my logic tells me for everything to be condensed into an unimaginably small singularity...it had to have been compacted...if it was compacted...it had to have expanded before...which means the universe is infinite....the big question is if the expansion is actually speeding up.....is the universe still in its infancy in respect to a cycle of Big Crunch/Big Bang...since it would have to be showing signs of slowing or at least expanding at a constant rate...is my logic flawed
I like posting this question on videos like these. What is your view on Diesm? I think of that as a creator(s) of the universe, but said god(s) don't intervene with it. Such a 'god' could have created the first life forms, but don't change thier form. I ask this as an athiest just wondering about people's views.
I do like your calm ,matter of fact way of presenting what is simply the truth. But it is to coin a phrase "preaching to the converted". I cant help but feel the "questions" put to you by creationists are put over in a very "unchristian" way indeed. In fact most creationists are very aggressive as opposed to the calm logical opposition to their imaginings. They simply DON'T want an answer to their questions. Their minds are closed. But I'm loving your answers keep up the good work .
I love living in a secular community in Australia. We were talking about astronomy in school one day when the teacher asked if there were any creationists in the class. When no one said anything he snickered and said 'good'
The scriptures tell of the faithful being harassed and bullied in the future, but it's not a prediction.
If religion was around for the next million years (which it wont because religion is fleeting, after all the universe has been around for 14 billion and christianity and the bible only...2000 years) And if all you held onto was this bible, then it woul fortell of these times every couple of hundred years. dont hold that book to close mate, its full of lies.
I don't argue with creationists for the same reason I wouldn't argue with someone who thought the moon was made of cheese. I focus on teaching my 9y/o son science, math and physics at a basic level. He's 9 and he says "dad, what's wrong with those people"? My fight is raising my son to be a man... one who will use logic, reason, knowledge and common sense.
@Bot23 How to tell the world in three different waysthat you are deluded?Defend creationism, wear that shirt and look at the room he's in - it must be his mum's!! Unfortunately the secondandthirdreason are probably notapparent to AronRa, him coming from Texas and'all! Wish I couldexplain it to him. 8D
Blundering idiot! A vacuum isn't empty, there's energy. The vacuum energy in a cubic meter of free space has been estimated to be 10-9th power Joules.
Besides "before" space/time there wouldn't have been a vacuum, there would have been NOTHING! And a god can't "exist" in NOTHING, let alone put something in NOTHING.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
AronRa did you ever answer this:
"The 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer"
I can't find the video if you did.
Side note: Hovind's claims are either true or their not. If he ate baby kittens for breakfast, it changes this not. Ad hominem attacks are inherently weak and just show the soft underneath of your scales. I'm sure you've got plenty of your own skeletons in the closet.
@truthseeker1973 riiiiiiight... because if there's anyone who should be given the benefit of the doubt, it's a convicted criminal fraud. Some might say that committing fraud puts one's honesty or integrity into doubt - but that's obviously just crazy-talk.
Your choice of words do well to demonize. I'd hardly call it fraud. The group of Atheist lawyers who took on the tax laws and won (probably because they were tax lawyers) I'm sure you'd cheer on. Hovind is a but stubborn, and probably bit off more than he could chew. There is nothing criminal about the man. I'd wager he's got less of a criminal past than you do.
@truthseeker1973 oh, and it's pretty funny to see a creationist defending Hovind on the those grounds, when creationists constantly use much worse arguments in attempts to discredit Darwin (and "evolutionists" in general).
@truthseeker1973 Are you honestly insulting someone for their lack of religious beliefs? What is this, the scripture times? Or should I call them the fantastic times? I remember one guy who got persecuted for his religious beliefs. He looked a bit like Aron, to be honest. That didn't turn out too well now did it? Of course, I shouldn't quote things that have no historical basis, now should I? Wouldn't want to get trounced for bringing up somebody like Gandalf in a random conversation.
BTW, I wasn't implying committing fraud doesn't put a man's integrity into doubt. What I said was simple and straight forward. Hovind's claims were either true or they weren't. The only thing his conviction has the power to do is change people's minds, not the truth.
@truthseeker1973 oh don't worry, Hovind's claims can be dismissed solely on their lack of merit, irrespective of his crimes. They're just icing on the cake.
@truthseeker1973 All of Hovind's arguments have been proven wrong, and he has proven to be a deliberate liar on many occasions specifically with his pseudoscientific claims. I am not aware of the 15 questions you're talking about, but I guess the keyword would be 'satisfactorily'. I suspect that verifiably correct answers can still be rejected if they fail to satisfy the mind determined to reject them anyway?
Please note QQOQQ's physical behavior. He engages in a lot of "stimming." Stimming is one behavioral cue that tends to indicate a low-normal function, both intellectual and emotional. QQOQQ will not be able to understand what we are saying either because he is psycho--emotionally (or intellectually) unable or simply does not want to understand.
I like Pascal's interpretation, the chapter "figures" from his pensees on reading the bible as pure action, as a Greek tradegy, the bible representing the chorus or... conscience of the state of nature which believes ardently: "all is permitted." If anyone asserted anything through the Socratic method, we're just as likely to be dead, it pressuposes no innate compassion, if anything a necessary sickly metaphysics to judge our nature by freezing it; pessimism dressed up decorative wrappings.
Aaron, there are hundreds of interpretations of the bible and likewise that of unity. I'm no henchman of religious propoganda and naivete, I know you hold to enlightenment values, that's cool..... Remember, while you do, even Socrates prayed to his Daemon.
My first thought about his hypothetical box is he hasn't eliminate quantum fluctuations, which would be quite capable of create everything that would later be observed.
i cant believe the idiot hasnt asked himself the question "did a god just appear out of nothing in the box that he left for 20 billion years" and then just started creating things !! its the same scenario , a super intelligent god can not just come out of nothing either !!
Creationists aren't looking for an educational answer that invites them to explore the other side or that challenges them to think critically. They are looking for an answer that says "Wow, you stumped me... guess I gotta chuck everything I thought I knew and become a creationist like you" Any other answer is filtered by their selective minds and sent straight to the recycle bin. You might as well talk to a wall.
@Vexille1983 Yes, actually, creationists DO expect ALL the evidence for evolution to be immediately present and laid out before them like a pop-uo book on demand! They are so simplistic and retarded in their thinking that they cannot understand that the evidence for evolution cannot be folded up in a tiny little brief case and whipped out like a magic trick on demand. That is because THEIR evidence does come in a single, portable, easy to carry book form.
@zillatamer I think it might have been his interview with the amazingly dense Wendy Wright. The conversation basically looped through that a few times. Incidentally Dawkins has some tremendous patience. It's painful even just to watch. It's here on youtube though.
@SpriterShard ahh, that ive seem. I honestly didnt think he was paraphrasing. It was redicioulus how she kept cliaming to be educated in anything scientific.
AronRa you Fuckin Rock man!! I'm naming my next child after you. You sir, along with Sagan, Dawkins, Hitchens, Feynman, Harris, Hawking, DeGrasse Tyson, AdromedasWake, Melodysheep, philhellenes, thunderf00t, Minchin, ZOMGitsCriss etc. are the pioneers of a new era .. One in which reason and logic replace superstition and tradition. AronRa for pres 2012!
WOW. I saw the first video and concluded that this guy asking questions is a moron and after watching the second video well i still have the same conclusion and I am concerned and sadly I have to ask. Did he went to school? This is basic knowledge. He is using a computer so he cant be that stupid after all still he is making a fool of himself publicly. Dude with the glases (your name is irrelevant) make some research before doing something like this and then if you have any question ask. Shame
@Atrofia2 : He's not a moron, and he went to school, and he will not do research beacuse he is still struggling with simple concepts. But he IS a person, and he WANTS to understand, tho he will never get there. Like the Terminator, he cannot be argued with, he cannot be reasoned with, but unlike the Terminator, he is a man. Let's be careful not to mock him, but to understand him, and figure out how we are going to live with him and the milliions like him, with everyone benefitting. Respect!
@bobinhk1 you respect what deserves to be respect. People are trying to help him yet he is doing nothing to helping himself. He clearly said in one of his videos he is ignoring and nor reading any comments and apparently not even watching the videos reply Aron is sending him. A person that have like 5o years and think that penis is a bad word and a horrible word dont deserve any respect. We dont have to figure out how to live with it because we dont need to. Respect have to be earned.
@Atrofia2 Well, I respectfully disagree. Look at him! He's trapped between truth and lies... He can't comprehend the truth, and he can't figure out why the lies are lies. I can understand quantum mechanics ONLY by following the math - but I can't follow it intuitively, and I certainly can't begin to comprehend the expansion of time and space out of a singularity. But I'll accept it as a reasonable model for just now. This guy won't - it's out his league, but kudos to him for taking to the stage.
