to anybody that knows anybody that knows anything about the physics and mathematics of relativity, cosmology or quantum mechanics please refrain from body slamming a new born baby onto a burning car after watching this video
E=M(C^2) or Energy = Mass (an accelertation). Thanks, very helpful. Now all i need to do is point my spaceship in the direction of maximum accelertatoin to break the time barrier. Tip: The Universe was / polar with a North and South Pole. After the inertia of the big bang was spent. North is attached to South and begins to collapse from top-to-bottom, while repulsive forces accelerate from side-to-side. Hince it ends up being somewhat flat or oval. Will reach steady state bath in light no nite
Mass is electromagnetic amplitude change. All the equations for mass contain the element, frequency, which is the rate of electric and magnetic amplitude change.
Big bang never did happen. When energy acts on energy field result is matter. MATTER WAS CREATED SINCE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE THIS WAY , AND THE PROCES IS STEEL GOING ON.
When you're completely wrong about something, putting it in ALLCAPS doesn't suddenly make it right; it just kills any potential credibility you might have had and makes you seem like a complete raging fool.
Amazing. Four distance measurements willdetermine the axis point. Clearly our Sun is the centre of the Universe. The sun is, in fact, what has been left over after the big bang, inside the Hubble BubbleGum Universe. Now chew on that for a billion years and you probably will not find a more bvious explanation of God, the Universe and everything.
Maybe it's a hard concept to understand, but there is no location to pinpoint where the Big-Bang happened. Everywhere is the location where the Big-Bang occured. There is no particular location in the universe where the Big-Bang did not happen. Imagine the total universe pressed to the size of a needlepoint. Outside the needlepoint nothing exists. No space, no time, nothing! Then the needlepoint explodes and when the size is grown to say a marble, where is the Big-Bang? It's everywhere! See?
I like this idea, that matter, or mass, is in fact energy moving faster than light. The border is the speed of light and anything moving faster is 'rolled up' into matter.
But why would energy exceed the speed of light? I think that in the centre of a black hole matter returns into energy but at a different speed of light. This is in fact a big bang that occurs in many blackholes. Our universe is the inside of a super large blackhole that exists in a superlarge universe.
@MrDp297....If E=MC2, and C (speed of light is a constant, then E=M times a fixed number! So, E simply equals M....Ah! But if you cut M into 8 pieces, you end up with Pieces of Eight. Therefore, Mass is a coin. Other words, MONEY! Because a Piece of Eight was, and still can be, a gold coin cut into 8 pieces. Have you any idea how much energy there is in a gold coin?
@MrDp297 No. Not at all. If anyone wants to read Einstein's formula in some depth, I recommend Wiki. Search E=MC2 . But at rest, mass is a simple equation E=M times a large (constant) number. Do we need to talk about velocity, Lorentz factor, relativistic mass, length contraction, etc. And what if our Universe is travelling at the speed of light relative to another Universe. Or is our universe spinning? This is what happens when you have a brain as big as a planet.
@MrDp297 No. Not at all. If anyone wants to read Einstein's formula in some depth, I recommend Wiki. Search E=MC2 . But at rest, mass is a simple equation E=M times a large (constant) number. Do we need to talk about velocity, Lorentz factor, relativistic mass, length contraction, etc. And what if our Universe is travelling at the speed of light relative to another Universe. Or is our universe spinning? This is what happens when you have a brain as big as a planet.
I don't care if this video is right or wrong, but I admire this guy that unlike many of these people commenting here and repeating what scientists said (and calling him stupid!), he or she used his brain and creativity.
Needless to say that many of the things commented here as a real fact, are still in theory for scientists!!! And most people take scientists as their god but drop what the real god says!
so the expansion of space pulls light away so we cant see it? if so whats light traveling through? based on relativity? if expansion could be faster than light and relativity is a lie then we should surely expect the universe to be soooo much older than we do and it wold be expected to be getting younger. not only that we would see almost nothing as light is pulled away from all observable points.. as we have observed over the last few years but we can see deeper all the time
@joppadoni The video is wrong. All directions point to where the big bang was, because the big bang resulted in all the Universe's space as well as all of it's energy, so it happened here, there and everywhere else.
But your question is more about special relativity and the expansion of space.
Special relativity laws apply to the movement of objects through space, but not to space itself.
So the expansion of space can be much faster than the speed of light.
Einstein tried to formulate an absolute mass energy equivalence ratio. Can't be an absolutely perfect formula in all circumstances; as the most sub-atomic particulate scale in some events, there will always be variations as to the amounts of quantum energy verses mass in one as to another experiment; various mass to energy contents are in constant particle structure fluctuation. Light eventually returns to mass at rest, from which it came! Mass propelled at light speed transforms to light.
stupid ?? does the speed of light change relative to lets say the force of a supernova and if so the subtraction of the speed that the "big bang" initially provided relative to our view and the original positions i.e speed of the white dwarf(before supernova explosion)
mere novice trying to understand to the universe any comment are welcomed and greatly appreciated
wtf? We cannot move faster than the speed of light *because* we have mass.
The idea of 'galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light' doesn't really refer to movement, it refers to the expansion of space. Nothing is moving away from us, space itself is getting bigger. The 'fabric of the universe' is being stretched at a rate bigger than what light can cover, and thus things *appear* to move faster than light.
There is nothing outside of our universe. There is no "boundary" or "edge" of the universe. Mass (matter) curves space/time. If you could travel in a straight line through space/time you would eventually end up at your starting point. That is because the matter in the universe curves space/time. The galaxies are not moving away from each other at greater than the speed of light. The "space" between the galaxies is expanding faster than the speed of light.
@haroldrhamilton Everything you said is true, except the first statement. We don't know if there is anything outside of our universe. We are inside of it, and as such are confined inside. Yes, there is no boundary or edge, just like there is no boundary or edge to the surface of a planet, but there's still something beyond it. There could very well be something beyond our universe that we simply can not detect with our level of technology.
@EnigmaHood You have an interesting point. String theory predicts as many as 10 to the 500th possible "universes within the "landscape" or "multiverse". This is a staggeringly large number. With each universe having different laws. A multiverse of unimaginable proportions. I believe this is a plausible theory. Forgive my lack of technical jargon. If each of these universes within the landscape have their own "frequency" then the will not interact with any of the others.
@EnigmaHood I read somewhere that we may be able to detect these other "universes" by studying the cosmic background radiation. If they are detected we will have our answer. That our universe is expanding within the Landscape of the Multiverse.
I would agree that Hydrogen is being created on an ongoing basis from photons of light somehow...just can't figure out how yet. I don't think we need to break any laws of nature to it though.
Which Big Bang are you talking about? Because there are eight of them.How do I know they eight? Because I am the Big Bang and I was as Eve before the Big Bang then I was Adam after the Big Bang. Now I am Adam, Jesus, Mohammed and Ibrahim.If you do not believe that is O.K because you are not alone!!
Well brianbrian999, you have some things right and some things not so much. 2 observations.
You seem to think c^2 is a velocity, it is not. Example Length X Length = Area In no way is Area a Length in a particular direction. Likewise c^2 is not faster than light, it is not a velocity.
Since space is what is expanding, you can't locate the point of origin since it is everywhere and space is not a sphere that is expanding into something that can be measured in terms of spacial dimensions.
My intuituition says: "Absolutely False"....My reason says" Mass is a condensed form of energy, energy should slow down to get a material form, and doing this it's slow his vibration,...Einsten formula says E=Mc2, that only means that mass is condensed energy, and we all know what happens when we accelerate mass, it burns it comes into energy, so you have to accelerate matter and not energy, or slow eenrgy to create matter... in conclusion you're speaking nonsense...
In the related videos on the right, at or near the top, is a video that can help explain some of what I am talking about. The title is "How Can Galaxies Travel Faster Than Light?", by tdarnell.
