And one more. If the universe expands, what exactly is it then what stays the same size in relation to this expansion? If the universe is everything existing, what is the point to say it expands? Compared to what does it get bigger? Now I know the actual theory is a bit more complex, but the complexity again sounds like the famous epicycles of the ptolemaic system or the dark matter nonsense, like artificial crutches supporting a fail idea.
Let me add a simple thought about the "big bang theory". This theory measures the events shortly after the hypothesized big bang in our today's, earthly, human time scales. That is just nonsense. Time (same with space) is a completely subjective thing. We know small things move / change faster than large things, especially in relation to their size, smaller living beings have a faster inner clock than larger ones. Comparing time/space today vs 13Gy ago doesnt make any sense.
When you take out natural philosophy in science, then you get the madness we have today, with mathematical assumptions, being what counts for 'evidence,' versus experimental results.
Mainstream Big Bang mythology, is religion in disguise similar to the religious doctrine of creation ex nihilio. String Theory, Quantum Mechanics, and the Big Bang Cosmology are based on mathematical assumptions, without the proper experimental results to validate them, like evolution, thermodynamics, medical science, and so on are.
@KevZen2000 Right you are. Most devout "big bangers" don't even know that the theory was first proposed by Georges Lemaitre who was a physics prof, but more importantly a Catholic priest educated at the Catholic U. of Lemaine. The purpose of the BBT is to keep creationism relevant by giving th universe an accepted point of origin. Before the BBT, sceince-minded people believed the Universe simply always existed, and really had no reason to even discuss a creator, because there was no "creation".
ANSWER ME THIS: how can "NOTHING" be made into "SOMETHING"? heres an example: if i have a blank pieceof paper it is not art, but if I grab a pecil and start drawing then it will be art, in dat case it went from NOTHING into SOMETHING in order to have art or sculpture u need someone to do it right, it can't be created by itself!!! same goes for the universe...PLZ TAKE TIME TO REPLY....
@LORDJESUSIs4evr -- Ok, if you are serious about understanding this, and it is very freaking hard to get for anyone, then watch this one hour long explanation - /watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
@dakshinamurti Y would i waste one hour when we can find the answer in Genesis on the bible.... just cut to the chase evolution, big bang n everything against GOD does not make sense it only contradics itself...
@LORDJESUSIs4evr I will leave this comment of yours on here as a testimony of how rediculous faith based behavior can be. We're done. Do not bother replying. If you do, your comment will be deleted and you will be blocked.
@dakshinamurti If you leave God and Christianity out of the picture, it is still a pretty interesting question. How exactly do you get something out of nothing? And I don't need to watch a one hour explanation or however long it is, because there is no possible answer to the question.
@winstono75 that is circular logic. You don't watch it because there is no possible answer, hence you get no answer, since you didn't watch it. Please... You are either honest or dishonest and lazy. Explanation is by Laurence Krauss. You either take the time to listen to it or not. I don't care either way.
Dude, you really need to read up on latest research and you wiill come to understand how we know without any doubt that dark matter is 100% correct in that it's non luminous mass filled particles that exist in our universe. Was gotten to conclusion from process of elimination not assumption. The things u r saying is insane crazy!
@bm3racer Like what? And I am not the one saying it... Did you even bother checking the documentary on the electric sky hypothesis and Eric Lerner's work? I may be batshit crazy and ignorant in physics... but he isn't you know?
If you care to refute concretely his points, do a video or write a blog or something attacking any incorrect points... don't expect me to just take your word for it. Here's what you have to defeat: w ww. photonmatrix. com/ pdf/ lernerpaper4. pdf
You're saying that such a small amout of people who invented the electric sky theory have been right while there was really large amount of scientists(far greater than electric sky) who were wrong all along? it does not seem likely for this theory to be true, but once again! IT IS JUST MY OPINION and i respect what you think, but just think of what i have said here, it makes more sense.
Yes, I find the evidence presented by that small amount of people more convincing. I couldn't possibly stand with big bangers on an appeal to popularity if I find the theory filled with holes.
Plus, i dont think almost anyone ever heard of this theory, as it was not accepted by the great amount of people in this world. What you are saying was never even considered to be true and never known to massive amounts of people. Also, look at Einstein, IF this theory was right, that would mean he was wrong in everything he has done which is unlikely. He was the most talented physician ever encountered in the history of science, and he led to many theories.
I know people have different opinions and I am not judging you, but in this video you're not really fair because all you tell us is that "this" and "this" is fake in the big bang theory, and that "this" is right in the electric universe theory (whatever you call it). You do not explain anything about the electric universe but just say that the astronomers lie. There are wayy too many astronomers out there for their theories to be wrong(my opinion).