@bobinhk1 The point is that he is not trying to. If you look at the 3 videos he said that he dont read comments and clearly he is not watching the video response that Aron is wasting his time making just for him since he keep asking the same questions on diferent videos. I he was trying to understand he would get some respect but he is not trying. He is been a joke. You have to earn respect and he is failing at it
@bobinhk1 I cant understand all eather but the things that i dont understand I research them that way i can improve. Thats the respectable thing to do. I am almost sure that you do then same thing but this guy have done nothing to improve, he keep thinking he is righ and everyone here have told him he is not. He keep making the same stupid questions and thats what make him a joke. Is ok to make mistakes but is not acceptable repeating them on purpose.
@Atrofia2 Yes you are quite right. But I just can't help feeling that:
a. there's no law against stupid, there's millions of us.
b. Maybe he's not so stupid if he wants to fight it out with AronRa.
I keep feeling that a light will switch on in his head someday. Of course I may be naive and wrong, but he just doesn't seem as insincere (sorry, plain downright weird, I can't help saying it) as Mr Hovkind and his delightful successors :( These are the guys that really bother me, not htis chap.
Evolutionism icomes ancient pagan religious fables (Hindooism,pagan Greek and Jewish Kabbalism) disguised as science thats it So Aron you defend an ancient fairy tale thats it
@SonofJaphet If science was just a rehash of ancient pagan religious fables how do you explain any cities at all, let alone that they have clean water, ample food, modern medicine, instant worldwide communication, worldwide travel, computing, environmental understanding, extended life expectancy from 20 to 70. Eradicated small pox that had killed half a billion people in the 20th century alone, the Haber process feeds 3rd of the people on the planet. Oh, of course, by fable and lots of prayers.
I love how AronRa gets to shop at a "cosmic grocery store" to select everything he needs to cook up his recipe for the big bang - convenient! Matter and energy are over in isle 6. Time and space are up by the checkout. Now, mix those together using *complete mindlessness* and the finished buffet includes: Physical laws, information, code, life, complexity, design, metamorphosis, engineered organic systems, intelligence, morality, consciousness and more... God is obvious, and AronRa knows it.
All you have is a strawman and an argument from ignorance. Of course even if the universe was created it is no evidence for your god or any god at all. Perhaps Zeus was the creator. Perhaps many gods made the universe. Perhaps it wasn't a god but a scientist who made our universe and tried a thousand times before getting it right. When you can prove that 1)AronRa is lying 2) there is design and 3) it was your god then we can talk. Until then stfu
@copycatmillionaire Wow! it is convenient that we can observe stuff and then come up with conclusions. And then other people can observe the same things and try and disprove or build on those hypotheses and that a body of knowledge based on the life's work or tens of thousands of experts can be built up.
And then some numpty can come along and say pshaw! God is obvious. Who needs evidence anyway?
@jossalv1 This answers nothing. Why assume instead that god sat around for eternity doing nothing before suddenly deciding to create a universe. What was he doing before then? After how many trillion years did the boredom set in? Were there trial runs? Are we a trial run? When did god begin? If he's allowed to be eternal, then why not the singularity? Why assume the singularity was eternal? Maybe gods did create it - it still proves nothing about any human religion.
@jossalv1 All you're saying is that you don't know how a singularity could come to exist without a cause, but instead of stopping at "I don't know", you postulate a god, who would need to be incredibly complex to come up with the concept of a universe, the set of starting conditions that would somehow end up with an Earth and us living on it (assuming that wasn't accidental), and you then seem to think this super-complex starting point is somehow a better explanation of events. Sorry, it's daft.
I find it ridiculous how Creationists tell biologists that evolution is wrong because they disagree with the big bang. I never see them questioning physicists about how the big bang doesn't account for god magicking every organism into existence. If they want Creationism taught in schools, it sounds like they should try to have it taught in physics classrooms, not biology classrooms, because they invariably question cosmology, not biology.
I think QQOOQQ's question is where does that compressed dot of existance came from. Though I suppose it's logical to say it's simply the essence of the behavior of nature. In other words, there was never a "nothingness", or at least, not as we define it.
The fate of the universe is that all matter will eventually cool and swallowed by black holes. Even black holes will eventually fade once they have converted all the atomic matter back to dark energy. At this point, an inverse black hole will form leading to another big bang. There has been multiple big bangs and also the possibility of multiple universes but not in multiple dimensions. There are only four dimensions. X Y X and (dx,dy,dx), time is NOT the fourth dimension, only appears to be.
Actually time can be considered an "extra dimension" meaning you have 4 total, but time is not the fourth. It's also just plus one, to the total you are speaking about. Also the leading theories consider 11 dimensions, 10 of space and 1 of time.
@JamesCizuz I don't believe time is a dimension at all. Also I don't believe in 10, 11, 21 dimensions, I think mathematical theories are far to complex for reality. Complexity is always made from simple building blocks, which are easy to understand. I think the mathematical theory of everything will turn out to be very simple and easy to understand. I believe in only four dimension, X, Y, Z and the fourth is also a spacial dimension, a little hard to explain but easy to visualize.
It actually is not easy to visualize, in fact all science tests to this fact as no matter how hard scientist tried, the universe can not be explained with just the 3 and 1 extra time dimension. We don't just keep the theories we like, as science changes we change. You are not a physicist so making theory is not your job. Your job is to learn and understand the most relevant models we have available. So saying what you are saying is kind of the same as faith.
@JamesCizuz My advantage is not being a physicist but I have studied some physic at University, but I didn't finish. The reason the mathematics is so difficult which is pointing to more dimensions is because of time being included. Get ride of it, you don't need it as a dimension. You will find if you do this, your formulas will start to simplify leading you to the right answers. TIME IS NOT A DIMENSION!!!
@JamesCizuz I am not keeping the theory I like, I am keeping the correct theory. My theory has improved over time, and it explains all the forces in nature. I predicted dark energy over twenty years ago. I also have a few more prediction. For example, an electron and a photon are basically the same thing, the only difference is that the electron is captured by the atom and the photon is free to move in space, yes though an eather, and yes, the eather does exist.
@JamesCizuz Another thing, there is no difference between dark energy and dark matter, science has this wrong, they are the same. They hold the galaxy together and also are the cause of the accelerating expanding universe. Also, dark energy is much more interesting than scientist believe. Dark energy are particle but they don't fly around space and you can't detect them with any silly experiment, scientist are not going to find a HIGGS particle.
Where are you getting these assertions from? By definition dark energy and dark matter are different, as one refers to a condensed state of physical matter, and another refers to a state of energy. If you want to say dark energy and dark matter are two flavors of the same force then sure that's correct. However any form of matter that exists, has to have a form of energy. Dark matter demands dark energy, or else it does not explain the universe.
See you can not make unfounded assertions without being called upon it. Also people with even a basic understanding of models today can show why what you are saying is flawed. I don't care what you believe, but stop asserting that is what science says, it is not and I have demonstrated that, so since you are making an extraordinary claim that you are right and physicists are wrong you need to demonstrate that before anyone can or should accept it.
@JamesCizuz I totally agree, I know no one will except my ideas until they are mathematically proven, but that won't stop me from seeking the truth. I simply believe science has a few things wrong, not everything wrong. Science has been wrong in the past, even when all the mathematics looks correct. I simply believe you don't need more than four dimensions to explain the Universe. If you eliminate time as a dimension and replace it with what I said before, the mathematics will simplify.
@JamesCizuz Time being a dimension makes all the mathematics difficult. Also a negative value for time is also a problem. The fourth dimension is very easy to visualize once you except to possibility of an aether. The fourth dimension is a spacial dimension and is simply the size of the building that make up the aether and all matter are varying and dependent on mass. This also implies that the universe has a limit, similar to 1/x.
@JamesCizuz Also another thing, the Universe has an accelerated expansion, this is correct, but the Universe is also shrinking in the four dimension but we are unable to detect this. So the fate of the Universe will see all the atomic matter cool and get eaten by black holes. The black holes will convert this matter back to dark energy ( ie the aether) and eventually evaporate away until you are left with a single inverse black hole which will lead to another big bang.
@JamesCizuz I am not a big fan of multiple dimension explanations of the Universe. I guess we will find out soon enough when somebody cracks the mathematics, I look forward to that day. I am not the only one who questions time being a dimensions, I have found some interesting stuff on the internet about other peoples theories. Also there are many scientist that believe in an aether, this is not a new concept as you would know. Are you a scientist?