There is no center of the universe. At the time of the big bang, everything in the universe was at a single point, but that's not all. Also all of the SPACE in the universe was at that single point. The big bang happened everywhere. The universe has grown from a single point to whatever size it has now, bigger than we can see.
@therealEmpyre "all of the SPACE in the universe was at that single point" That doesn't make any sense... Space is not an object, its not a substance, it is literally nothing. It does not exist. There is no limit to nothing.
@TheBloodyBlackJackal For a better explanation than I can offer, go to astronomycast (dot com), an excellent podcast about astronomy, and listen to episodes 77, 78, 79, and 122. In those episodes, they talk about the center, shape, size, and age of the universe. In episode 81, they answer questions about it.
Matter is not energy going faster than light. Quite the opposite is true. Matter is "frozen" energy.
Distant galaxies are moving away from us faster than light because the huge amount of space between us is expanding, and all that expanding space is dragging them away faster than light, even though both we and they are really standing still, or moving at a tiny speed compared to the speed of light.
@therealEmpyre Thre is no center of the universe. At the time of the big bang, not only was all the matter and energy of the universe at a single point, but all the space of the universe was at a single point. The big bang happened everywhere because everywhere was at that single point. Since then, the universe has grown from that single point to what we see now, and beyond what we can see, outside the Hubble Bubble.
I'm not sure how right this is, because I'm in middle school and didn't comprehend half of it. But the logic and complexity sounded beautiful. What's the symphony, by the way?
Oh my god. I'm such a nerd. I am the original nerd. Every other nerd is just a grainy copy of my epic nerdiness.
the same way we were conceived the universe was concived/or maybe the measurement of time isnt correct just a millie second off adds up to alot over 13000000000000 years
One of the key points of the Theory of Special Relativity is that every point in the universe is the center, or rather, there is no center, and no edges. Space itself is what is expanding. No matter which way you look inside the "Hubble Bubble" you are looking towards the center, but always seeing light that started it's journey at some time in the past. The Cosmic Microwave Background comes from all directions rather than only from the Big Bang's point of origin
there has to be a origin of the big bang, it would kind of be like if you dropped a stick of dynomite into a pool of hot lava, but in space with the 0 gravity, so think of it in slow motion, since its a small scale you wil be abel to see the cause and effect of it, but on a grand scale like the vastness of space it will go on forever, but the spot of origin will still be visibale or at least be abel to be found with ath like this guy is saying,damn i know what he means but its hard to exsplain
You all have all the answers. The earth is flat, the earth is the center of the sol system and the universe, atoms are the smallest matter and witches run wild. Open minds are the only way we learn. HUSNIDJ1991, yes, the WHO effect "we're here, we're here". The universe as we know it is probably just a single spiral universe amongst many trading matter with each other with each expansion and contraction. And our galaxy is just an atom.
One question to All scientists : As we research deeper and Deeper we always find something new! Like previously it was stated that Universe is made up of matter now it was proven wrong . Gas collectively make stars , Stars make galaxy, galaxies make universe .. what if universe collectively make something else?
Suppose Earth is an atom and we live on single atom , Now how can we Know about the stars galaxies etc etc? Its all about Dimensions i believe so! .. Like an ant see world differently
Oh and another thing time doesn't really exsist. Of course none of you will probably understand how and why what I'm saying is true and just spend about 39 seconds or so trying to understand before posting a comment about it saying that I'm an idiot which of corse based on the time you probably spent thinking about it is probably an idiotic statement
why does it matters. If people can understand each other without mistaking information even when there are insignificant mistakes then i don`t think that perfect language matters.
(I`m not English so please don`t start telling me what mistakes i have in those lines)
But at least (s)he thinks and tries to figure out something by him/her self, not like most of people doesn`t think at all, in best case reads books and watches videos to learn something new.
Mass can't be going faster than light, this would mean when you go inside of an object your going backwards in time, sine going faster than a beam of light would make you go backwards in time.
Of course the big bang is still happening everywhere. But they are just looking for the central point of that. If the universe has a shape there must be a central point. (Unless the 3 dimensional space is curved in 4 dimensions to form a sort of 4 dimensional balloon)
Dont trust people who say its a complicated thing. Most of them dont understand anything. The only protect them self for unveilling their own ignorance.
oh..thanks for reply...just watch my futher commentar below...which shows the verifaction of the formular. The varification with minkowsky room is bullshit which works to ..but is much to complicated.
you are right.... this formular can be simply verified if you take E = Integral ( p(v)*dv) p(v) = v* m*gamma(v) for gamme(v) = 1/sqrt(1-v²/c²).
E= integral( v*m/sqrt/(1-v²/c²))*dv) = [ -m*c²*sqrt(1-v²/c²)] from v0 to v1.
For v0=0 and v1 = c you get E=m*c². For v0 = v and v1 = c you get E² = m²*c4+c²*v²*m² ....for small v1 < c/10 you can see that the result will equal E=v²*m/2 .by inserting values ....you see you can do it .....dont trust people how say its to complicated.
"Einstein's equation.. has determined that we are moving at the speed of light squared". God Lord. This statement belongs in the Ignorance Hall of Fame.
@csmcmillion And by the way even most graduated physicans dont grasp phyisics ...cause the often learnt the formaluras .instead making one experiments in mind about the subject. E = integral (p(v)*dv) is the most efficient interpretation of Energie. And if you abstract E=mc² you can see that even mass does not really matter on Energie. Instead of its the relation between velocitiy in you inertialsystem and speed of light.
it's people like brianbrian9999 that slow down the progress of science... if you're completely retarded, you should not attempt to teach other people!!! we need to learn from people who are actually qualified to teach this stuff...
I'm not sure which is the worst -- the fact that this video completely misunderstands accepted scientific knowledge, that there are almost as many "likes" of the video as "dislikes", or that even the top comments are subtly incorrect (1st: photons have mass but no rest mass and 2nd: E² =m² c⁴+p² c² should be E² =m₀² c⁴+p² c²)
it is also a false statement to say we are moving at the speed of light squared. (m/s)^2 is (m^2)/(s^s), these are not units of speed, also the description of the bubble puts each point at the center with all points expanding away from it, ie, each point is at its own center of expansion
misguided video. The universe is so much bigger than what we can see or even imagine that we cannot determine the centre from where we stand or with the tools we have. Everytime we discover something or see something further, we see there is even much more to see, discover and learn.... we have some years yet... even hundreds before we can see significantly far enough to make observable conclusions about the centre of the universe..
I'm no physicist, just an engineer, but this guy aside, if it were possible to determine the center of the universe, wouldn't there be a hole there? I mean, all matter is flying away from the center of the universe, right? Like an explosion? How could there be any residual matter at that general location? Anyone have any math pro or con for this thought? Thanks.
@kenjf01 Sorry, no. There is no "explosion". There is expansion of space-time. The universe did not "explode" into space which was already there. Space itself expanded. See the difference? But anyway, so far there is no proof for a big bang and I would rather call it big bounces :)
for mass to achieve lightspeed it would require that all the mass turn into energy according to the equation. only photons travel at lightspeed and they have no mass, Einstein jr
At list he, the person who created this video is on to something so instead of criticizing let's work with him and come up with a better answer... It seems like the universe has a center point where everything begun but hasn't stopped and never will. It will create new energy's that will turn into gases and then stars and planets.
@Aviatorsmith every thing has a center point, and Einsteins theory of "static space" predicts that the universe is spherical, and Steven hawking"big bang theory" predicts that the universe has expanded since it's formation. an expansion due to a "big bang" implies it is expanding from a point. rewind the clock back from its expansion to it's original point and you have the center from which it will expand.