You really need to read on the matter for yourself. Dark matter is not 'fairydust'. The actual nature of dark matter might be speculation, but its existence is simple observation. The same goes for 'dark energy' and black holes. Pick up a book on cosmology sometime.
1 - I read on the matter myself. 2 - How exactly do you observe non-baryonic, non luminous matter, if by its very nature it is not visible? Answer: You can't, you can only speculate that certain EFFECTS you observe are due to it, and that is speculation, not observation, sorry. 3 - I have several books on cosmology in my house, thank you for your concern.
because it contained what I consider a personal attack. I'm not fond of condescendence, like saying that I fail on reading... I know how to read. And next time you try to use mockery or demeaning my mental faculties instead of focusing on the facts will be your last in what concerns my channel/vids.
No credible book on cosmology will tell you that dark matter is speculation, because its presence can be deduced from simple laws of gravitation. Maybe its offensive to you when I question your reading skills- but I simply have to when your mixing up basic scientific consensus.
You're defining credible as "big bang friendly" That is not an objective stand. Plus, I'm not inventing anything. I am parroting stuff that was said by people who know a LOT more than me AND YOU about cosmology. Cosmologists and Electric Engineers. Your assertions about gravitation proving dark matter is totally false. you have to assume that the cause of said gravitation is dark matter. But the force in question is NOT gravitation, but electromagnetic attraction and repulsion.
And if you knew anything about proven science, like the basic fact that to have MAGNETIC FIELDS you HAVE TO have an electric CURRENT, you wouldn't be so quick to point your finger. Mainstream cosmology talks about gravitation and magnetic fields... But you cannot have magnetic fiels without electricity!!! So them denying electric currents in the current is laughable! You do not need dark matter because electromagnetism is a billion billion times more powerful than gravitation!!!
correction: "electric currents in the cosmos". Let's just drop this. I heard what you think, I understand your point, I think you understand mine. And if this is about credibility, I find it more credible the electric sky hypothesis. It's pointless to keep debating this. Be cool.
I'm curious as to why you choose to parrot this particular theory? You tell me my assertion is 'totally false'- yet there is no more solid proof for you alternative then there is for standard cosmology. Matter of fact, plasma cosmology is hardly taken seriously in the scientific community because it lacks many things that standard cosmology explains, such as structure formation. So why are you so certain on the topic that youre stating these ideas as fact? Its silly.
I parrot lots of theories. You just happened to focus on this video. Even if there was no more proof of PC than BBT, then that would turn matters into a matter of preference or "faith", ie, a gamble. This is my bet. Matter of fact: Appeal to popularity is not evidence. One man can be right and the whole world wrong. see Galileo for example. False: It does explain formations and points out how existing superstructures ARE IMPOSSIBLE under BBT, since not enough time passed since the BB for them
to form. At least watch the documentary on the electric sky before coming in saying it doesn't say anything about stuff that it DOES say stuff. PC lacks many things? Well, also does BBT (because explaining things via mysterious never observed entities is equal as not explaining anything. Finally, I am not certain of anything. This debate is over, please. Either you grant my request, or I will grant it to me. be cool.
Plasma cosmology was taken seriously when introduced. However it failed under testing and peer review. The biggest problem is that it has far less explanatory and predictability powers compared to gravity cosmology. In other words, there are a lot more phenomenon unexplainable by plasma cosmology then by gravity cosmology.
I am in a that a few days ago I actually believed in the big bang and black holes... the electric universe just makes SOOOOOOOOO much more sense, I just can believe I would believe such stupid shit
@timmykill was. 17 kg lost since then. you fail :P
dakshinamurti 1 month ago
And one more. If the universe expands, what exactly is it then what stays the same size in relation to this expansion? If the universe is everything existing, what is the point to say it expands? Compared to what does it get bigger? Now I know the actual theory is a bit more complex, but the complexity again sounds like the famous epicycles of the ptolemaic system or the dark matter nonsense, like artificial crutches supporting a fail idea.
Skandalos 8 months ago
Let me add a simple thought about the "big bang theory". This theory measures the events shortly after the hypothesized big bang in our today's, earthly, human time scales. That is just nonsense. Time (same with space) is a completely subjective thing. We know small things move / change faster than large things, especially in relation to their size, smaller living beings have a faster inner clock than larger ones. Comparing time/space today vs 13Gy ago doesnt make any sense.
Skandalos 8 months ago
When you take out natural philosophy in science, then you get the madness we have today, with mathematical assumptions, being what counts for 'evidence,' versus experimental results.