@nikolayzou I am not questioning it, whether you like it or not it's considered a dimension, sorry it doesn't fit under your definition. Not only that but mathematics didn't crack the theory of everything, but there is a very established theory that makes real world predicts called m-theory, and no theory with 4 dimensions or 3 dimensions works at the moment. We go where evidence leads us, no way 4 dimensional space works, 11 dimensional space works perfect.
@JamesCizuz I have read a little about membrane theory and I don't rule out the idea of multiple Universes. My theory also supports the idea of multiple Universes because of the limiting effect of the Universe we are in. Our Universe might be one of many bubbles that might exist, dare I say it, on a membrane. My theory doesn't support the idea of Universes super imposed on each other in other dimensions. My theory only needs four dimensions. Please tell me why we need more than 4 dimensions?
I told you before but again, I say it again. Scientists were working under that assumption for hundreds of years and got to a point where unless they invoked more dimensions or alternate universe the universe and the theory of everything would be forever incorrect. All theories share one thing in common, 4 dimensions just doesn't work. That's it, no theory works with 4 dimensions.
See scientists don't just say there is 11 dimensions, for the big bang to be explained and to calm relativity with quantum mechanics more then 4 dimensions need to be invoked. 4 dimensions is not enough to explain our universe and no model can be represented where it does unless our universe had different condition where it doesn't. Science goes where the evidence leads, thats 11 dimensions.
Which actually brings me to the question, which theory do you have that only invokes 4 dimensions. I know of no theory that works today that does. Hell you might even believe a theory that actually has more then four dimensions most likely but you might not understand why it does and think it still works with 4.
@JamesCizuz Is it correct to say that scientist need more than 4 dimensions to explain all the forces in nature, such as the weak and strong atomic force, the electric field and the magnetic field, electromagnetic fields, gravity, relativity etc.??? Only a theory with multiple dimension can like all these together ??? Am I correct in saying this?
The problem comes with gravity. Relativity works with 4 dimensions, but relativity explains beautifully the very large and how gravity effects the fabric of space itself. Further study revealed gravity effects time itself, quantum mechanics explains the very small very well and the standard model explains 3 of the 4 forces. But it all falls apart at gravity, and gravity for it to make any sense invokes more dimensions which melds the two theories together.
See relativity and quantum mechanics contradict each other and that just can't be so. The reason they contradicted each other is because we were still thinking of the universe as four dimensions and to fully explain the universe the theories must no contradict. The only way to do that was to invoke higher dimensions which over time with string theory and now m-theory explain the universe almost perfectly but with flaws that are still being tweaked.
Now you may say well what if the reason relativity and quantum mechanics didn't seem to work with four dimensions was because one of them may have been wrong, now the issue with this is all the evidence we have supported both theories completely and utterly confirms both. But you can't use quantum mechanics to explain the large, and relativity to explain the small. You need to have 1 theory or else the universe can't be possible. Scientists tried for years to resolve this.
The sad thing is scientists did NOT what to look to higher dimensions or any more then the 4 we can actually observe and test. They always tried to make 4 dimensions work, even with the starting of string theory. The problem is anomalies kept creeping up and the only way to fix the anomalies was to add dimensions. Scientists revised, revised, and revised for decades trying to make four dimensions work and even ridiculed people working on multiple dimension theories.
However by the 70s and 80s less and less were trying to make four dimensions work, they just couldn't without invoking more dimensions. The more data about new particles found in atom smashers just kept destroying any working theories they had unless they again added more dimensions. It's a sad fact but for all intensive purposes it's now illogical to believe we only live in four dimensions, we ourselves only experience 4 dimensions however.
We only live in four dimensions though ourselves since all string theory says is their are tiny curled up dimensions at the Planck level that these string operate in. Then when m-theory was crafted it took it a step further to calm to issues with string theory to say that the entire universe is on a 2 dimension mem-brane in a higher dimensional space where other membranes would hold universes like ours all with different physical laws.
Now since m-theory can perfectly with the fewest anomalies to date the function of how universe can be created, how membranes form, how energy can transfer, and the function of the big bang and an actual answer. There are still some things we have to iron out, like detect the higgs boson and the graviton to better refine and maybe confirm the theory.
@JamesCizuz I have read all your comments and understand why science is invoking more dimensions to explain all the forces, but I still think science is chasing it's tale. By removing time as a dimension and replacing it with an aether, all you need to do is understand the aether. Early understanding of the aether was completely wrong and the time dimension replaced it, but this is why all the maths is too difficult.
@JamesCizuz If we go back to Einstein and ride that beam of light, if the speed of light is constant, then the only logical conclusion is that time must slow down and even stop when you hit the speed of light. This idea has some major flaws and problems even though I am not disputing, time does slow down, but time is not a dimension. I have a mind problem for you to think about.
@JamesCizuz Imagine the only atomic mass in the Universe where two space crafts and nothing. Both crafts where identical having the same mass. If craft A stood still and craft B traveled at almost the speed of light the question is. Would time slow down for one of them, if so, which one?
One final thing, don't think I am saying it's not verified, to an extent it is, it fits with math and calms and joins the major theories that explain the every large and the very small and provide not only the mechanism but why the big bang happened. It explains gravity and why particles have mass. It is the closest to the theory of everything we have, but still I will not say it is 100% confirmed because it's not. It is just the closest we have to a model of everything.
But you still didn't demonstrate why I should read/watch that. Is it peer reviewed? i'm not a physist so me thinking something make sense holds no bearing on whether it's true. Who has peer reviewed the theory they are proposing who is qualified to demonstrate if there data is correct or wrong. Until then you don't really have anything but some guys opinion or misconception. I was saying science says on a subject, as in what has been demonstrated and peer reviewed.
You just don't get to go "I don't like what science actually finds about the universe, so i'll pretend this guy with a theory I like more". The difference is one has evidence, one doesn't. Time is a dimension in a sense, as in it's a force of the universe also known as entropy, or the function of change. It is still a dimension however, just as some dimensions in m-theory you probably wouldn't even consider dimensions. The fact is, four dimensions was ruled out already.
@JamesCizuz Do you have an answer for this question???
If the universe consisted of only two space crafts, both where identical having the same mass. If craft A stood still and craft B traveled at almost the speed of light the question is.
Would time slow down for one of them, if so, which one?
Just to continue though, you are believing the universe is that way, because you like it. The reason we require more dimensions is simple, the universe demands it. The universe demands it to explain phenomena never explained before, especially to such accuracy. The theory is not complete, and many different versions exist, but there is one thing they can all agree on, 3d + 1 time is not enough.
@nikolayzou Though believing what you wish is up to you, in fact even when I am speaking of these theories I don't take them as absolutes, since there is some still fine tuning to come along. However with more understanding of the universe we have, new particles discovered and properties discovered just leads to more chance of more then 3d + 1time and in fact all theories keep falling towards 10d and 1 time. We go where the data leads us. Science is great because of it.
@JamesCizuz I have been working on a theory of everything for over twenty years and believe I have a pretty good understand of the Universe. I think time has mistakenly been taken as the fourth dimension. If light travels at a constant speed, which is correct, the only conclusion is that time must vary. This conclusion is incorrect, yes time does appear to vary, but this is only a consequence of the fourth dimension. To be continued
@JamesCizuz If you look at the formula Velocity = Distance / Time. If velocity is the speed of light and constant, then the conclusion is that time must vary. But this is only true if the building blocks that make up all know particle take up a constant amount of space. What if the building blocks took up varying amounts of space depended on mass. IE, the larger the mass, the larger the fundamental particles become. This also implies an aether.
There is no such things as nothing. Atomic matter is only the matter we can see and detect and only contributes to only 5% of all the matter in the universe. To have time and space, you need the reference of atomic matter this is why they suggests time and space was created at the big bang. But before the big bang there was dark energy or what I like to call the aether in which all atomic matter comes from.
After attending a talk the other day by a string theorist at my university, and after chatting with a post doc in theoretical physicist and a lecturer in statistical theoretical physics who play on my pool team, it is ENTIRELY possible to generate universes (and particles) from nothing. Obviously this somewhat depends on the definition of 'nothing', but to say that no cosmologists/theorists state that the universe came from nothing is wrong.
Aron - This vid made me chuckle a bit - I noticed how your "look" and background seems to be "dark" where you advisory is dressed and lit very "light". Was this on purpose? It almost gives the good vs evil comparison. Hmmm perhaps the bright light of "truth" needs to be so bright that it blinds? *giggles*.