@MrAikichemphysicist You have to note that the expansion point is not from a certain "point". If you rewind the clock, the universe will get squeezed into that point. The WHOLE universe was in the point during the big bang and thus that point is the WHOLE universe. This does not work like a conventional expanding module.
@Aviatorsmith when they say the center of the universe they mean its central point like the origin on a Cartesian coordinate system. Every thing has a center. the very point in space where the universe was before the big bang is the central point of the universe today and it always will be because the universe keeps expanding. the point or singularity in space before the big bang is the center of the universe now and will be forever unless the universe is destroyed.
@MrAikichemphysicist "the very point in space where the universe was before the big bang..."
Ah, but you see, the point that the universe occupied was not in space. In fact, space only exists within the universe -- there is no 'outside the universe' for the universe to expand into, the expansion occurs entirely within the universe as space itself grows. It's a fascinating idea that space isn't just the nothing between things -- space has properties.
@skoockum by the center of the universe they mean where the mass of singularity was, not the borders of space-time. if you were to plot the point of the singularity mass in between the borders of space-time and mass. the circumference of the original mass would be stationary in between the walls of space-time and as the singularity expanded and annihilated eventually the point that was the circumference of the singularity that was the center of the original condensed universe is the center.
@MrAikichemphysicist "by the center of the universe they mean where the mass of singularity was"
that's where you're wrong... Again: the singularity/universe wasn't in a place. It was, as it still is, everything/everyplace. There is no space outside the universe for the universe to occupy. On top of that, the universe has no border/limit/edge/wall/etc.
You are having serious trouble getting out from behind the semantic eight ball you've concocted.
@skoockum the singularity is the mass surrounded by the fabric of space time, that means it is the single point of the universe. The singularity mass was in a point in space because space-time was surrounding it. the singularity of the universe could not have been infinitely dense meaning that there was a center point of the singularity. now you simply cannot say that there is or was nothing outside of the universe because there would be no multiverse.
@skoockum what you're saying is that the universe's singularity cannot be the center point. you're saying that the universe is the universes center point and that there is no point in space that can be it's center. but if space time is spherical or even if the universe has 12 dimensions like string theory predicts it still has a center. there is a point in time and space that is the center of the universe if not then the universe would have no center and would not be just one universe.
@MrAikichemphysicist "what you're saying is that the universe's singularity cannot be the center point."
Not even close.
"you're saying that the universe is the universes center point and that there is no point in space that can be it's center."
Swing and a miss!
"there is a point in time and space that is the center of the universe if not then the universe would have no center and would not be just one universe."
You haven't even opened the front door, and yet you're already lost.
@skoockum you obviously don't know anything about physics or even elementary geometry. you said at first that the universe has no center but you are wrong because everything has a center, it has to have a center or it is not one, you then claim that the universe is its own center but you were wrong again because everything has a middle. apparently there is no way to explain to you that everything has a center so maybe you should re learn geometry or shape. everything has a center.
@michaelschatz6 "you then claim that the universe is its own center"
Nope. I never said that.
"everything has a center."
Not true. The surface of, say, a sphere has no center. Of course a sphere has a center, but its surface doesn't, as you would have recognized on your own if you had even just the most basic understanding of geometry.
@skoockum nothing can be its own center, and there is a multiverse. wrap your mind around this concept and it will be your first step to understanding the universe.
@skoockum who are you to make those claims? What are you, a cosmologist? You dont know. So why dont we go with the most accepted theory. The big bang happend. If the universe is everywhere it has no where to go right? Then why was the nobel prize awarded to scientist who proved that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate? If the universe is already everywhere how can it expand? I guess you'll just have to ask the famous winners Saul Perlmutter, Brian P. Schmidt, and Adam G. Riess. GL
@stickyal92 You said: "If the universe is everywhere it has no where to go right?"
and also "If the universe is already everywhere how can it expand?" (by which I gather you mean to imply that the universe CAN'T expand if it's already everywhere)
who are you to make those claims? What are you, a cosmologist? You dont know.
@skoockum the universe has a border it is called space-time. space time surrounds and conforms to mass. mass cannot rip through space time or even pass through it. also there is something outside of the universe it is the multiverse. there is has to be space to separate universes in the multiverse or else all universes would be one and there would be no multiverse. the singularity was in a place for there to be a multiverse, you cannot claim that there is no multiverse.
@michaelschatz6 "the universe has a border it is called space-time."
Space-time is not a border.
"you cannot claim that there is no multiverse. "
Anyone can claim anything they want to (but that doesn't mean they're right). If you read carefully, you'll see quite clearly that I have not made a single statement regarding a multiverse. The discussion of multiverses is entirely off topic, and can only serve to confuse some of the less scientifically literate.
@skoockum THERE IS NO SPACE OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSE ? Matter in the Universe has an influence, space time gravity etc. lets asume this universe is a sphere that contains all the matter, this matter would also have an infuence outside this sphere, in theory spreading out to infinity
@MrSIZEMIK "lets asume this universe ... contains all the matter, this matter would also have an infuence outside this sphere"
How could you possibly know what happens outside the universe? Cosmologists can directly detect only about 5% of what IS in the universe (all of the normal matter and energy).
Given that cosmologists don't know anything about 95% of the universe, let alone know anything outside it, what makes you think that you've got it figured out?
@skoockum and also the point in space-time where the singularity mass was, is the point from which the universe expanded so seeing how the universe expanded from the point of mass while still inside space-time you should see how a center exists. also there is a space outside of the universe because if not there would be no multiverse. it is believed that there is only space outside of the universe not the fabric of space-time. so time does not exist on the outside of universes.
@skoockum "Space is the boundless, three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction. Physical space is often conceived in three linear dimensions, although modern physicists usually consider it, with time, to be part of a boundless four-dimensional continuum known as spacetime."
Explain how space has properties, because I don't see it in the definition.
@Mick0722MX For starters, space can expand (it's doing it right now). This wouldn't be the case if space existed outside the universe for matter and energy to move out into. But since there is no space outside the universe, it stands that space itself increases in size.
For questions like your's I find that googling "properties of space" usually brings up some enlightening information... much better than looking for answers in definitions
@Mick0722MX "Space does not expand, the universe does."
What makes you think that space isn't the part of the universe that expands? What other component of the universe do you think might be expanding? Energy? Matter? ...Of course space expands. *snicker*
"How do you know what exists outside the perimeter of the universe?"
I know nothing in that regards. I'm just repeating what cosmologists and theoretical physicists have been saying for the last 100 or so years.
@Mick0722MX " "much better than looking for answers in definitions" LOL is that so? "
Well, yes as a matter of fact ...why else would I say so? Think I'm wrong? Then look up the definition(s) of multiple variable integral calculus of parametric vector valued functions in polar coordinates. No need to be able to perform these, you just need to know the definition. Does it still seem like knowing the definition equals understanding all of the interactions involved?
@skoockum No, I don't have to be more specific because I know what I'm talking about and you don't. Furthermore, I don't care what you know and what you don't know.
@Mick0722MX "No, I don't have to be more specific"
Actually, you do.
"I know what I'm talking about and you don't."
The facts don't seem to be in your favor on this one.
"I don't care what you know and what you don't know."
I knew that from the start, but now that you've come to realize it, hopefully you'll see how irrelevant your participation really is, and just shut the fuck up.
There's a way that this isn't true. Say the universe is in the same form as a balloon. It starts as a point, then as it expands, it becomes a spherical surface (this is a 2-D analogy for our 3-D universe). Not only is there not a central point on this surface, but you could potentially see the back of your own head no matter which direction you looked.
Hawking stated that nothing other than light can travel the speed of light. The faster an object moves the greater the energy required to move it, and the greater the speed of an object the more mass the object retains. Thus requiring an infinite amount of energy to travel the speed of light. Comparing the speed of a light wave or particle to the speed of a traveling galaxy seems a little.. bullshit. Also, how would you be able to observe something traveling away from you at the speed of light?
