Stephen Hawking's Universe - EP1:Seeing Is Believing (4/ 5)

[Muraz72]

God is everything

[TheDelta093]

Science is god ;D

[paginipro]

god is logic

[swordysvg]

I wanna see who knows what colors really are I'm 12 and if I know it then everyone else should so pm me

[godview1]

A wise man knows WHEN he is a fool, a genius will learn from it and try to better himself. That in my opinion defines a genius. It is really hard for people nowadays to actually accept new information especially if it contradicts what they now believe as truth. As you look into history, everybody who contradicted certain believes at the time were prosecuted and now admired.

[ConradProteus]

0:30 music from arcanum :D

[GoneJackalPoleCats]

Doppler shift.... As in... Dr... Doppler? Ah S**T not again quick X get him!

I feel like such a nerd for making that joke, ah well.

[nancyl2]

Such Smashing wisdom re-heard with my blinders removed. :-))) Just fantastical. Highest rated answers: fantastical also. <3<3<3 WOW!!!

[xidjazulix]

simply put,  OH SHIT.

[cheezydoodlez]

a wise man knows he is a fool

[rdogg2507]

@cheezydoodlez

I like this one, is it yours

[Bustacapnyoass]

Infinity is a word scientists use to describe the universe because they don't know the bounds of it since it's so massive. If it's infinite now then why would it be expanding? It's just getting bigger from its current size which is not infinite.

[JKaiserable]

@Bustacapnyoass ... infinity is a term that came to be from mathematics, not necessarily any type of "measurement" within math but more to do with space "time' continuance and not the size of the universe itself

[sevyn7up]

My question is, if the universe is never ending or so massive in size, how does the big bang theory fit into that scenerio. How could the universe have one starting point, and expanded into infinity. just a question.

[JKaiserable]

@sevyn7up thats why the big bang "theory" ... is still considered a theory.. there are missing variable to the equation of that theory and since science currently considers the universe endless or infinite there is no way of knowing a "centerpoint" because it doesnt exhist

[BipedalHumanoid]

@JKaiserable You should probably look up the definition of 'scientific theory' to understand why your comment makes not sense what so ever. The big bang theory will never be anything more than a theory no matter what evidence is gatherered to support it. Likewise the germ theory of disease and the various theories of gravity are and always will be theories.

[JKaiserable]

@BipedalHumanoid scientific theory is as sevyn7up said, a hypothesis... scientific theories or hypothesized ideas have been proven throughout history to become facts... a scientific theory doesnt have to remain a theory.... so its not going to remain a theory if they can prove it ... the world being round was once known as a scientific theory man... so my comment makes perfect sense unless you misinterpreted it

[BipedalHumanoid]

@JKaiserable I'm guessing you didn't do any science subjects at school. If you did you'd know that a hypothesis a proposed explanation. A scientific hypothesis must be testable. When a hypothesis is tested repeatedly it may gain credibility and become a scientific theory. A theory is a hypothesis with a body of evidence & facts supporting it. Utlimately it is an explanation. Explanations don't become facts, they encompass them. An theory is far more usefull than a mere fact.

[JKaiserable]

@BipedalHumanoid obviously you never took any classes that would enable you to have a debate with another person without attempting to be condescending or insulting... you said a theory can never be anymore than a theory... if evidence is collected to prove that it is 100% factual is ceases to be considered a theory... it would be common knowledge from there on. if you wanted to refer to it as a theory it would be in a past tense format ... "so and so's proven theory of suck and such"

[BipedalHumanoid]

@JKaiserable Sorry if I seem rude but it is quite frustrating having to defeat this common bastardisation of the scientific method.

"if evidence is collected to prove that it is 100% factual is ceases to be considered a theory" - Well you see that's where your argument fails. No scientists has or ever will claim to know something with 100% accuracy.

Instead of arguing with me why not log into wikipedia. Look up the terms hypothesis & Scientific Theory. They are well referenced articles.

[JKaiserable]

@BipedalHumanoid theories can be disproven... your saying that if a scientist has a theory... then years later the technology is available that prove that theory to be indisputable, 100% fact (i.e chemicals that make up a compound before the testing kit was invented) ... it remains a theory? and can be proven to be incorrect?

[BipedalHumanoid]

@JKaiserable In principle, you have to assume that a theory can be disproven. The scientific terminology is 'falsification'. Not only that, but if theory is unfalsifiable it will be considered unscientific.

The only 100% indisputable facts are a-priori facts. ie. There is no such thing as a square circle. Outside of that we can accept theories with varying degrees of certainty, depndant on supporting evidence.

[azurewolf]

@BipedalHumanoid there is no reason for a square circle to not exist, as a circle can be defined as an object with infinite points, and for it to be a square circle it would only need to have 4 points more pronounced than the rest.