It must be hard to maintain any long-suffering compassion for such weak minds but AronRa does this so well especially for a heathen. LOL I was once deeply involved with a church and truly wanted to believe in the simple path of ignorance masquerading as absolute truth. Please let go of you superstitions and feel the real freedom that comes from intellectual honesty. Keep on trucking AronRa.
Several years back I was a "weak" creationist and I apologize for every piece of ignorance I ever spouted, admit I was wrong about nearly everything and was in need of an education, that I in fact, was not smarter than the entire scientific community and that I had failed to consider, let alone try to grasp, what is indicated exclusively by the evidence. I poked all kinds of holes in evolution which weren't actually there and the only holes that existed were in my own knowledge.SORRY
There's a lot of mixing together of the ideas of the "Big Bang" and evolution that causes confusion. But in some ways it is legitimate. Natural selection is an extremely power mechanism in nature. Physics and chemists noticed that from biologists and realized natural selection could explain the building up of the chemical elements in the sun. Bronowski uses the word evolution back in 1973 when discussing the stratified nature of complexity. The evolution of the universe from a big bang.
Over a year since this video was first made and this fucking idiot still makes me feel great shame to be English! Please don't judge us all by the inane ramblings of this lobotomised taxi driver!
I wonder if the universe only exists because we can observe it like with the Schrodinger's cat theory and we are actually still in the singularity but see it as an expansion. Maybe the possibility of life is what 'caused' the big bang and the death of all life in the universe stops it from being observed so it starts off as a singularity again until quantum particles are able to predict laws for a universe that has life in it. I wonder how many angels can fit on a needle lol.
Now only if we could find ample evidence that creationism is true . i guess creationists should hop of their computers and start to pray harder immediately ... meanwhile the fest of us enjoy youtube
I hate when people say before the big bang. It is said that time started with the big bang, then it makes no sense to ask, before the big bang, since there was no time. Though that kinda poses another question, what is time then, if it came into existence at the big bang - then time is not some sort of eternal dimension. How can humans imagine something timeless? Its hard for me anyway. Then time must be some sort of description or concept of some other dimension - like movement
Also the 'time' we speak of regardless of pragmatic or relative to mass / speed, is within this known universe. This universe could be the result of a collision of branes (M theory) or even a teenage deity squeezing a pimple, we don't know. Both possibilities have a 'before'
QQOQQ's stupidty makes my brain cells want to commit suicide.
Eriance 11 hours ago
my logic tells me for everything to be condensed into an unimaginably small singularity...it had to have been compacted...if it was compacted...it had to have expanded before...which means the universe is infinite....the big question is if the expansion is actually speeding up.....is the universe still in its infancy in respect to a cycle of Big Crunch/Big Bang...since it would have to be showing signs of slowing or at least expanding at a constant rate...is my logic flawed
Metamorphosis33 17 hours ago
I like posting this question on videos like these. What is your view on Diesm? I think of that as a creator(s) of the universe, but said god(s) don't intervene with it. Such a 'god' could have created the first life forms, but don't change thier form. I ask this as an athiest just wondering about people's views.
demonprinceofkhorne 5 days ago
ha!!! villa supporter. no surprises there
CareFreeWherever 6 days ago
AronRa's blunt rants of ownage are so awesome to watch, lol.
Ledwix 1 week ago
I do like your calm ,matter of fact way of presenting what is simply the truth. But it is to coin a phrase "preaching to the converted". I cant help but feel the "questions" put to you by creationists are put over in a very "unchristian" way indeed. In fact most creationists are very aggressive as opposed to the calm logical opposition to their imaginings. They simply DON'T want an answer to their questions. Their minds are closed. But I'm loving your answers keep up the good work .
TheTenada 1 week ago
Minus 270 degrees below zero would be rather hot...
dajdawg69 2 weeks ago
I like how the topic is about evolution of living organisms on Earth, but he goes back to the Big Bang and the start of the universe again.
DeathBringer769 2 weeks ago
I love living in a secular community in Australia. We were talking about astronomy in school one day when the teacher asked if there were any creationists in the class. When no one said anything he snickered and said 'good'
TheDeadDudeWalking 1 month ago
@TheDeadDudeWalking I wanna go to your school. But a trip from Canada to Australia is like 9000$
maidenjapan66 3 weeks ago
The funny thing is that there really would be something in his container!!
ptango666 1 month ago
IT WAS COLNEL MUSTARD IN THE LIBRARY WITH THE CANDEL STICK!! LOL
ferret630 1 month ago
To QQOQQ.
The scriptures tell of the faithful being harassed and bullied in the future, but it's not a prediction.
If religion was around for the next million years (which it wont because religion is fleeting, after all the universe has been around for 14 billion and christianity and the bible only...2000 years) And if all you held onto was this bible, then it woul fortell of these times every couple of hundred years. dont hold that book to close mate, its full of lies.
xTheuglytruthx 1 month ago
I don't argue with creationists for the same reason I wouldn't argue with someone who thought the moon was made of cheese. I focus on teaching my 9y/o son science, math and physics at a basic level. He's 9 and he says "dad, what's wrong with those people"? My fight is raising my son to be a man... one who will use logic, reason, knowledge and common sense.
paramattic70 1 month ago
Fucking Aston Villa supporters.
Bot23 1 month ago
@Bot23 How to tell the world in three different waysthat you are deluded?Defend creationism, wear that shirt and look at the room he's in - it must be his mum's!! Unfortunately the secondandthirdreason are probably notapparent to AronRa, him coming from Texas and'all! Wish I couldexplain it to him. 8D
1212JackJohnson 2 weeks ago
Well, what can you expect? He's a creationist, his beliefs are protected by 3 simple steps:
- Close eyes
- Cover ears
- Shout the phrase "LALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" for as long as necessary
XplosivCookie 1 month ago
Blundering idiot! A vacuum isn't empty, there's energy. The vacuum energy in a cubic meter of free space has been estimated to be 10-9th power Joules.
Besides "before" space/time there wouldn't have been a vacuum, there would have been NOTHING! And a god can't "exist" in NOTHING, let alone put something in NOTHING.
baldurus1 1 month ago
I think he would find a dead cat
alltiedup217 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
AronRa did you ever answer this:
"The 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer"
I can't find the video if you did.
Side note: Hovind's claims are either true or their not. If he ate baby kittens for breakfast, it changes this not. Ad hominem attacks are inherently weak and just show the soft underneath of your scales. I'm sure you've got plenty of your own skeletons in the closet.
truthseeker1973 1 month ago
@truthseeker1973 riiiiiiight... because if there's anyone who should be given the benefit of the doubt, it's a convicted criminal fraud. Some might say that committing fraud puts one's honesty or integrity into doubt - but that's obviously just crazy-talk.
lovetoeatallthefood 1 month ago
@lovetoeatallthefood
Your choice of words do well to demonize. I'd hardly call it fraud. The group of Atheist lawyers who took on the tax laws and won (probably because they were tax lawyers) I'm sure you'd cheer on. Hovind is a but stubborn, and probably bit off more than he could chew. There is nothing criminal about the man. I'd wager he's got less of a criminal past than you do.
truthseeker1973 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@truthseeker1973 "Your choice of words do well to demonize." Uh, no, my words are literal description of his status according to the US legal system.
"The group of Atheist lawyers who took on the tax laws and won (probably because they were tax lawyers)"
Not that you've given any specific reference to the case or defendants, so I guess we'll never know.
lovetoeatallthefood 1 month ago
@truthseeker1973 "Hovind is a but stubborn, and probably bit off more than he could chew. There is nothing criminal about the man."
In other words, you're bending over backwards to give him the benefit of the doubt, solely because you share his religious conviction.
"I'd wager he's got less of a criminal past than you do."
And you would lose.
lovetoeatallthefood 1 month ago
@truthseeker1973 oh, and it's pretty funny to see a creationist defending Hovind on the those grounds, when creationists constantly use much worse arguments in attempts to discredit Darwin (and "evolutionists" in general).
lovetoeatallthefood 1 month ago
@truthseeker1973 Are you honestly insulting someone for their lack of religious beliefs? What is this, the scripture times? Or should I call them the fantastic times? I remember one guy who got persecuted for his religious beliefs. He looked a bit like Aron, to be honest. That didn't turn out too well now did it? Of course, I shouldn't quote things that have no historical basis, now should I? Wouldn't want to get trounced for bringing up somebody like Gandalf in a random conversation.
psychomantiskiller 1 month ago
@lovetoeatallthefood
BTW, I wasn't implying committing fraud doesn't put a man's integrity into doubt. What I said was simple and straight forward. Hovind's claims were either true or they weren't. The only thing his conviction has the power to do is change people's minds, not the truth.
truthseeker1973 1 month ago
@truthseeker1973 oh don't worry, Hovind's claims can be dismissed solely on their lack of merit, irrespective of his crimes. They're just icing on the cake.
lovetoeatallthefood 1 month ago
@truthseeker1973 All of Hovind's arguments have been proven wrong, and he has proven to be a deliberate liar on many occasions specifically with his pseudoscientific claims. I am not aware of the 15 questions you're talking about, but I guess the keyword would be 'satisfactorily'. I suspect that verifiably correct answers can still be rejected if they fail to satisfy the mind determined to reject them anyway?