I know this video is wrong but I am still young and open minded. I found it interesting saying that mass moves faster than light and using the expanding universe to verify this.
Some video's explain the expanding universe better than others and as far as theories go, in certain respects I liked this one. It partly makes sense because we do know that we are moving away from galaxies fastest than the speed of light or the universe is expanding faster than the light travels.
AAAAAAARgggh! You are trying to orient a center of the universe as the point of the big bang in relation to a point outside the universe. The only way u could ever accomplish this since within the universe this is impossible and meaningless.
It's unfair to pick on this uploader. Must be one of those poor ignorant creationists always trying to prove we are the center of the universe. Pray in one hand, shit in the other and see which one fills up first.
afootintheuniverse ...why do galaxies collide when the universe is expanding from every point...
It is believed that the force of repulsion expanding the universe is due to dark energy, i.e. the energy of the vacuum, which is anti-gravitational. This is the force which is pushing the galaxies apart but not at the same rate However, if galaxies are close together, their local gravity can overcome this repulsion.
@unclejay1000 I'd love to see the conversation those two would have. I'm sure it would come up at some point "wait....won't the expansion cause the Earth to leave its orbit and spiral off away from the Sun!?"
This guys videos have made my head explode. It's one thing to be stupid but it's a lot worse when you are an idiot that really thinks he knows things that no one else does. Your theories are a result of being unable to understand basic concepts in astrophysics and cosmology.
@LucidDreamz613 There is a book by Dan Hooper --a scientist at Fermi (I haven't verified)-- called Dark Cosmos: In Search of Our Universe's Missing Matter and Energy (ISBN 978-0-06-113032-8) that talks about this. I'd have to go back and read the book again to see exactly what was said, but it's discussed in chapter 9: The Weight of Emptiness. Maybe this guy read about it. I don't pretend to know these things, I just wanted suggest where the idea may have come from.
to anybody that knows anybody that knows anything about the physics and mathematics of relativity, cosmology or quantum mechanics please refrain from body slamming a new born baby onto a burning car after watching this video
truantz91 1 day ago
WTF is this?
offtheball87 2 days ago
FAIL !
djlouilove 4 days ago
Videos like this demonstrate the adverse effects of smoking weed.
mishigreene 4 days ago
E=M(C^2) or Energy = Mass (an accelertation). Thanks, very helpful. Now all i need to do is point my spaceship in the direction of maximum accelertatoin to break the time barrier. Tip: The Universe was / polar with a North and South Pole. After the inertia of the big bang was spent. North is attached to South and begins to collapse from top-to-bottom, while repulsive forces accelerate from side-to-side. Hince it ends up being somewhat flat or oval. Will reach steady state bath in light no nite
theomatica 6 days ago in playlist Liked videos
Mass is not energy moving faster than the speed of light.
Mass is mass. Energy is energy.
Mass is not energy. Energy is not mass.
The definition of energy is the ability to do work.
The definition of energy is not mass.
The definition of energy is not heat.
Heat is the result of friction/resistance.
Using friction/resistance to do work is pure quackery.
Albert Quackstein.
bridgetroll9 1 week ago
This is stupid, I wonder whether this guy EVER studied physics !!
KING20007009 1 week ago
Mass is electromagnetic amplitude change. All the equations for mass contain the element, frequency, which is the rate of electric and magnetic amplitude change.
Vern3666 1 week ago
I've never seen somebody be so wrong about so many things in one vid.
Surely this guy is just trolling to get reactions.
He can't possibly be serious with all these misinterpretations and insipid claims.
frazzzer8888 1 week ago
WAY, WAY, WAAAAAAY OFF....WAAAY OFF.
Jason1975ism 2 weeks ago
friggin
hegemoniuspiper 3 weeks ago
wierd part of youtube...
angels2online 3 weeks ago
Well, looks like it is time for a new video. According to CERN 95% chance no Higgs Boson, so no Big Bang. Physics needs an enema!!!
lnqusitor 4 weeks ago
fuck man just give us REALLLLLLLLL VIDEO!! not this factless bullshit
TheNewUtopiaOrder 4 weeks ago
Big bang never did happen. When energy acts on energy field result is matter. MATTER WAS CREATED SINCE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE THIS WAY , AND THE PROCES IS STEEL GOING ON.
SMILJANable 1 month ago
@SMILJANable
When you're completely wrong about something, putting it in ALLCAPS doesn't suddenly make it right; it just kills any potential credibility you might have had and makes you seem like a complete raging fool.
frazzzer8888 1 week ago
I forsee that someone from u commenters are the most intelligent ppl and you will solve the problem, right here on YOUTUBE. ^^
1phoe1 1 month ago
Amazing. Four distance measurements willdetermine the axis point. Clearly our Sun is the centre of the Universe. The sun is, in fact, what has been left over after the big bang, inside the Hubble BubbleGum Universe. Now chew on that for a billion years and you probably will not find a more bvious explanation of God, the Universe and everything.
listen2meokidoki 1 month ago
Maybe it's a hard concept to understand, but there is no location to pinpoint where the Big-Bang happened. Everywhere is the location where the Big-Bang occured. There is no particular location in the universe where the Big-Bang did not happen. Imagine the total universe pressed to the size of a needlepoint. Outside the needlepoint nothing exists. No space, no time, nothing! Then the needlepoint explodes and when the size is grown to say a marble, where is the Big-Bang? It's everywhere! See?
gitaarman1956 1 month ago 4
I like this idea, that matter, or mass, is in fact energy moving faster than light. The border is the speed of light and anything moving faster is 'rolled up' into matter.
But why would energy exceed the speed of light? I think that in the centre of a black hole matter returns into energy but at a different speed of light. This is in fact a big bang that occurs in many blackholes. Our universe is the inside of a super large blackhole that exists in a superlarge universe.
gitaarman1956 1 month ago
What is the physical sense of c squared in E=mc(squared) then? What is the speed of light doing in that equation, squared or not?
MrDp297 1 month ago
@MrDp297....If E=MC2, and C (speed of light is a constant, then E=M times a fixed number! So, E simply equals M....Ah! But if you cut M into 8 pieces, you end up with Pieces of Eight. Therefore, Mass is a coin. Other words, MONEY! Because a Piece of Eight was, and still can be, a gold coin cut into 8 pieces. Have you any idea how much energy there is in a gold coin?
listen2meokidoki 1 month ago
@listen2meokidoki
Well, but isnt too convenient that that constant number happens to involve the speed of light? Is it accidental or does it have some natural meaning?
MrDp297 1 month ago
@MrDp297 No. Not at all. If anyone wants to read Einstein's formula in some depth, I recommend Wiki. Search E=MC2 . But at rest, mass is a simple equation E=M times a large (constant) number. Do we need to talk about velocity, Lorentz factor, relativistic mass, length contraction, etc. And what if our Universe is travelling at the speed of light relative to another Universe. Or is our universe spinning? This is what happens when you have a brain as big as a planet.
listen2meokidoki 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrDp297 No. Not at all. If anyone wants to read Einstein's formula in some depth, I recommend Wiki. Search E=MC2 . But at rest, mass is a simple equation E=M times a large (constant) number. Do we need to talk about velocity, Lorentz factor, relativistic mass, length contraction, etc. And what if our Universe is travelling at the speed of light relative to another Universe. Or is our universe spinning? This is what happens when you have a brain as big as a planet.
listen2meokidoki 1 month ago
I don't care if this video is right or wrong, but I admire this guy that unlike many of these people commenting here and repeating what scientists said (and calling him stupid!), he or she used his brain and creativity.
