 months ago
@tdarnell You say here the universe dont have a center? How can you be certain about this when the most logical explanation how it came to be, is from the big bang? which mean the expansion must have a center/starting point. The only reason to me for the universe not having a center would be if something was preventing it from expanding in a circle, and only letting it expand one direction
Tarlev 11 months ago
@Tarlev I'll take a stab at this. The term "Big Bang" is misleading because it wasn't an explosion like you understand a bomb. The Big Bang Theory actually says that the universe (that is, space itself) INFLATED nearly instantaneously, rather than exploded. There was no "space" outside of the universe, so there was no "center". The idea of center or middle is concerned with the three spatial dimensions WITHIN the universe. I could be way off. I'd be interested to hear other responses.
brazentongue 11 months ago
@brazentongue I follow what you say 100%.. But like many others say here, "how can everything come out of nothing?" So if the universe doesnt have a center, there must have been something, prio to the big bang, or inside the big bang, forcing it to expand only one direction. I'm probably way off to, guess I dont understand the meaning of this so called "universe"
Tarlev 11 months ago
@Tarlev The Big Bang Theory does not hold that everything came from nothing. It posits that before the universe inflated everything was condensed into an infinitely tiny point, a singularity, kind of like a black hole. The word "center" implies finite boundaries, but the Universe may not be finite. Imagine a sphere. There is no "center" on the surface of the sphere. It wraps around on itself; it is infinite. We humans have a hard time getting this because we experience a finite, 4 dimensional wo
brazentongue 11 months ago
Woah, that's a pretty cool discovery. Very sciency video too; I like it.
Joshbuckler 11 months ago
Doh! My brain hurts!
Seriously very interesting material if admittedly brain stretching.
There is some objection to the idea of a cyclic universe I believe (although I can't remember what it is - anyone know?), however it does seem so much more satisfactory to suppose a cyclic universe rather than a 'one off' event.
Something that does strike me with this broadcast; there are 144 likes out of 303 views; that seems to me to be a very high level of comment in relation to the number of viewings.
JimTLonW6 11 months ago
what camera are you using?
UnforgivingCritic 11 months ago
yay more space news, keep up the great work
bappo456 11 months ago
Can you check the volume of your mic? It is always way quieter than the music. I enjoy your videos, but they would be better if the levels were corrected.
ccassler3 11 months ago
@ccassler3 Yes, sorry about that. I forgot to normalize the audio before posting this. It sounded fine on my computer. I've corrected this for the podcast version, so you can check that out for more clarity.
tdarnell 11 months ago
So basically this video says that the universe is endless... It's a continous cycle, which means that the Universe (maybe not this one, but the idea of a 'Universe') could be here from... Forever... It can have no end, and well there's no way to determine that it ever had a start...
So the universe recycles itself? It sounds a lot more realistic to me than there was just random energy there that came out of nowhere and it went boom.
AbusiveRogue 11 months ago
interesting! i keep looking up, i hope you do too tdarnell, cause i love your videos!
goreziad 11 months ago
space fan news is an excellent idea. thanks. Isnt conformal cyclic cosmology similar to the vedic ideas of the universe that it has undergone numerous cycles of birth and death?
homousios 11 months ago
Liked and favorited, Tony Darnell u have done it again. Keep up the good work and loving the all these space fan news videos.
JackyRBKwan 11 months ago
I love to not see trolls in this kind of videos
Thanks for posting
Gibranmacias911 11 months ago
Good video, but the volume is just a tad too low.
EdouardDubois 11 months ago
If everything were to be compressed into a singularity, wouldn't it be mathmatically impossible to tell anything about the previous universe? Wouldn't all information of the previous universe be crushed into a completely smooth, uniform entity?
nintendork64 11 months ago
@nintendork64 This is precisely the question that occurred to me.
Puchicas9 11 months ago
@nintendork64 That's what makes this so controversial. There are many questions like this that arise from a claim like this.
tdarnell 11 months ago
dont u love it when ppl post comments in these vids which seem like they dont know what they r talking bout but just want to seem smart. I dont know if its just me but sometimes i read a comment and i feel that...
pablopablo221 11 months ago
woohoo!! and life may start again!!