AronRa 1 month ago 27
Who is this pillock? Where else has he posted? It makes me embarassed to be British! Really, we are brighter than this! Honest!
1212JackJohnson 1 month ago
Please note QQOQQ's physical behavior. He engages in a lot of "stimming." Stimming is one behavioral cue that tends to indicate a low-normal function, both intellectual and emotional. QQOQQ will not be able to understand what we are saying either because he is psycho--emotionally (or intellectually) unable or simply does not want to understand.
micheal49 1 month ago
I like Pascal's interpretation, the chapter "figures" from his pensees on reading the bible as pure action, as a Greek tradegy, the bible representing the chorus or... conscience of the state of nature which believes ardently: "all is permitted." If anyone asserted anything through the Socratic method, we're just as likely to be dead, it pressuposes no innate compassion, if anything a necessary sickly metaphysics to judge our nature by freezing it; pessimism dressed up decorative wrappings.
fredbloggs02 3 months ago
Comment removed
fredbloggs02 3 months ago
Aaron, there are hundreds of interpretations of the bible and likewise that of unity. I'm no henchman of religious propoganda and naivete, I know you hold to enlightenment values, that's cool..... Remember, while you do, even Socrates prayed to his Daemon.
fredbloggs02 3 months ago
My favorite Aronra mannerism, "...it's worse than that;..."
attheveryend 3 months ago
My first thought about his hypothetical box is he hasn't eliminate quantum fluctuations, which would be quite capable of create everything that would later be observed.
EmmittBrownBTTF1 3 months ago
fallacies in this guys video:
1) footbal shirt...
2) "gas, water and molecules"
3) "from nothing to New York City"
Gaia1986 3 months ago
AronRa is such an intelligent and eloquent speaker it is hard to imagine how this QQOQQ guy doesn't feel small and stupid arguing his point
cdickenson64 4 months ago 3
i cant believe the idiot hasnt asked himself the question "did a god just appear out of nothing in the box that he left for 20 billion years" and then just started creating things !! its the same scenario , a super intelligent god can not just come out of nothing either !!
dkinetik 4 months ago
Creationists aren't looking for an educational answer that invites them to explore the other side or that challenges them to think critically. They are looking for an answer that says "Wow, you stumped me... guess I gotta chuck everything I thought I knew and become a creationist like you" Any other answer is filtered by their selective minds and sent straight to the recycle bin. You might as well talk to a wall.
88rat88 4 months ago
@88rat88 "Any other answer is filtered by their selective minds and sent straight to the recycle bin. You might as well talk to a wall."
Except walls don't say idiotic things.
fdasherv 4 months ago 30
Proof that an English accent doesn't make you smart, just jokes
MrAdwolfe1 5 months ago
@MrAdwolfe1 On the contrary, having an English accent does make you smart, it's just that the effects can be negated by wearing an Aston Villa shirt.
ReverandCiderMan 4 months ago 2
@ReverandCiderMan Lol!
Zorgonia 3 months ago
Excellent. The more evidence for evolution that there is it only makes the creationists even more sure. I guess we will never win this argument.
subductionzone 5 months ago
Holy crap, that was a lot to swallow. You are so smart bro, don't ever stop and you kind of look like a white version of Machete
mrquinnie429 5 months ago
It reminds me of the fight Dawkins had with a lady from some church institution. It went something like this:
Lady: No one can prove evolution!
Dawkins: We have numerous evidence for evolution including fossils!
Lady: Where are those fossils!?
Dawkins: They are in natural history museums around the world
Lady: Show me the fossils
Dawkins: Go and see them!
Lady: I wanted you to present the evidence and you evade my request!
Dawkins: Go see the fossils!
Lady: Why won't you show me the fossils?
oldpiq 6 months ago 79
@oldpiq Lol, did she expect that Dawkins would be carrying fossils around in his briefcase or something?
Vexille1983 6 months ago
@Vexille1983 Yes, actually, creationists DO expect ALL the evidence for evolution to be immediately present and laid out before them like a pop-uo book on demand! They are so simplistic and retarded in their thinking that they cannot understand that the evidence for evolution cannot be folded up in a tiny little brief case and whipped out like a magic trick on demand. That is because THEIR evidence does come in a single, portable, easy to carry book form.
ciaochowbella 5 months ago in playlist More videos from AronRa
@oldpiq That was Wendy Wright from Concerned Women for America. What a dumb bitch. That interview was so painful to watch.
Direkin 5 months ago
@Direkin "Confused Women For America" would be a more suitable name for that organization.
Akira625 4 months ago
@oldpiq I remember that! I wanted to slap the shit out out o that lady! As im sure everyone else did who watched that video.
DevilChao5 4 months ago
@oldpiq where was this? i'd love to see it.
zillatamer 2 months ago
@zillatamer I think it might have been his interview with the amazingly dense Wendy Wright. The conversation basically looped through that a few times. Incidentally Dawkins has some tremendous patience. It's painful even just to watch. It's here on youtube though.
SpriterShard 2 months ago
@SpriterShard ahh, that ive seem. I honestly didnt think he was paraphrasing. It was redicioulus how she kept cliaming to be educated in anything scientific.
zillatamer 2 months ago
@oldpiq
Dawkins should have said "because I'll get arrested if I just take them to show you"
255ad 1 month ago
@oldpiq True, that's a common religious mindset, you just want to bang your head against a wall ..............
ianjrivers 1 month ago
QQOQQ does not deserve to wear that Aston Villa shirt. He is an embarrassment to my team.
jungsbodyguard 6 months ago
Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. This apparently polite gentleman has no business speaking on this topic.
fatouche99 6 months ago
@fatouche99 Why not?
SheepDog707 5 months ago in playlist More videos from AronRa
that was awesome
Scratchy314 6 months ago
QQOQQ will bite your leg off
laserindie 7 months ago
AronRa you Fuckin Rock man!! I'm naming my next child after you. You sir, along with Sagan, Dawkins, Hitchens, Feynman, Harris, Hawking, DeGrasse Tyson, AdromedasWake, Melodysheep, philhellenes, thunderf00t, Minchin, ZOMGitsCriss etc. are the pioneers of a new era .. One in which reason and logic replace superstition and tradition. AronRa for pres 2012!
azoverclocked 7 months ago
Vica Versa!?
JimboWizbo 7 months ago
"God surely loves the poor, for He made so many of them. He must be WILD about the stupid!"
-Robert S. Weider, "Dumb is Good"
SpaceOdyssey56 7 months ago
Aron man Props to you because evolution really never ocurred for him like he said and thats the only thing that he got right. He is some kind of Ape
Atrofia2 7 months ago
WOW. I saw the first video and concluded that this guy asking questions is a moron and after watching the second video well i still have the same conclusion and I am concerned and sadly I have to ask. Did he went to school? This is basic knowledge. He is using a computer so he cant be that stupid after all still he is making a fool of himself publicly. Dude with the glases (your name is irrelevant) make some research before doing something like this and then if you have any question ask. Shame
Atrofia2 7 months ago
@Atrofia2 : He's not a moron, and he went to school, and he will not do research beacuse he is still struggling with simple concepts. But he IS a person, and he WANTS to understand, tho he will never get there. Like the Terminator, he cannot be argued with, he cannot be reasoned with, but unlike the Terminator, he is a man. Let's be careful not to mock him, but to understand him, and figure out how we are going to live with him and the milliions like him, with everyone benefitting. Respect!
bobinhk1 7 months ago
@bobinhk1 you respect what deserves to be respect. People are trying to help him yet he is doing nothing to helping himself. He clearly said in one of his videos he is ignoring and nor reading any comments and apparently not even watching the videos reply Aron is sending him. A person that have like 5o years and think that penis is a bad word and a horrible word dont deserve any respect. We dont have to figure out how to live with it because we dont need to. Respect have to be earned.