Needless to say that many of the things commented here as a real fact, are still in theory for scientists!!! And most people take scientists as their god but drop what the real god says!
mnrz57 1 month ago
Well done, you got over 40,000 people to see your retarded video.
xenoepist 1 month ago
this is bullshit.
pual75 1 month ago
Its E=Mc2 not M=Ec2 ??
ooops...nevermind.
hypernovie 1 month ago
@hypernovie in such case M=E/(C^2)
xenoepist 1 month ago
STUPID. videos like this should be banned
gdm0485 1 month ago
so the expansion of space pulls light away so we cant see it? if so whats light traveling through? based on relativity? if expansion could be faster than light and relativity is a lie then we should surely expect the universe to be soooo much older than we do and it wold be expected to be getting younger. not only that we would see almost nothing as light is pulled away from all observable points.. as we have observed over the last few years but we can see deeper all the time
joppadoni 1 month ago
@joppadoni The video is wrong. All directions point to where the big bang was, because the big bang resulted in all the Universe's space as well as all of it's energy, so it happened here, there and everywhere else.
But your question is more about special relativity and the expansion of space.
Special relativity laws apply to the movement of objects through space, but not to space itself.
So the expansion of space can be much faster than the speed of light.
cont...
kandtell 1 month ago
i knew this was bad when he had grammar mistakes in the title
GRDiver94 1 month ago
Mass is energy slowed down.
GeneralGrove 1 month ago
A science community of one.
nsecchi1 1 month ago
Ha ha ha this is hilarious!
UncleKennybobs 1 month ago
Um... No! This is all unsubstantiated imagination.
timothylcrowe1 1 month ago
Einstein tried to formulate an absolute mass energy equivalence ratio. Can't be an absolutely perfect formula in all circumstances; as the most sub-atomic particulate scale in some events, there will always be variations as to the amounts of quantum energy verses mass in one as to another experiment; various mass to energy contents are in constant particle structure fluctuation. Light eventually returns to mass at rest, from which it came! Mass propelled at light speed transforms to light.
EGMAG 1 month ago
this video story theory is so shot full of holes it is RIDICULOUS!
EGMAG 1 month ago
what a load of crap..........
DeadlyQX 1 month ago
this part of youtube again...
angels2online 1 month ago
This doesn't matter, all that matters is that you vote for Ron Paul in 2012
d3ltadrive 2 months ago
I'm looking forward to your website with ALL CAPS, lots of different font sizes, and multicolored text.
acr08807 2 months ago
The only thing i know is that the Trololol guy is ver famous!
gtkodo 2 months ago
so if mass is moving faster than light does this mean humans, rocks, trees, buildings, and dogs are moving faster than light??
Arnold34251 2 months ago
stupid ?? does the speed of light change relative to lets say the force of a supernova and if so the subtraction of the speed that the "big bang" initially provided relative to our view and the original positions i.e speed of the white dwarf(before supernova explosion)
mere novice trying to understand to the universe any comment are welcomed and greatly appreciated
thanks a lightYear
newagewinning3000 2 months ago
"THEN THE SPEED OF LIGHT????" THAN. THAN.
EdEckersley 2 months ago
Could you find a worse rendition of this piece?
TheGlassDot 2 months ago
wtf? We cannot move faster than the speed of light *because* we have mass.
The idea of 'galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light' doesn't really refer to movement, it refers to the expansion of space. Nothing is moving away from us, space itself is getting bigger. The 'fabric of the universe' is being stretched at a rate bigger than what light can cover, and thus things *appear* to move faster than light.
janeyanna 2 months ago
There is nothing outside of our universe. There is no "boundary" or "edge" of the universe. Mass (matter) curves space/time. If you could travel in a straight line through space/time you would eventually end up at your starting point. That is because the matter in the universe curves space/time. The galaxies are not moving away from each other at greater than the speed of light. The "space" between the galaxies is expanding faster than the speed of light.
haroldrhamilton 2 months ago
@haroldrhamilton Everything you said is true, except the first statement. We don't know if there is anything outside of our universe. We are inside of it, and as such are confined inside. Yes, there is no boundary or edge, just like there is no boundary or edge to the surface of a planet, but there's still something beyond it. There could very well be something beyond our universe that we simply can not detect with our level of technology.
EnigmaHood 2 months ago
@EnigmaHood You have an interesting point. String theory predicts as many as 10 to the 500th possible "universes within the "landscape" or "multiverse". This is a staggeringly large number. With each universe having different laws. A multiverse of unimaginable proportions. I believe this is a plausible theory. Forgive my lack of technical jargon. If each of these universes within the landscape have their own "frequency" then the will not interact with any of the others.
haroldrhamilton 2 months ago
@EnigmaHood I read somewhere that we may be able to detect these other "universes" by studying the cosmic background radiation. If they are detected we will have our answer. That our universe is expanding within the Landscape of the Multiverse.
haroldrhamilton 2 months ago
read physics
daniturcu 2 months ago
woah, i understand :)
XxxMsBabygirlxxX 2 months ago
I would agree that Hydrogen is being created on an ongoing basis from photons of light somehow...just can't figure out how yet. I don't think we need to break any laws of nature to it though.
cwwiss1 2 months ago
Which Big Bang are you talking about? Because there are eight of them.How do I know they eight? Because I am the Big Bang and I was as Eve before the Big Bang then I was Adam after the Big Bang. Now I am Adam, Jesus, Mohammed and Ibrahim.If you do not believe that is O.K because you are not alone!!
Iberedmas 2 months ago
Well brianbrian999, you have some things right and some things not so much. 2 observations.
You seem to think c^2 is a velocity, it is not. Example Length X Length = Area In no way is Area a Length in a particular direction. Likewise c^2 is not faster than light, it is not a velocity.
Since space is what is expanding, you can't locate the point of origin since it is everywhere and space is not a sphere that is expanding into something that can be measured in terms of spacial dimensions.
subsystems 2 months ago 14
@subsystems Exactly
xenoepist 1 month ago
such a breakthrough idea coming from a person who doesn't know their then's from than's. i must say i am impress!
Teeziel 2 months ago
I get it - this is a troll account. Just kinda pisses me off that some people might take it seriously from coming in from somewhere else.
TheTaskmaster 2 months ago
tetris
BloodyandEnchained 2 months ago
My intuituition says: "Absolutely False"....My reason says" Mass is a condensed form of energy, energy should slow down to get a material form, and doing this it's slow his vibration,...Einsten formula says E=Mc2, that only means that mass is condensed energy, and we all know what happens when we accelerate mass, it burns it comes into energy, so you have to accelerate matter and not energy, or slow eenrgy to create matter... in conclusion you're speaking nonsense...
DanielGaticaAllegro 2 months ago
In the related videos on the right, at or near the top, is a video that can help explain some of what I am talking about. The title is "How Can Galaxies Travel Faster Than Light?", by tdarnell.
therealEmpyre 2 months ago
There is no center of the universe. At the time of the big bang, everything in the universe was at a single point, but that's not all. Also all of the SPACE in the universe was at that single point. The big bang happened everywhere. The universe has grown from a single point to whatever size it has now, bigger than we can see.
therealEmpyre 2 months ago
@therealEmpyre "all of the SPACE in the universe was at that single point" That doesn't make any sense... Space is not an object, its not a substance, it is literally nothing. It does not exist. There is no limit to nothing.
TheBloodyBlackJackal 2 months ago
@TheBloodyBlackJackal For a better explanation than I can offer, go to astronomycast (dot com), an excellent podcast about astronomy, and listen to episodes 77, 78, 79, and 122. In those episodes, they talk about the center, shape, size, and age of the universe. In episode 81, they answer questions about it.
therealEmpyre 2 months ago
Matter is not energy going faster than light. Quite the opposite is true. Matter is "frozen" energy.