Paddyslippers 11 months ago
GORDAN FREEMAN!!!!
rhn94 11 months ago
This is quite an idea, and seems very plausible giving what we know about black holes at the moment.. I hope this is analyzed and tested further.
zacharylansing 11 months ago
Are you saying the universe goes through a cycle? That when all matter is consumed by black holes, and all that is left is energy. Then it will explode again? What started the cycle? What created the energy in the very beginning to even start the cycle?
T1av1s 11 months ago
@T1av1s god of course!!!
ImJustOldMate 11 months ago
@ImJustOldMate I'm athiest, but if you believe in god, you should question what created him.
T1av1s 11 months ago
part 2
i believe that in your mind you see yourself as flying in the face of hegemoneity but ultimately missing the fact that it is inescapable as all you are doing is shifting the hegemony from one value system to one that which is based upon your own system of values and thusly positioning marginally any subscriber to the former system. binarily opposing your own hegemony!!!
ImJustOldMate 11 months ago
@ImJustOldMate Are you stereotyping me because I'm an atheist and and I listen to death metal? I don't feel any dominance over anyone. I believe one thing, you believe in something else. I don't only listen to death metal, I also listen to melodic death metal, deathcore, metalcore, alternative metal, all the sub-genres that lay within metal. You don't know my values so don't judge me. You said what you believe in although I was thinking it was sarcasm, I said my opinion, which neither is better.
T1av1s 11 months ago
part 1
@T1av1s @T1av1s oooh. thought provoking genius.....
i love how you are convinced that anyone other than yourself cares about what you outwardly display as your identity by labelling yourself as "athiest". by overdoing the eyeshadow in you uploads. by stating you love "death metal" as indicative of how you want the third person perspective to be formed.
ImJustOldMate 11 months ago
Not sure I want to hear my scientific boffins say "I dont really understand it myself." Seriously though, beyond a certain point a lot of this is pure conjecture, ask 1000 science geeks to explain this, or anything about the universe, and you'll get a thousand different answers. All interesting though.
gorby9POD 11 months ago
When all the matter is consumed by black holes and emitted as radiation, wouldn't that radiation be defuse, rather than concentrated to a point from which it can expand?
blurglide 11 months ago
CMB does not mark the Big Bang moment, but instead it marks the moment of transparency when the plasma that existed before the CMB cooled down enough for the atoms to form.
AkiraBergman 11 months ago
Wow I kinda thought we would find some way of seeing beyond the CMB some time in the future, but I didnt think it would happen so soon! I hope this turns out to be verified as true. Thanks Tony!!
pronoob1983 11 months ago
@pronoob1983 well keep in mind, IF the universe is in fact expanding and accelerating, we won't be able to see beyond the CMB depending how far in the future we look
schmidtbag 11 months ago
@schmidtbag No no thats not what I meant. I see that I should have written it more clearly. When I say "in the future" I mean that maybe we will invent some new device in the coming years that would allow us to see further into the past beyond the CMB. But after reading your response again, im not sure I know what you are saying. We cannot actually look into the future. But yeah, in about 100 bllion years, we probably won't be able to see the CMB because of the universe acceleration.
pronoob1983 11 months ago
Duck phone... Wahooohooo!
musli4brekkies 11 months ago
I don't relay think this is a good theory. "preliminary"
electrodacus 11 months ago
ok wait, did i catch that right? those circles are from black holes in a universe quite like ours + about a 100 trillion trillion trillion trillion years? then that one collapsed into a tiny spec, a singularity, which combined the 4 fundamental forces all over again, then that dot went boom, broke apart the fundamental forces again and and 13.7 billion years later, here we are? is that correct or did i miss something?
sorry8140 11 months ago 30
@sorry8140 no. what he was actually trying to say is "a mystical fairy waved his magic wand and..........here we are."
you totally misunderstood. i hope this made it more clear :)
ImJustOldMate 11 months ago
@sorry8140 yes I had this theory about blackholes were the cause of the big bang cause I mean if you think about it Blackholes keeps swallowing matters and I thought eventually all the blackholes in the universe will merge together and will get bigger and bigger until it got to the point where it will no longer hold together and cause the BIg bang so I thought it was just really a cycle.