Atrofia2 7 months ago
@Atrofia2 Well, I respectfully disagree. Look at him! He's trapped between truth and lies... He can't comprehend the truth, and he can't figure out why the lies are lies. I can understand quantum mechanics ONLY by following the math - but I can't follow it intuitively, and I certainly can't begin to comprehend the expansion of time and space out of a singularity. But I'll accept it as a reasonable model for just now. This guy won't - it's out his league, but kudos to him for taking to the stage.
bobinhk1 7 months ago
@bobinhk1 The point is that he is not trying to. If you look at the 3 videos he said that he dont read comments and clearly he is not watching the video response that Aron is wasting his time making just for him since he keep asking the same questions on diferent videos. I he was trying to understand he would get some respect but he is not trying. He is been a joke. You have to earn respect and he is failing at it
Atrofia2 7 months ago
@bobinhk1 I cant understand all eather but the things that i dont understand I research them that way i can improve. Thats the respectable thing to do. I am almost sure that you do then same thing but this guy have done nothing to improve, he keep thinking he is righ and everyone here have told him he is not. He keep making the same stupid questions and thats what make him a joke. Is ok to make mistakes but is not acceptable repeating them on purpose.
Atrofia2 7 months ago
@Atrofia2 Yes you are quite right. But I just can't help feeling that:
a. there's no law against stupid, there's millions of us.
b. Maybe he's not so stupid if he wants to fight it out with AronRa.
I keep feeling that a light will switch on in his head someday. Of course I may be naive and wrong, but he just doesn't seem as insincere (sorry, plain downright weird, I can't help saying it) as Mr Hovkind and his delightful successors :( These are the guys that really bother me, not htis chap.
bobinhk1 7 months ago
How does one deal with religious insanity and it's brainwashed ilk
I'll tell you how, ridicule the fuck out of em
sonykroket 8 months ago
Someone should ask this idiot where his God came from..God was just 'always there' huh?? Stupid ass!
Lennon4ever1 8 months ago
is this guy a physicists his so smart
woo216 8 months ago
@woo216 a lot of this is common knowledge, just some people are straight retarded
TiteProducts 8 months ago
"Sign of end times"....You mean like seeing an asteroid coming at us looking like another sun burning in our atmosphere?
lol or the almighty desert gods fairytale?
Treefiddyfo 8 months ago
Evolutionism icomes ancient pagan religious fables (Hindooism,pagan Greek and Jewish Kabbalism) disguised as science thats it So Aron you defend an ancient fairy tale thats it
SonofJaphet 8 months ago
@SonofJaphet If science was just a rehash of ancient pagan religious fables how do you explain any cities at all, let alone that they have clean water, ample food, modern medicine, instant worldwide communication, worldwide travel, computing, environmental understanding, extended life expectancy from 20 to 70. Eradicated small pox that had killed half a billion people in the 20th century alone, the Haber process feeds 3rd of the people on the planet. Oh, of course, by fable and lots of prayers.
ritchloui 8 months ago
Creationists are soooooooo dishonest and lie and dodge questions
SexyArcanine666 8 months ago
I love how AronRa gets to shop at a "cosmic grocery store" to select everything he needs to cook up his recipe for the big bang - convenient! Matter and energy are over in isle 6. Time and space are up by the checkout. Now, mix those together using *complete mindlessness* and the finished buffet includes: Physical laws, information, code, life, complexity, design, metamorphosis, engineered organic systems, intelligence, morality, consciousness and more... God is obvious, and AronRa knows it.
copycatmillionaire 8 months ago
@copycatmillionaire
All you have is a strawman and an argument from ignorance. Of course even if the universe was created it is no evidence for your god or any god at all. Perhaps Zeus was the creator. Perhaps many gods made the universe. Perhaps it wasn't a god but a scientist who made our universe and tried a thousand times before getting it right. When you can prove that 1)AronRa is lying 2) there is design and 3) it was your god then we can talk. Until then stfu
SexyArcanine666 8 months ago
@copycatmillionaire Wow! it is convenient that we can observe stuff and then come up with conclusions. And then other people can observe the same things and try and disprove or build on those hypotheses and that a body of knowledge based on the life's work or tens of thousands of experts can be built up.
And then some numpty can come along and say pshaw! God is obvious. Who needs evidence anyway?
ralph17p 8 months ago
@copycatmillionaire "God is obvious, and AronRa knows it."
God is imaginary, and you know it.
TrevorBlack79 8 months ago
Comment removed
copycatmillionaire 8 months ago
Seems to me like AronRa is on a killing spree.
D3admaus 8 months ago
When you say the singularity existed, and contained everything, and was
eternal(before it exploded), it is describing a supernatural event as the first
cause. Unless you are willing to concede, that there was consciousness,
within this singularity, there can be no rational explanation as to why
the singularity became unstable, after being stable for eternity? This is
why a material cause to existence without an agency is not possible.
jossalv1 8 months ago
@jossalv1 This answers nothing. Why assume instead that god sat around for eternity doing nothing before suddenly deciding to create a universe. What was he doing before then? After how many trillion years did the boredom set in? Were there trial runs? Are we a trial run? When did god begin? If he's allowed to be eternal, then why not the singularity? Why assume the singularity was eternal? Maybe gods did create it - it still proves nothing about any human religion.
ralph17p 8 months ago
@ralph17p We don't sat God sat around for an eternity before" deciding" to create everything.
Remember we say, God created time, so before that ,there was no time as we know it. Since God
is spirit and not material, God can exist without, or outside of temporal time. If you then say that
a singularity existed without, or outside of temporal time, then all you have done is replaced
the word God, and are now calling God, "the Singularity."
jossalv1 7 months ago
@jossalv1 All you're saying is that you don't know how a singularity could come to exist without a cause, but instead of stopping at "I don't know", you postulate a god, who would need to be incredibly complex to come up with the concept of a universe, the set of starting conditions that would somehow end up with an Earth and us living on it (assuming that wasn't accidental), and you then seem to think this super-complex starting point is somehow a better explanation of events. Sorry, it's daft.
ralph17p 7 months ago
just give him a sledge hammer
FIIRE 9 months ago
Where is the physical evidence to prove what AronRa is saying is true?
Can you show this experiment in process from the beginning? Please!
Do you have proof of where and how the laws of physics where formed? And, How and when can they change?
Why do Atheist sound more like Theorist? If an atheist believes that God does not exist then what more do they really need to say?
God exists. God does not exist. Take it or leave it.
Is there a genetic flaw that makes them people so angery?
Arcflash67 9 months ago
I find it ridiculous how Creationists tell biologists that evolution is wrong because they disagree with the big bang. I never see them questioning physicists about how the big bang doesn't account for god magicking every organism into existence. If they want Creationism taught in schools, it sounds like they should try to have it taught in physics classrooms, not biology classrooms, because they invariably question cosmology, not biology.
Ceenymeeny 10 months ago
I think QQOOQQ's question is where does that compressed dot of existance came from. Though I suppose it's logical to say it's simply the essence of the behavior of nature. In other words, there was never a "nothingness", or at least, not as we define it.
rolingpingu 10 months ago
a response to the three errors at the end of the video
1) where did the singularity come from
2) agreed, but that has no bearing on whether God exists or not
3) they may not admit it explicitly but they do so implicitly, its assumed in the premise
krylark5 10 months ago
@krylark5
1) watch the first video, the singularity existed eternally
2) agreed, but when was it stated or implied that it did?
3) then why do so many creationists keep saying that something can't come from nothing as if they don't believe it themselves?