Distant galaxies are moving away from us faster than light because the huge amount of space between us is expanding, and all that expanding space is dragging them away faster than light, even though both we and they are really standing still, or moving at a tiny speed compared to the speed of light.
therealEmpyre 2 months ago
@therealEmpyre Thre is no center of the universe. At the time of the big bang, not only was all the matter and energy of the universe at a single point, but all the space of the universe was at a single point. The big bang happened everywhere because everywhere was at that single point. Since then, the universe has grown from that single point to what we see now, and beyond what we can see, outside the Hubble Bubble.
therealEmpyre 2 months ago
Brian got e=mc squared wrt to mass wrong .
blakjedi 2 months ago
I'm not sure how right this is, because I'm in middle school and didn't comprehend half of it. But the logic and complexity sounded beautiful. What's the symphony, by the way?
Oh my god. I'm such a nerd. I am the original nerd. Every other nerd is just a grainy copy of my epic nerdiness.
DirigiblePlumCompany 2 months ago
the same way we were conceived the universe was concived/or maybe the measurement of time isnt correct just a millie second off adds up to alot over 13000000000000 years
1dogeez 3 months ago
Somethings our brains just weren't made to comprehend
Midstr8 3 months ago
@Midstr8 That answer seriously sucks. Basically, this is hard, let's just give up.
raydredX 2 months ago
There was no big bang, just...forever ago and forever from now..
freshkryp69 3 months ago
100 % true.
etomish 3 months ago 2
One of the key points of the Theory of Special Relativity is that every point in the universe is the center, or rather, there is no center, and no edges. Space itself is what is expanding. No matter which way you look inside the "Hubble Bubble" you are looking towards the center, but always seeing light that started it's journey at some time in the past. The Cosmic Microwave Background comes from all directions rather than only from the Big Bang's point of origin
scottJS2011 3 months ago
Big bang did not occur somwhere in space ane timr rather spacetime resulted from BB
Lucmegamind 3 months ago
sick
87hiran 3 months ago
What piano piece is this, it's so beautiful!
SuperibyP 3 months ago
this video reminds me of the old "don't try this at home"
chukaz1 3 months ago
there has to be a origin of the big bang, it would kind of be like if you dropped a stick of dynomite into a pool of hot lava, but in space with the 0 gravity, so think of it in slow motion, since its a small scale you wil be abel to see the cause and effect of it, but on a grand scale like the vastness of space it will go on forever, but the spot of origin will still be visibale or at least be abel to be found with ath like this guy is saying,damn i know what he means but its hard to exsplain
guitargreg72 3 months ago
madmax0076, MagnusNyborg, etc....
You all have all the answers. The earth is flat, the earth is the center of the sol system and the universe, atoms are the smallest matter and witches run wild. Open minds are the only way we learn. HUSNIDJ1991, yes, the WHO effect "we're here, we're here". The universe as we know it is probably just a single spiral universe amongst many trading matter with each other with each expansion and contraction. And our galaxy is just an atom.
CrimsnTiger 3 months ago
One question to All scientists : As we research deeper and Deeper we always find something new! Like previously it was stated that Universe is made up of matter now it was proven wrong . Gas collectively make stars , Stars make galaxy, galaxies make universe .. what if universe collectively make something else?
Suppose Earth is an atom and we live on single atom , Now how can we Know about the stars galaxies etc etc? Its all about Dimensions i believe so! .. Like an ant see world differently
HUSNIDJ1991 3 months ago
Oh and another thing time doesn't really exsist. Of course none of you will probably understand how and why what I'm saying is true and just spend about 39 seconds or so trying to understand before posting a comment about it saying that I'm an idiot which of corse based on the time you probably spent thinking about it is probably an idiotic statement
AppleOnIce 3 months ago
Let me throw a hint out their for all of you. It's a circle, the end is the beginning and the beginning is he end
AppleOnIce 3 months ago
I love listening to all these video articles about the universe. It's like listening to a fly talk about algebra
AppleOnIce 3 months ago
@ElBurroSabeMasQueYo
why does it matters. If people can understand each other without mistaking information even when there are insignificant mistakes then i don`t think that perfect language matters.
(I`m not English so please don`t start telling me what mistakes i have in those lines)
CArdsadET 3 months ago
But at least (s)he thinks and tries to figure out something by him/her self, not like most of people doesn`t think at all, in best case reads books and watches videos to learn something new.
CArdsadET 3 months ago
i can't wrap my head around energy going faster than the speed of light
and why that would mean energy would turn to mass because of that.
Maybe i got it all wrong but faster than the speed of light wouldn't that just mean
you would be going backwards in time ?
unamaxify 4 months ago
Mass can't be going faster than light, this would mean when you go inside of an object your going backwards in time, sine going faster than a beam of light would make you go backwards in time.
TheBaldchipmunk 4 months ago
Of course the big bang is still happening everywhere. But they are just looking for the central point of that. If the universe has a shape there must be a central point. (Unless the 3 dimensional space is curved in 4 dimensions to form a sort of 4 dimensional balloon)
haroputube 4 months ago
E=mc² is incorrect, you can go faster than the speed of light... this has been proven at France, the Tesla location.
DaedalusTV 4 months ago
Dont trust people who say its a complicated thing. Most of them dont understand anything. The only protect them self for unveilling their own ignorance.
MrEinKaffeebitte 4 months ago
oh..thanks for reply...just watch my futher commentar below...which shows the verifaction of the formular. The varification with minkowsky room is bullshit which works to ..but is much to complicated.
MrEinKaffeebitte 4 months ago
Comment removed
MrEinKaffeebitte 4 months ago
Comment removed
MrEinKaffeebitte 4 months ago
you are right.... this formular can be simply verified if you take E = Integral ( p(v)*dv) p(v) = v* m*gamma(v) for gamme(v) = 1/sqrt(1-v²/c²).
E= integral( v*m/sqrt/(1-v²/c²))*dv) = [ -m*c²*sqrt(1-v²/c²)] from v0 to v1.
For v0=0 and v1 = c you get E=m*c². For v0 = v and v1 = c you get E² = m²*c4+c²*v²*m² ....for small v1 < c/10 you can see that the result will equal E=v²*m/2 .by inserting values ....you see you can do it .....dont trust people how say its to complicated.
MrEinKaffeebitte 4 months ago
Comment removed
MrEinKaffeebitte 4 months ago
The video is just 100% stupid. The big bang didn't occur in any one place. It happened everywhere. There is no central point.
saintmichaelsarmoury 4 months ago
"Einstein's equation.. has determined that we are moving at the speed of light squared". God Lord. This statement belongs in the Ignorance Hall of Fame.
csmcmillion 4 months ago
@csmcmillion He is right .... exact this is the correct interpretation
mass appears from negativ acceleration from speed of light Energie depends only on speed relativ to c
MrEinKaffeebitte 4 months ago
@MrEinKaffeebitte I'm sorry - where did you do you graduate physics work?
csmcmillion 4 months ago
@csmcmillion And by the way even most graduated physicans dont grasp phyisics ...cause the often learnt the formaluras .instead making one experiments in mind about the subject. E = integral (p(v)*dv) is the most efficient interpretation of Energie. And if you abstract E=mc² you can see that even mass does not really matter on Energie. Instead of its the relation between velocitiy in you inertialsystem and speed of light.
MrEinKaffeebitte 4 months ago
it's people like brianbrian9999 that slow down the progress of science... if you're completely retarded, you should not attempt to teach other people!!! we need to learn from people who are actually qualified to teach this stuff...