dante2k8 11 months ago
@sorry8140 until I found out about stephens hawking theory that Black holes eventually dies when nothing feeds it cause majority matter falls into it while a fracture is ejected.
dante2k8 11 months ago
@sorry8140 - " then that one collapsed into a tiny spec, a singularity," - The wiki doesn't say the previous aeon collapsed. Rather the end of one aeon feeds into the start of the next one, because the end of an aeon is smooth like the beginning of the next one needs to be. What I don't get is that the new one is extremely small and the old one is countless trillions of light years across.
Were the inhabitants of the old eaon sub-microscopic little things compared to us?
njimko23 11 months ago
@sorry8140 The claim is that those circles are from a previous universe, the one before ours. As to how long ago, it isn't stated nor is a claim made and I'm not sure how one would find that out. Just the idea of seeing something from a previous universe is already pretty extraordinary.
tdarnell 11 months ago
Cause and effect loops in on itself too infinity, a troubling prospect for any philosopher when pondering the origins of everything. We will probably never fully understand the mystery of reality; "The ultimate truth" will always elude us. For every horizon we peer over, there will be a new horizon looming in the distance.
kazath 11 months ago
Mind bending theory. Glad that your making more videos, love them.
Terri2799 11 months ago
aha!! so, the big bang might happen again in the next few trillion years! :D
ironmadion55 11 months ago
I know this is probably an extremely over simplified way of putting things but I had always understood that "space/time" was called into being by the Big Bang itself. The idea of "before" and "after" and even the concepts of "something" or "nothing" before the big bang in that context feel strange.
I like to think I understand enough basic physics to follow a lot of astronomical documentaries and most of your videos but this is one field that does not compute with me :)
megamarsvin 11 months ago
loved the video as always, but whenever you explained how some areas are hotter than other in the universe i couldnt help but think of it being kind of like a sun, and how sun spots are different in temperature. How cool would it be if we were inside of a sun in another universe. haha highly unlikely but i like to think outside the box it keeps me thinking constantly and a life without questions isnt a life worth living to me.
cjw1010 11 months ago
There MUST have been something before big bang. How can the universe come from nothing?...NOTHING.
OrginalKork 11 months ago
@OrginalKork No. The universe doesn't need a cause to exist. Before the universe, universal laws do not need to apply.
makkathran 11 months ago
@OrginalKork Not NOTHING. There was a singularity.
yapanuwan 11 months ago
@OrginalKork No respectable scientists claim the Universe came from nothing. The Big Bang is the beginning of the Universe as we know it; the beginning of the Universe in its current form. "Everything from Nothing" is a creation from the opposition; created by the creationists to argue the Big Bang, none of which actually understand it.
Besides, did you even watch the video or did you just come here to instigate and argue? The answer was in the video.
Ridleysama 11 months ago
@OrginalKork
In which part of the video was there any claim or even hint that the Universe came from nothing?
Great video as always! Glad you enjoyed your vacation.
flarpman2233 11 months ago
@flarpman2233 In which part of my comment was there any claim or even hint that I say that this video says that the Universe came from nothing?
OrginalKork 11 months ago
interesting theory. Sounds reasonable.
Scrag06 11 months ago
These Videos are always great, keep it up.
LesterMDK 11 months ago
Thanks for explaining Tony! I waited for that one :)
NavieZeitgeist 11 months ago
Very interesting. Something familiar about it though, almost like I've seen this before...
ScottishAtheist 11 months ago
@ScottishAtheist It's kinda like a "Neo Big Crunch Theory."
Ridleysama 11 months ago
if that's true then maybe I've written this comment countless times ,but then being aware of the causation would cause feed back ,meh my brain hurts back to my Beer ,good vid .
sausage4mash 11 months ago
Yeah i tought about that, the Universe is absorbed by black holes, which finally merge, then Theres only pure energy and BANG
ricois3 11 months ago
Comment removed
sonvolt48 11 months ago 47