HHHonoth 10 months ago
The English are a constant source of embarrasment to the Welsh, Scottish and Irish.
mycal64 10 months ago
thumbs up for doctor who reference
vaichild 10 months ago
The fate of the universe is that all matter will eventually cool and swallowed by black holes. Even black holes will eventually fade once they have converted all the atomic matter back to dark energy. At this point, an inverse black hole will form leading to another big bang. There has been multiple big bangs and also the possibility of multiple universes but not in multiple dimensions. There are only four dimensions. X Y X and (dx,dy,dx), time is NOT the fourth dimension, only appears to be.
nikolayzou 11 months ago
@nikolayzou
Actually time can be considered an "extra dimension" meaning you have 4 total, but time is not the fourth. It's also just plus one, to the total you are speaking about. Also the leading theories consider 11 dimensions, 10 of space and 1 of time.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz I don't believe time is a dimension at all. Also I don't believe in 10, 11, 21 dimensions, I think mathematical theories are far to complex for reality. Complexity is always made from simple building blocks, which are easy to understand. I think the mathematical theory of everything will turn out to be very simple and easy to understand. I believe in only four dimension, X, Y, Z and the fourth is also a spacial dimension, a little hard to explain but easy to visualize.
nikolayzou 10 months ago
@nikolayzou
It actually is not easy to visualize, in fact all science tests to this fact as no matter how hard scientist tried, the universe can not be explained with just the 3 and 1 extra time dimension. We don't just keep the theories we like, as science changes we change. You are not a physicist so making theory is not your job. Your job is to learn and understand the most relevant models we have available. So saying what you are saying is kind of the same as faith.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz My advantage is not being a physicist but I have studied some physic at University, but I didn't finish. The reason the mathematics is so difficult which is pointing to more dimensions is because of time being included. Get ride of it, you don't need it as a dimension. You will find if you do this, your formulas will start to simplify leading you to the right answers. TIME IS NOT A DIMENSION!!!
nikolayzou 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz I am not keeping the theory I like, I am keeping the correct theory. My theory has improved over time, and it explains all the forces in nature. I predicted dark energy over twenty years ago. I also have a few more prediction. For example, an electron and a photon are basically the same thing, the only difference is that the electron is captured by the atom and the photon is free to move in space, yes though an eather, and yes, the eather does exist.
nikolayzou 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz Another thing, there is no difference between dark energy and dark matter, science has this wrong, they are the same. They hold the galaxy together and also are the cause of the accelerating expanding universe. Also, dark energy is much more interesting than scientist believe. Dark energy are particle but they don't fly around space and you can't detect them with any silly experiment, scientist are not going to find a HIGGS particle.
nikolayzou 10 months ago
@nikolayzou
Where are you getting these assertions from? By definition dark energy and dark matter are different, as one refers to a condensed state of physical matter, and another refers to a state of energy. If you want to say dark energy and dark matter are two flavors of the same force then sure that's correct. However any form of matter that exists, has to have a form of energy. Dark matter demands dark energy, or else it does not explain the universe.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@nikolayzou
See you can not make unfounded assertions without being called upon it. Also people with even a basic understanding of models today can show why what you are saying is flawed. I don't care what you believe, but stop asserting that is what science says, it is not and I have demonstrated that, so since you are making an extraordinary claim that you are right and physicists are wrong you need to demonstrate that before anyone can or should accept it.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz I totally agree, I know no one will except my ideas until they are mathematically proven, but that won't stop me from seeking the truth. I simply believe science has a few things wrong, not everything wrong. Science has been wrong in the past, even when all the mathematics looks correct. I simply believe you don't need more than four dimensions to explain the Universe. If you eliminate time as a dimension and replace it with what I said before, the mathematics will simplify.
nikolayzou 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz Time being a dimension makes all the mathematics difficult. Also a negative value for time is also a problem. The fourth dimension is very easy to visualize once you except to possibility of an aether. The fourth dimension is a spacial dimension and is simply the size of the building that make up the aether and all matter are varying and dependent on mass. This also implies that the universe has a limit, similar to 1/x.
nikolayzou 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz Also another thing, the Universe has an accelerated expansion, this is correct, but the Universe is also shrinking in the four dimension but we are unable to detect this. So the fate of the Universe will see all the atomic matter cool and get eaten by black holes. The black holes will convert this matter back to dark energy ( ie the aether) and eventually evaporate away until you are left with a single inverse black hole which will lead to another big bang.
nikolayzou 10 months ago
@nikolayzou
I agree 100% with what you just posted except the one flaw you said by saying four dimensions.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz I am not a big fan of multiple dimension explanations of the Universe. I guess we will find out soon enough when somebody cracks the mathematics, I look forward to that day. I am not the only one who questions time being a dimensions, I have found some interesting stuff on the internet about other peoples theories. Also there are many scientist that believe in an aether, this is not a new concept as you would know. Are you a scientist?
nikolayzou 10 months ago
@nikolayzou I am not questioning it, whether you like it or not it's considered a dimension, sorry it doesn't fit under your definition. Not only that but mathematics didn't crack the theory of everything, but there is a very established theory that makes real world predicts called m-theory, and no theory with 4 dimensions or 3 dimensions works at the moment. We go where evidence leads us, no way 4 dimensional space works, 11 dimensional space works perfect.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz I have read a little about membrane theory and I don't rule out the idea of multiple Universes. My theory also supports the idea of multiple Universes because of the limiting effect of the Universe we are in. Our Universe might be one of many bubbles that might exist, dare I say it, on a membrane. My theory doesn't support the idea of Universes super imposed on each other in other dimensions. My theory only needs four dimensions. Please tell me why we need more than 4 dimensions?
nikolayzou 10 months ago
@nikolayzou
I told you before but again, I say it again. Scientists were working under that assumption for hundreds of years and got to a point where unless they invoked more dimensions or alternate universe the universe and the theory of everything would be forever incorrect. All theories share one thing in common, 4 dimensions just doesn't work. That's it, no theory works with 4 dimensions.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@nikolayzou
See scientists don't just say there is 11 dimensions, for the big bang to be explained and to calm relativity with quantum mechanics more then 4 dimensions need to be invoked. 4 dimensions is not enough to explain our universe and no model can be represented where it does unless our universe had different condition where it doesn't. Science goes where the evidence leads, thats 11 dimensions.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@nikolayzou
Which actually brings me to the question, which theory do you have that only invokes 4 dimensions. I know of no theory that works today that does. Hell you might even believe a theory that actually has more then four dimensions most likely but you might not understand why it does and think it still works with 4.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz Is it correct to say that scientist need more than 4 dimensions to explain all the forces in nature, such as the weak and strong atomic force, the electric field and the magnetic field, electromagnetic fields, gravity, relativity etc.??? Only a theory with multiple dimension can like all these together ??? Am I correct in saying this?
nikolayzou 10 months ago
@nikolayzou
The problem comes with gravity. Relativity works with 4 dimensions, but relativity explains beautifully the very large and how gravity effects the fabric of space itself. Further study revealed gravity effects time itself, quantum mechanics explains the very small very well and the standard model explains 3 of the 4 forces. But it all falls apart at gravity, and gravity for it to make any sense invokes more dimensions which melds the two theories together.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@nikolayzou
See relativity and quantum mechanics contradict each other and that just can't be so. The reason they contradicted each other is because we were still thinking of the universe as four dimensions and to fully explain the universe the theories must no contradict. The only way to do that was to invoke higher dimensions which over time with string theory and now m-theory explain the universe almost perfectly but with flaws that are still being tweaked.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@nikolayzou
Now you may say well what if the reason relativity and quantum mechanics didn't seem to work with four dimensions was because one of them may have been wrong, now the issue with this is all the evidence we have supported both theories completely and utterly confirms both. But you can't use quantum mechanics to explain the large, and relativity to explain the small. You need to have 1 theory or else the universe can't be possible. Scientists tried for years to resolve this.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@nikolayzou
The sad thing is scientists did NOT what to look to higher dimensions or any more then the 4 we can actually observe and test. They always tried to make 4 dimensions work, even with the starting of string theory. The problem is anomalies kept creeping up and the only way to fix the anomalies was to add dimensions. Scientists revised, revised, and revised for decades trying to make four dimensions work and even ridiculed people working on multiple dimension theories.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@nikolayzou
However by the 70s and 80s less and less were trying to make four dimensions work, they just couldn't without invoking more dimensions. The more data about new particles found in atom smashers just kept destroying any working theories they had unless they again added more dimensions. It's a sad fact but for all intensive purposes it's now illogical to believe we only live in four dimensions, we ourselves only experience 4 dimensions however.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@nikolayzou
We only live in four dimensions though ourselves since all string theory says is their are tiny curled up dimensions at the Planck level that these string operate in. Then when m-theory was crafted it took it a step further to calm to issues with string theory to say that the entire universe is on a 2 dimension mem-brane in a higher dimensional space where other membranes would hold universes like ours all with different physical laws.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@nikolayzou
Now since m-theory can perfectly with the fewest anomalies to date the function of how universe can be created, how membranes form, how energy can transfer, and the function of the big bang and an actual answer. There are still some things we have to iron out, like detect the higgs boson and the graviton to better refine and maybe confirm the theory.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz I have read all your comments and understand why science is invoking more dimensions to explain all the forces, but I still think science is chasing it's tale. By removing time as a dimension and replacing it with an aether, all you need to do is understand the aether. Early understanding of the aether was completely wrong and the time dimension replaced it, but this is why all the maths is too difficult.
nikolayzou 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz If we go back to Einstein and ride that beam of light, if the speed of light is constant, then the only logical conclusion is that time must slow down and even stop when you hit the speed of light. This idea has some major flaws and problems even though I am not disputing, time does slow down, but time is not a dimension. I have a mind problem for you to think about.
nikolayzou 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz Imagine the only atomic mass in the Universe where two space crafts and nothing. Both crafts where identical having the same mass. If craft A stood still and craft B traveled at almost the speed of light the question is. Would time slow down for one of them, if so, which one?
nikolayzou 10 months ago
@nikolayzou
One final thing, don't think I am saying it's not verified, to an extent it is, it fits with math and calms and joins the major theories that explain the every large and the very small and provide not only the mechanism but why the big bang happened. It explains gravity and why particles have mass. It is the closest to the theory of everything we have, but still I will not say it is 100% confirmed because it's not. It is just the closest we have to a model of everything.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz I found an interesting website that talks about time not being the 4th dimension.