PaladinswordSaurfang 4 months ago
Comment removed
PaladinswordSaurfang 4 months ago
I'm not sure which is the worst -- the fact that this video completely misunderstands accepted scientific knowledge, that there are almost as many "likes" of the video as "dislikes", or that even the top comments are subtly incorrect (1st: photons have mass but no rest mass and 2nd: E² =m² c⁴+p² c² should be E² =m₀² c⁴+p² c²)
Xcelerate2 4 months ago
This video shows that people are stupid. Really stupid.
aqouby 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i find it funny how everyone in the comments is like an expert on the subject of the video. that is in every video.
marobra00 5 months ago
Comment removed
marobra00 5 months ago
even the statement about the hubble sphere is wrong lol we are at the center because it is different for every one.
gabek30024 5 months ago
E² = m₀²c⁴ + p²c² implies E²=m²c⁴=γ²m₀²c⁴ and vice versa, where m (relativistic mass) is equal to γm₀=m₀/√(1-v²/c²). E²=m₀²c⁴/(1-v²/c²), therefore m₀²c⁴=(1-v²/c²)E²=E²-(E²/c²)v²=E²-p²c², therefore E² = m₀²c⁴ + p²c².
drrobertoboogie97 5 months ago
it is also a false statement to say we are moving at the speed of light squared. (m/s)^2 is (m^2)/(s^s), these are not units of speed, also the description of the bubble puts each point at the center with all points expanding away from it, ie, each point is at its own center of expansion
runtosh 5 months ago
No idea is good or bad. It is a mere possibility, till it's proven right, wrong, or maybe! Good luck!
hrishiraut 5 months ago
misguided video. The universe is so much bigger than what we can see or even imagine that we cannot determine the centre from where we stand or with the tools we have. Everytime we discover something or see something further, we see there is even much more to see, discover and learn.... we have some years yet... even hundreds before we can see significantly far enough to make observable conclusions about the centre of the universe..
peterdneptune 6 months ago
I'm no physicist, just an engineer, but this guy aside, if it were possible to determine the center of the universe, wouldn't there be a hole there? I mean, all matter is flying away from the center of the universe, right? Like an explosion? How could there be any residual matter at that general location? Anyone have any math pro or con for this thought? Thanks.
kenjf01 6 months ago
@kenjf01 Sorry, no. There is no "explosion". There is expansion of space-time. The universe did not "explode" into space which was already there. Space itself expanded. See the difference? But anyway, so far there is no proof for a big bang and I would rather call it big bounces :)
AlMayer1100 5 months ago
for mass to achieve lightspeed it would require that all the mass turn into energy according to the equation. only photons travel at lightspeed and they have no mass, Einstein jr
bigtarrose 6 months ago
Would the "edge" of the universe simply be the horizon where light travels fast enough to exceed itself as a source of same (light)?
frost1947 6 months ago
At list he, the person who created this video is on to something so instead of criticizing let's work with him and come up with a better answer... It seems like the universe has a center point where everything begun but hasn't stopped and never will. It will create new energy's that will turn into gases and then stars and planets.
djhaig 6 months ago
@djhaig The universe does not have a center point.
Aviatorsmith 6 months ago
@Aviatorsmith every thing has a center point, and Einsteins theory of "static space" predicts that the universe is spherical, and Steven hawking"big bang theory" predicts that the universe has expanded since it's formation. an expansion due to a "big bang" implies it is expanding from a point. rewind the clock back from its expansion to it's original point and you have the center from which it will expand.
MrAikichemphysicist 3 months ago
@MrAikichemphysicist You have to note that the expansion point is not from a certain "point". If you rewind the clock, the universe will get squeezed into that point. The WHOLE universe was in the point during the big bang and thus that point is the WHOLE universe. This does not work like a conventional expanding module.
Grasp this concept.
Aviatorsmith 3 months ago
@Aviatorsmith when they say the center of the universe they mean its central point like the origin on a Cartesian coordinate system. Every thing has a center. the very point in space where the universe was before the big bang is the central point of the universe today and it always will be because the universe keeps expanding. the point or singularity in space before the big bang is the center of the universe now and will be forever unless the universe is destroyed.
MrAikichemphysicist 3 months ago
@MrAikichemphysicist "the very point in space where the universe was before the big bang..."
Ah, but you see, the point that the universe occupied was not in space. In fact, space only exists within the universe -- there is no 'outside the universe' for the universe to expand into, the expansion occurs entirely within the universe as space itself grows. It's a fascinating idea that space isn't just the nothing between things -- space has properties.
skoockum 3 months ago
@skoockum by the center of the universe they mean where the mass of singularity was, not the borders of space-time. if you were to plot the point of the singularity mass in between the borders of space-time and mass. the circumference of the original mass would be stationary in between the walls of space-time and as the singularity expanded and annihilated eventually the point that was the circumference of the singularity that was the center of the original condensed universe is the center.
MrAikichemphysicist 3 months ago
@MrAikichemphysicist "by the center of the universe they mean where the mass of singularity was"
that's where you're wrong... Again: the singularity/universe wasn't in a place. It was, as it still is, everything/everyplace. There is no space outside the universe for the universe to occupy. On top of that, the universe has no border/limit/edge/wall/etc.
You are having serious trouble getting out from behind the semantic eight ball you've concocted.
skoockum 3 months ago 7
@skoockum the singularity is the mass surrounded by the fabric of space time, that means it is the single point of the universe. The singularity mass was in a point in space because space-time was surrounding it. the singularity of the universe could not have been infinitely dense meaning that there was a center point of the singularity. now you simply cannot say that there is or was nothing outside of the universe because there would be no multiverse.
MrAikichemphysicist 3 months ago
@skoockum what you're saying is that the universe's singularity cannot be the center point. you're saying that the universe is the universes center point and that there is no point in space that can be it's center. but if space time is spherical or even if the universe has 12 dimensions like string theory predicts it still has a center. there is a point in time and space that is the center of the universe if not then the universe would have no center and would not be just one universe.
MrAikichemphysicist 3 months ago
@MrAikichemphysicist "what you're saying is that the universe's singularity cannot be the center point."
Not even close.
"you're saying that the universe is the universes center point and that there is no point in space that can be it's center."
Swing and a miss!
"there is a point in time and space that is the center of the universe if not then the universe would have no center and would not be just one universe."
You haven't even opened the front door, and yet you're already lost.
skoockum 3 months ago
@skoockum you obviously don't know anything about physics or even elementary geometry. you said at first that the universe has no center but you are wrong because everything has a center, it has to have a center or it is not one, you then claim that the universe is its own center but you were wrong again because everything has a middle. apparently there is no way to explain to you that everything has a center so maybe you should re learn geometry or shape. everything has a center.
michaelschatz6 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@michaelschatz6 "you then claim that the universe is its own center"
Nope. I never said that.
"everything has a center."
Not true. The surface of, say, a sphere has no center. Of course a sphere has a center, but its surface doesn't, as you would have recognized on your own if you had even just the most basic understanding of geometry.
skoockum 3 months ago
@skoockum nothing can be its own center, and there is a multiverse. wrap your mind around this concept and it will be your first step to understanding the universe.
MrAikichemphysicist 3 months ago
@skoockum who are you to make those claims? What are you, a cosmologist? You dont know. So why dont we go with the most accepted theory. The big bang happend. If the universe is everywhere it has no where to go right? Then why was the nobel prize awarded to scientist who proved that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate? If the universe is already everywhere how can it expand? I guess you'll just have to ask the famous winners Saul Perlmutter, Brian P. Schmidt, and Adam G. Riess. GL
stickyal92 3 months ago
@stickyal92 You said: "If the universe is everywhere it has no where to go right?"
and also "If the universe is already everywhere how can it expand?" (by which I gather you mean to imply that the universe CAN'T expand if it's already everywhere)
who are you to make those claims? What are you, a cosmologist? You dont know.
skoockum 3 months ago 3
Nicely done, Brian. Kudos.
ijociou 3 months ago
@skoockum im pretty sure that when he said every where, he meant 4 dimensional
dayne0987654321 1 month ago
@dayne0987654321 It really doesn't matter what he meant. He has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.
skoockum 1 month ago
@skoockum the universe has a border it is called space-time. space time surrounds and conforms to mass. mass cannot rip through space time or even pass through it. also there is something outside of the universe it is the multiverse. there is has to be space to separate universes in the multiverse or else all universes would be one and there would be no multiverse. the singularity was in a place for there to be a multiverse, you cannot claim that there is no multiverse.
michaelschatz6 3 months ago
@michaelschatz6 "the universe has a border it is called space-time."