KevZen2000 9 months ago
Mainstream Big Bang mythology, is religion in disguise similar to the religious doctrine of creation ex nihilio. String Theory, Quantum Mechanics, and the Big Bang Cosmology are based on mathematical assumptions, without the proper experimental results to validate them, like evolution, thermodynamics, medical science, and so on are.
KevZen2000 9 months ago
@KevZen2000 Right you are. Most devout "big bangers" don't even know that the theory was first proposed by Georges Lemaitre who was a physics prof, but more importantly a Catholic priest educated at the Catholic U. of Lemaine. The purpose of the BBT is to keep creationism relevant by giving th universe an accepted point of origin. Before the BBT, sceince-minded people believed the Universe simply always existed, and really had no reason to even discuss a creator, because there was no "creation".
unwinsis 9 months ago
ANSWER ME THIS: how can "NOTHING" be made into "SOMETHING"? heres an example: if i have a blank pieceof paper it is not art, but if I grab a pecil and start drawing then it will be art, in dat case it went from NOTHING into SOMETHING in order to have art or sculpture u need someone to do it right, it can't be created by itself!!! same goes for the universe...PLZ TAKE TIME TO REPLY....
LORDJESUSIs4evr 11 months ago
@LORDJESUSIs4evr -- Ok, if you are serious about understanding this, and it is very freaking hard to get for anyone, then watch this one hour long explanation - /watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
dakshinamurti 11 months ago
@dakshinamurti Y would i waste one hour when we can find the answer in Genesis on the bible.... just cut to the chase evolution, big bang n everything against GOD does not make sense it only contradics itself...
LORDJESUSIs4evr 11 months ago
@LORDJESUSIs4evr I will leave this comment of yours on here as a testimony of how rediculous faith based behavior can be. We're done. Do not bother replying. If you do, your comment will be deleted and you will be blocked.
dakshinamurti 11 months ago
@dakshinamurti If you leave God and Christianity out of the picture, it is still a pretty interesting question. How exactly do you get something out of nothing? And I don't need to watch a one hour explanation or however long it is, because there is no possible answer to the question.
winstono75 4 months ago
@winstono75 that is circular logic. You don't watch it because there is no possible answer, hence you get no answer, since you didn't watch it. Please... You are either honest or dishonest and lazy. Explanation is by Laurence Krauss. You either take the time to listen to it or not. I don't care either way.
dakshinamurti 4 months ago
@dakshinamurti I have enough sense to know that there is no answer. You simply don't get something out of nothing, no need to make science out of it.
winstono75 4 months ago
Dude, you really need to read up on latest research and you wiill come to understand how we know without any doubt that dark matter is 100% correct in that it's non luminous mass filled particles that exist in our universe. Was gotten to conclusion from process of elimination not assumption. The things u r saying is insane crazy!
bm3racer 1 year ago
@bm3racer Like what? And I am not the one saying it... Did you even bother checking the documentary on the electric sky hypothesis and Eric Lerner's work? I may be batshit crazy and ignorant in physics... but he isn't you know?
If you care to refute concretely his points, do a video or write a blog or something attacking any incorrect points... don't expect me to just take your word for it. Here's what you have to defeat: w ww. photonmatrix. com/ pdf/ lernerpaper4. pdf
dakshinamurti 1 year ago
You're saying that such a small amout of people who invented the electric sky theory have been right while there was really large amount of scientists(far greater than electric sky) who were wrong all along? it does not seem likely for this theory to be true, but once again! IT IS JUST MY OPINION and i respect what you think, but just think of what i have said here, it makes more sense.
Shamang0d 3 years ago
Yes, I find the evidence presented by that small amount of people more convincing. I couldn't possibly stand with big bangers on an appeal to popularity if I find the theory filled with holes.
dakshinamurti 3 years ago
Plus, i dont think almost anyone ever heard of this theory, as it was not accepted by the great amount of people in this world. What you are saying was never even considered to be true and never known to massive amounts of people. Also, look at Einstein, IF this theory was right, that would mean he was wrong in everything he has done which is unlikely. He was the most talented physician ever encountered in the history of science, and he led to many theories.
Shamang0d 3 years ago
I know people have different opinions and I am not judging you, but in this video you're not really fair because all you tell us is that "this" and "this" is fake in the big bang theory, and that "this" is right in the electric universe theory (whatever you call it). You do not explain anything about the electric universe but just say that the astronomers lie. There are wayy too many astronomers out there for their theories to be wrong(my opinion).