Put into Google the following "Theory of Universe without Time as a Dimension" and it will be the first site found.
nikolayzou 10 months ago
@nikolayzou
But you still didn't demonstrate why I should read/watch that. Is it peer reviewed? i'm not a physist so me thinking something make sense holds no bearing on whether it's true. Who has peer reviewed the theory they are proposing who is qualified to demonstrate if there data is correct or wrong. Until then you don't really have anything but some guys opinion or misconception. I was saying science says on a subject, as in what has been demonstrated and peer reviewed.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@nikolayzou
You just don't get to go "I don't like what science actually finds about the universe, so i'll pretend this guy with a theory I like more". The difference is one has evidence, one doesn't. Time is a dimension in a sense, as in it's a force of the universe also known as entropy, or the function of change. It is still a dimension however, just as some dimensions in m-theory you probably wouldn't even consider dimensions. The fact is, four dimensions was ruled out already.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JamesCizuz Do you have an answer for this question???
If the universe consisted of only two space crafts, both where identical having the same mass. If craft A stood still and craft B traveled at almost the speed of light the question is.
Would time slow down for one of them, if so, which one?
nikolayzou 10 months ago
@nikolayzou
Just to continue though, you are believing the universe is that way, because you like it. The reason we require more dimensions is simple, the universe demands it. The universe demands it to explain phenomena never explained before, especially to such accuracy. The theory is not complete, and many different versions exist, but there is one thing they can all agree on, 3d + 1 time is not enough.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@nikolayzou Though believing what you wish is up to you, in fact even when I am speaking of these theories I don't take them as absolutes, since there is some still fine tuning to come along. However with more understanding of the universe we have, new particles discovered and properties discovered just leads to more chance of more then 3d + 1time and in fact all theories keep falling towards 10d and 1 time. We go where the data leads us. Science is great because of it.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz I have been working on a theory of everything for over twenty years and believe I have a pretty good understand of the Universe. I think time has mistakenly been taken as the fourth dimension. If light travels at a constant speed, which is correct, the only conclusion is that time must vary. This conclusion is incorrect, yes time does appear to vary, but this is only a consequence of the fourth dimension. To be continued
nikolayzou 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz If you look at the formula Velocity = Distance / Time. If velocity is the speed of light and constant, then the conclusion is that time must vary. But this is only true if the building blocks that make up all know particle take up a constant amount of space. What if the building blocks took up varying amounts of space depended on mass. IE, the larger the mass, the larger the fundamental particles become. This also implies an aether.
nikolayzou 10 months ago
There is no such things as nothing. Atomic matter is only the matter we can see and detect and only contributes to only 5% of all the matter in the universe. To have time and space, you need the reference of atomic matter this is why they suggests time and space was created at the big bang. But before the big bang there was dark energy or what I like to call the aether in which all atomic matter comes from.
nikolayzou 11 months ago
Thank you
richotim 11 months ago
I can imagine how this theists responded on their school exams:
history exam: Who discovered America? R: One of God's childs.
math exam: √2+4= Exodus 12:31
Driving exam: "Just turn on the engine, Jesus will guide me!"
ZZzzzzzWhat 11 months ago 11
he he .. sheep are very dim :) !!!
dkinetik 11 months ago
If there is nothing in the bow then how would there be a temperature. Not even a minute in and he had problems.
rykoodasr 11 months ago
After attending a talk the other day by a string theorist at my university, and after chatting with a post doc in theoretical physicist and a lecturer in statistical theoretical physics who play on my pool team, it is ENTIRELY possible to generate universes (and particles) from nothing. Obviously this somewhat depends on the definition of 'nothing', but to say that no cosmologists/theorists state that the universe came from nothing is wrong.
Webofscience 1 year ago
Aron - This vid made me chuckle a bit - I noticed how your "look" and background seems to be "dark" where you advisory is dressed and lit very "light". Was this on purpose? It almost gives the good vs evil comparison. Hmmm perhaps the bright light of "truth" needs to be so bright that it blinds? *giggles*.
macikosan 1 year ago
It must be hard to maintain any long-suffering compassion for such weak minds but AronRa does this so well especially for a heathen. LOL I was once deeply involved with a church and truly wanted to believe in the simple path of ignorance masquerading as absolute truth. Please let go of you superstitions and feel the real freedom that comes from intellectual honesty. Keep on trucking AronRa.
wkcbell 1 year ago 24
Repeat yourself forever if you want.
I guess no one listens to you, eh?
PhuqueU 1 year ago
Concession1
Several years back I was a "weak" creationist and I apologize for every piece of ignorance I ever spouted, admit I was wrong about nearly everything and was in need of an education, that I in fact, was not smarter than the entire scientific community and that I had failed to consider, let alone try to grasp, what is indicated exclusively by the evidence. I poked all kinds of holes in evolution which weren't actually there and the only holes that existed were in my own knowledge.SORRY
christo930 1 year ago 12
I feel AronRa's pain. Arguing with idiots is the most difficult challenge of all and takes great willpower
roadkill1001 1 year ago
There's a lot of mixing together of the ideas of the "Big Bang" and evolution that causes confusion. But in some ways it is legitimate. Natural selection is an extremely power mechanism in nature. Physics and chemists noticed that from biologists and realized natural selection could explain the building up of the chemical elements in the sun. Bronowski uses the word evolution back in 1973 when discussing the stratified nature of complexity. The evolution of the universe from a big bang.
estragon9 1 year ago
Over a year since this video was first made and this fucking idiot still makes me feel great shame to be English! Please don't judge us all by the inane ramblings of this lobotomised taxi driver!
FordPrefect23 1 year ago 2
@FordPrefect23 Okay, if you'll do us the favor of not judging us Americans by the moronic statements made by the Tea Partiers.
seeqer66 1 year ago 3
@seeqer66 Deal, I have friends and family over state side so I know you're not all nuts, the nuts ones are just VERY loud.
FordPrefect23 1 year ago 2
@WhiteHuskie66 I'm by no means a Creationist. I was actually wondering about the definition of the 2nd law that QQOQQ was providing.
jcole60brit 1 year ago
I wonder if the universe only exists because we can observe it like with the Schrodinger's cat theory and we are actually still in the singularity but see it as an expansion. Maybe the possibility of life is what 'caused' the big bang and the death of all life in the universe stops it from being observed so it starts off as a singularity again until quantum particles are able to predict laws for a universe that has life in it. I wonder how many angels can fit on a needle lol.
Sadochrist 1 year ago
Isn't the Second Law of Thermodynamics that a group of particles in a vacuum become more chaotic over time?
jcole60brit 1 year ago
You are the most articulate man I've ever heard. You're like V if he spoke for science and reason instead of vigilantism.
Darkmage1293 1 year ago
Now only if we could find ample evidence that creationism is true . i guess creationists should hop of their computers and start to pray harder immediately ... meanwhile the fest of us enjoy youtube
quadjun 1 year ago
I hate when people say before the big bang. It is said that time started with the big bang, then it makes no sense to ask, before the big bang, since there was no time. Though that kinda poses another question, what is time then, if it came into existence at the big bang - then time is not some sort of eternal dimension. How can humans imagine something timeless? Its hard for me anyway. Then time must be some sort of description or concept of some other dimension - like movement
BjornSeverinLarsen 1 year ago
@BjornSeverinLarsen Spacetime. Google it.
Also the 'time' we speak of regardless of pragmatic or relative to mass / speed, is within this known universe. This universe could be the result of a collision of branes (M theory) or even a teenage deity squeezing a pimple, we don't know. Both possibilities have a 'before'
meucunt1 1 year ago
@meucunt1 well okay. Still logically it doesn't make sense to say before time began.. cos before is a time related concept
BjornSeverinLarsen 1 year ago
Don't you get it AronRa? QQOQQ's a DICK!
That and he didn't get enough attention in his childhood.
June28July 1 year ago
fuck west ham fan typical dipshit
DannyDzeko 1 year ago