[StrikaAmaru]

@azurewolf ... sooo much faail...

A circle is an infinite number of points, at an EQUAL DISTANCE from a fixed point called CENTER. A square is defined as 4 equal-length segments, at right angles to each other. By definition, there is no such thing as a square circle.

[azurewolf]

@StrikaAmaru only in euclidean geometry though :P Thats like saying a bat toe isn't a toe because it doesn't correlate to a human toe :P

[azurewolf]

aaaalso who's to say that there isn't 4 equal points at right angles to each other within the perimiter of the circle?

[seamless13]

@azurewolf Ok so draw the square circle on a piece of paper.With the right angles pronounces on the "circle" suddenly not all points are of equal distance from the center because it then concaves and expands through the pronounced points.That said a square circle or a circular square cannot exist as by definition accepted by all parties regardless of belief or value.Your arguement fails.

[azurewolf]

@seamless13 represent me accuratly a polydimensional circle of dimension n where n > 3 in a 2 dimensional diagram :P and a circle having infinate equidistant points only applies for 2 and 3 dimensional math. watch out for that.

[azurewolf]

@seamless13 p.s. I think you mean it concaves at the points and convexes along the vertex. Lesser dimensional geometry is just planar sections of higher dimensional geometry which reciprocally is a planar section of higher dimensions until the nth dimension, to which end a circle with 4 points at right angles to each other can be argued to be a particular cut of a polydimensional shape with infinite equidistant points represented in a more calculable form :P

[sevyn7up]

@JKaiser Lol, Yes I understand that the big bang is a theory. But theorys are based on a hypothesis, and usually have some concrete facts supporting the theory. The missing variables are like missing pieces to a puzzle, but some pieces to the puzzle are in place, and that leads to ones theory. My question is, what are the facts that support this theory. I should frase my question a little clearer the first time, but thanks for your reply.

[keggerous]

well we all know this is a bunch of non-sense!!! the universe was made by robots from the future that came back in time to the 3rd dimention. where they begain to build a superatomization desolorisinator. they then expanded space to fill a void which is about 3 times the size of our current universe. once te space was formed the robots begain to manipulate energy to form matter and life......the end! and its all true or ur goin to robohell!

[royfancoolguy]

Your comment honestly made me laugh. Also, I see one major logical flaw. If the universe was made by robots from the "future", how would the present be created in the past? During the beginning of time? The future CANNOT exist without the past and present.

[SaraCufer]

Well the robots are so smart they can create the future without past or present. ;D

[royfancoolguy]

If you are joking around, I don't honestly find that amusing. I simply stated logic. It is not possible for even the most intelligent beings to bend the laws of reality. How would an apple exist if they never grew? It's impossible for the future to exist without the present and past.

[SaraCufer]

That was so obviously a joke that it was barely even a joke, come on...

[EltonJThe]

@royfancoolguy you need to learn of the Law of Attraction.

[SaraCufer]

lololol this just might be the best theory ever.

[druffzy]

LOL

[ooosteve]

what is the movie called about his life... I saw it on youtube before and I cant find it now....was a great story.

can someone pm me the name

Thanks

[BlackMagicWoman13]

thx for posting these videos here for all to watch that have the curiosity for it!

[DirteatDirt]

black magic woman wont u be nine ohh black magic woman. yeah woman yeah woman. I wrote that gingle just 4 u cuty pie.

[allanroyce]

LOL!! ALLAH IS A BIG JOKE!! cAN ALlAH explain this thing?

[Glenbo71]

why did Allah create us?

[EltonJThe]

@Glenbo71 So It can understand Itself. ;)

[ucenigma]

Yes, they all travel at c, but the source is approaching. Hence, x amount of time later (given the speed of the source), the next sent 'information/light' approaching at c is that much closer. Imagine a movie reel playing faster than it should be. Or in your case, a light that looks more red than green. That is the whole point if the doppler effect.

[fusionfreq]

If it were possible= someone on a space rocket held a green light bulb traveling toward an observer on earth at 50,000mph ..the light will appear to the observer a different shade/colour, yet the light will still travel at the speed of light/670616629mph not 670616629 + 50,000mph? no matter what frequency the light particles vibrate, they all travel at c ( speed light) Unlike Sound which travels at various rates depending on frequency, thats why i ask.thanks:)

[fusionfreq]

so if it were possible= someone on a space rocket held a green light bulb traveling toward an observer on earth at 50,000mph ..the light will appear to the observer a different shade/colour, yet the light will still travel at the speed of light/670616629mph not 670616629 + 50,000mph? no matter what frequency the light particles vibrate, they all travel at c ( speed light) Unlike Sound which travels at various rates depending on frequency, thats why i ask.thanks:)