Shamang0d 3 years ago
You really need to read on the matter for yourself. Dark matter is not 'fairydust'. The actual nature of dark matter might be speculation, but its existence is simple observation. The same goes for 'dark energy' and black holes. Pick up a book on cosmology sometime.
apestaartje321 3 years ago
1 - I read on the matter myself. 2 - How exactly do you observe non-baryonic, non luminous matter, if by its very nature it is not visible? Answer: You can't, you can only speculate that certain EFFECTS you observe are due to it, and that is speculation, not observation, sorry. 3 - I have several books on cosmology in my house, thank you for your concern.
dakshinamurti 3 years ago
lol, why did you remove my reply? Is that what you call 'interest in truth, science and personal development'?
apestaartje321 3 years ago
because it contained what I consider a personal attack. I'm not fond of condescendence, like saying that I fail on reading... I know how to read. And next time you try to use mockery or demeaning my mental faculties instead of focusing on the facts will be your last in what concerns my channel/vids.
dakshinamurti 3 years ago
No credible book on cosmology will tell you that dark matter is speculation, because its presence can be deduced from simple laws of gravitation. Maybe its offensive to you when I question your reading skills- but I simply have to when your mixing up basic scientific consensus.
apestaartje321 3 years ago
You're defining credible as "big bang friendly" That is not an objective stand. Plus, I'm not inventing anything. I am parroting stuff that was said by people who know a LOT more than me AND YOU about cosmology. Cosmologists and Electric Engineers. Your assertions about gravitation proving dark matter is totally false. you have to assume that the cause of said gravitation is dark matter. But the force in question is NOT gravitation, but electromagnetic attraction and repulsion.
dakshinamurti 3 years ago
And if you knew anything about proven science, like the basic fact that to have MAGNETIC FIELDS you HAVE TO have an electric CURRENT, you wouldn't be so quick to point your finger. Mainstream cosmology talks about gravitation and magnetic fields... But you cannot have magnetic fiels without electricity!!! So them denying electric currents in the current is laughable! You do not need dark matter because electromagnetism is a billion billion times more powerful than gravitation!!!
dakshinamurti 3 years ago
correction: "electric currents in the cosmos". Let's just drop this. I heard what you think, I understand your point, I think you understand mine. And if this is about credibility, I find it more credible the electric sky hypothesis. It's pointless to keep debating this. Be cool.
dakshinamurti 3 years ago
I'm curious as to why you choose to parrot this particular theory? You tell me my assertion is 'totally false'- yet there is no more solid proof for you alternative then there is for standard cosmology. Matter of fact, plasma cosmology is hardly taken seriously in the scientific community because it lacks many things that standard cosmology explains, such as structure formation. So why are you so certain on the topic that youre stating these ideas as fact? Its silly.
apestaartje321 3 years ago
I parrot lots of theories. You just happened to focus on this video. Even if there was no more proof of PC than BBT, then that would turn matters into a matter of preference or "faith", ie, a gamble. This is my bet. Matter of fact: Appeal to popularity is not evidence. One man can be right and the whole world wrong. see Galileo for example. False: It does explain formations and points out how existing superstructures ARE IMPOSSIBLE under BBT, since not enough time passed since the BB for them
dakshinamurti 3 years ago
to form. At least watch the documentary on the electric sky before coming in saying it doesn't say anything about stuff that it DOES say stuff. PC lacks many things? Well, also does BBT (because explaining things via mysterious never observed entities is equal as not explaining anything. Finally, I am not certain of anything. This debate is over, please. Either you grant my request, or I will grant it to me. be cool.
dakshinamurti 3 years ago
The electric Universe Part 1 of 4 - watch?v=V026kSw4XCs At least get to know where I am coming from. C you.
dakshinamurti 3 years ago
I'll get on that, even though I still believe in the BBT
Shamang0d 3 years ago
Plasma cosmology was taken seriously when introduced. However it failed under testing and peer review. The biggest problem is that it has far less explanatory and predictability powers compared to gravity cosmology. In other words, there are a lot more phenomenon unexplainable by plasma cosmology then by gravity cosmology.
sorienor 3 years ago
I am in a that a few days ago I actually believed in the big bang and black holes... the electric universe just makes SOOOOOOOOO much more sense, I just can believe I would believe such stupid shit
ModelAnarchist 3 years ago
Very nice.
Orygyn 3 years ago
Excellent video. I am very pleased with what your subscription offers. Keep em comin.
AndyMH182 3 years ago 2
Probably the best compliment I got so far. Thanks.
dakshinamurti 3 years ago
I've learned more on this subject in watching 10 minutes of your video than I had in the past 20 years.
sixkiller111 3 years ago 2
That's an even bigger compliment!!! :)
dakshinamurti 3 years ago
kickass!
cozmikzen 3 years ago 3
very interesting
theracemixer 3 years ago 3