Space-time is not a border.
"you cannot claim that there is no multiverse. "
Anyone can claim anything they want to (but that doesn't mean they're right). If you read carefully, you'll see quite clearly that I have not made a single statement regarding a multiverse. The discussion of multiverses is entirely off topic, and can only serve to confuse some of the less scientifically literate.
skoockum 3 months ago
@skoockum THERE IS NO SPACE OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSE ? Matter in the Universe has an influence, space time gravity etc. lets asume this universe is a sphere that contains all the matter, this matter would also have an infuence outside this sphere, in theory spreading out to infinity
MrSIZEMIK 2 months ago
@MrSIZEMIK "lets asume this universe ... contains all the matter, this matter would also have an infuence outside this sphere"
How could you possibly know what happens outside the universe? Cosmologists can directly detect only about 5% of what IS in the universe (all of the normal matter and energy).
Given that cosmologists don't know anything about 95% of the universe, let alone know anything outside it, what makes you think that you've got it figured out?
skoockum 2 months ago
@skoockum and also the point in space-time where the singularity mass was, is the point from which the universe expanded so seeing how the universe expanded from the point of mass while still inside space-time you should see how a center exists. also there is a space outside of the universe because if not there would be no multiverse. it is believed that there is only space outside of the universe not the fabric of space-time. so time does not exist on the outside of universes.
MrAikichemphysicist 3 months ago
@skoockum "Space is the boundless, three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction. Physical space is often conceived in three linear dimensions, although modern physicists usually consider it, with time, to be part of a boundless four-dimensional continuum known as spacetime."
Explain how space has properties, because I don't see it in the definition.
Mick0722MX 2 months ago
@Mick0722MX For starters, space can expand (it's doing it right now). This wouldn't be the case if space existed outside the universe for matter and energy to move out into. But since there is no space outside the universe, it stands that space itself increases in size.
For questions like your's I find that googling "properties of space" usually brings up some enlightening information... much better than looking for answers in definitions
skoockum 2 months ago
@skoockum Space does not expand, the universe does.
How do you know what exists outside the perimeter of the universe? If the universe is expanding, it must be expanding into 'something'.
"much better than looking for answers in definitions" LOL is that so?
Mick0722MX 2 months ago
@Mick0722MX "Space does not expand, the universe does."
What makes you think that space isn't the part of the universe that expands? What other component of the universe do you think might be expanding? Energy? Matter? ...Of course space expands. *snicker*
"How do you know what exists outside the perimeter of the universe?"
I know nothing in that regards. I'm just repeating what cosmologists and theoretical physicists have been saying for the last 100 or so years.
skoockum 2 months ago
@Mick0722MX " "much better than looking for answers in definitions" LOL is that so? "
Well, yes as a matter of fact ...why else would I say so? Think I'm wrong? Then look up the definition(s) of multiple variable integral calculus of parametric vector valued functions in polar coordinates. No need to be able to perform these, you just need to know the definition. Does it still seem like knowing the definition equals understanding all of the interactions involved?
skoockum 2 months ago
@skoockum I've read all of the things you've mentioned. You are confusing the concepts.
Mick0722MX 2 months ago
@Mick0722MX You're going to have to be more specific if you want to sound as if you have a point,
skoockum 2 months ago
@skoockum No, I don't have to be more specific because I know what I'm talking about and you don't. Furthermore, I don't care what you know and what you don't know.
Mick0722MX 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mick0722MX "No, I don't have to be more specific"
Actually, you do.
"I know what I'm talking about and you don't."
The facts don't seem to be in your favor on this one.
"I don't care what you know and what you don't know."
I knew that from the start, but now that you've come to realize it, hopefully you'll see how irrelevant your participation really is, and just shut the fuck up.
For once.
skoockum 2 months ago
@MrAikichemphysicist "every thing has a center point"
There's a way that this isn't true. Say the universe is in the same form as a balloon. It starts as a point, then as it expands, it becomes a spherical surface (this is a 2-D analogy for our 3-D universe). Not only is there not a central point on this surface, but you could potentially see the back of your own head no matter which direction you looked.
skoockum 3 months ago
@djhaig 'it will create new energy's.' I think you're forgetting one of the most important principle's in physics, energy is conserved.
Meursault1942 5 months ago
At list he, the person who created this video is on to something so instead of criticizing let's work with him and come up with a better answer...
djhaig 6 months ago
Hawking stated that nothing other than light can travel the speed of light. The faster an object moves the greater the energy required to move it, and the greater the speed of an object the more mass the object retains. Thus requiring an infinite amount of energy to travel the speed of light. Comparing the speed of a light wave or particle to the speed of a traveling galaxy seems a little.. bullshit. Also, how would you be able to observe something traveling away from you at the speed of light?
Ak47AC130 6 months ago
I know this video is wrong but I am still young and open minded. I found it interesting saying that mass moves faster than light and using the expanding universe to verify this.
Some video's explain the expanding universe better than others and as far as theories go, in certain respects I liked this one. It partly makes sense because we do know that we are moving away from galaxies fastest than the speed of light or the universe is expanding faster than the light travels.
Lemenks 6 months ago
What a shitty movie, using science incorrectly. Get lost with this dumbshit, so people don't get to the same stupid level of knowedge you are on.
aVoNgfx 6 months ago
ever think light might decay over time explaining all of this without having to exceed the speed of light..
itchaseembacktools 6 months ago
AAAAAAARgggh! You are trying to orient a center of the universe as the point of the big bang in relation to a point outside the universe. The only way u could ever accomplish this since within the universe this is impossible and meaningless.
NotaChewToy 6 months ago
It's unfair to pick on this uploader. Must be one of those poor ignorant creationists always trying to prove we are the center of the universe. Pray in one hand, shit in the other and see which one fills up first.
Falcomech 6 months ago
afootintheuniverse ...why do galaxies collide when the universe is expanding from every point...
It is believed that the force of repulsion expanding the universe is due to dark energy, i.e. the energy of the vacuum, which is anti-gravitational. This is the force which is pushing the galaxies apart but not at the same rate However, if galaxies are close together, their local gravity can overcome this repulsion.
unclejay1000 7 months ago
@unclejay1000 I'd love to see the conversation those two would have. I'm sure it would come up at some point "wait....won't the expansion cause the Earth to leave its orbit and spiral off away from the Sun!?"
LucidDreamz613 6 months ago
This guys videos have made my head explode. It's one thing to be stupid but it's a lot worse when you are an idiot that really thinks he knows things that no one else does. Your theories are a result of being unable to understand basic concepts in astrophysics and cosmology.
LucidDreamz613 7 months ago 6
@LucidDreamz613 There is a book by Dan Hooper --a scientist at Fermi (I haven't verified)-- called Dark Cosmos: In Search of Our Universe's Missing Matter and Energy (ISBN 978-0-06-113032-8) that talks about this. I'd have to go back and read the book again to see exactly what was said, but it's discussed in chapter 9: The Weight of Emptiness. Maybe this guy read about it. I don't pretend to know these things, I just wanted suggest where the idea may have come from.
roadkillrabbit69 6 months ago