This things the biggest waste of money and resources in history..a desperate attempt to prove that our current scientific theories are correct. There is overwhelming evidence that they are false. Even when they find no higgs, they will just come up with more excuses as to why they couldn't find it...This is why our understanding of the world has made zero progress in scientific understanding since Einstein, we're stuck on ideas that he himself said were incomplete and fundamentally false.
There are so many things wrong with what you said i can't decide if your just incredibly arrogant or another internet troll voicing an uneducated opinion.
Firstly to say we have made "zero progress in scientific understanding since Einstein" is just retarded.
Your telling me since 1955 scientific progress just stopped?
STFU
Secondly CERN's primary objective is to find the boson but its not its soul purpose.
For example the discovery that was made recently about the neutrino.
So far the LHC have discovered a new particle, discovered that the neutrino travels faster than light and has shown us invaluable data regarding how particles behave at a quantum level and how they behave in certain environments within thee LHC.
People like you said the same thing when research was done on the electron and semi conductive material.
But what we learned from that research has changed our world.
For you to say nothing has progressed since 1955 is just stupid.
Wa-Wait a minute...can that machine use time travel? If it can, that'd be amazing! I mean, we could be able to go back in time to stop the 9/11 attacks!
I am not convinced all this is just for the sake of science. LHC has cost billions and there must be a payoff somewhere. A cheap source of energy maybe that is not dangerous like a nuclear reactor?
The time has come for Free energy to be revealed ,But the big oil corporations don't want that technology revealed,Get a motor that works with the power of magnets only at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Free yourself!
Free energy technology exists!But the Oil coporations life depends on covering this up,Get the blueprints for a real Magnet motor free enegy machine at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Let the revolution begin!
@transfoby You know about all this kind of stuff cant you explain it to me in like a summarised...thing because if I read it its like gonna just go riiiiiight over my head.
@transfoby I read.....some of it and basically what i managed to understand is that they help poor people, which is probably completely wrong because Im 15, hate politics and dont understand politics. :D Thanks for trying!
@BoxingOwnz do you think we will ever get any were with greed on this planet first of all all people on this planet should live equal no reach no poor anad stop killing each other and then my be we can move on to number 1 think about it . And dont believe everything this guys tell u man. If hes so smart and all the technology improvements to help us out seem to be more and more expansive to run y is that when we are so more advance and why are we still on the stupid gas over a 100 year old.help
@MrPHANTOMX9 the consecuenses? well if the expiriment goes wrong a massive black hole will open and suck earth within less than 1 minute, Or massive explosion like big bang whole galaxy will fking disapear in zero seconds
Black Hole humour aside... Most of the technological marvels of the past 100 years have come in no small measure from the pursuit of war. With that in mind, would any world power invest this many Billions in this "Earth Donut" in the hopes of benign scientific understanding?
You're not going to get the data you need with that many, Unfortunately it will take 1000 years to compute the kinda data you guys want to, The best answer you'll ever get from a computer is either 0 or in your case... 1
how do we know if it wasn't the collider that created the universe? we could be stuck in a time loop a 13 million year loop to the piont of the collider trying to make stuff like the big bang. it seems like nature can't produce a big bang and it was humans that created the universe. unwittingly of course
Sadly, as you can see from the LHC webcams they run a skeleton crew of a few poor college students. Fix this link to view. meltronx com/lhcweb/ . The LHC is no big deal.
This whole place looks huge and I can't even imagine how much planning they had to do in order to build each and every single equipment..it's crazy and astonishing :o
So what exactly is the experament suppose to solve? Why do this opposed to the other efforts the funds could be used for that are visible or more applicable,just to put it into prospective.
@hereforthefunny Its made to see what subatomic particles do when subjected to high energies. This could show conditions particles would have underwent at a time very close to the big bang. Potentially, it could have high enough energy to find the higgs boson. As far as application, its not the point. When penicillin was invented, there was no application for it, however it revolutionized modern medicine. Thousands of examples have similar stories. We do science because we want to learn.
@theclint88 The Big Bang. People accept this so easily! One thing is for sure: it is impossible to conceive of something more unlikely than the Big Bang. Think about it!
I have thought about it. There's an entire class devoted to understanding the expansion of the universe in my undergrad degree. The evidence for it is very sound. The fact that you think its impossible to conceive of anything less likely than the Big Bang shows you have not looked at the evidence.
@balakum888 Penicillin was first discovered in 1928 and while it would later serve well during WWII, at the initial time of discovery, there was no application for it. In fact, it wasn't even thought to be viable long enough in the body to counteract any bacteria-based diseases. It would take more than a decade before they realized what they had.
@MrIrishlogic haha thats exactly what i try to explain to my mum when she says "But why do you want to know all this? All you need to know is that youre here." which isn't true, we were given the power to KNOW we have to use it and expand on it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
money well spent the science cant get us off of fossil fuels , people have no work and starving to death and scientists guys want to get protons to hit each other lol I think it be better if we lunch t the scientists with the government s of the world and get them to collide heads at the speed of light now that be a nice experiment for the whole world to see lol i hope the reading that they get will tell them to go fuck them self's !!!!!!!!!
yeah people are starving and you are spending money for that piece of crap you dont need called computer... give it to charity!
want us to get off fossil fuel or sth? you have to make reserch and that costs MONEY my friend. untill you realize that or come up with an idea how to reserch new technologies without spending money i suggest you shut up with your boring idealistic, everything but realistic bullshit. if you have theory that will make world perfect SHARE IT WITH US!
It's not a question of how much money is being spent on building and operating it. What scares me is what the scientists are promising to convince the politicians to spend all that money. They been spending money building progressively larger colliders for decades.
Some I think, "It will be really cool and we will learn a lot about tiny particles", would not cut it.
I couldn't agree with you more. Whoever coming up with this theory is costing 9 billion dollars and more. Plus it takes decades to process the data. Basically they will die before anyone finds out it's a stupid investment.
LOL, ok, just escuse yourself from anythign you wish, anyone reading will see your attempt to twist what I said.
Yes, they are the same thing, they are theories. You cannot prove expansion is fact. The only thing you have to go on is others opinions of a picture of a red dot on a picture.
Again, expansion is the observable fact, expansion theory is the attempt to explain it.
We can observe expansion happening in real time (albeit a long time) because the universe is still flying apart. Technically the only expansion we can prove is that which happened since we started to observe it and the present day, this is all that can be really considered observable; therefore factual.
Mathematical models take this information and retrace expansion to the start. This is theory.
@TheFounderUtopia Well, I'm sorry you believe that fairy tale and have faith in it. but that does not make it scientific fact, it's only belief. You have to believe that the whole universe was jam packed into a infinitesimal dot then one day it exploded or what ever to get what you think to be true to work out in paper. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it fact. If it were fact there would be no argument about it.
your argument is inconsistent, you just said that you already don't have a problem with expansion. As I explained, it's observable fact that the universe is expanding away from a single point.
Something cannot expand if it was not once closer together. If you accept that the universe is expanding then you also accept that it was once *less* expanded, and that's all that I'm saying.
Belief doesn't enter into it, I don't have any opinions on what caused expansion one way or another.
I also made it perfectly clear that the singularity theory is *seperate* from the expansion theory.
There is no way of knowing with the data that we have how expansion was initiated - all we can know for a fact is that it is expanding. The evidence indicates we're expanding apart from a single point but that doesn't necessarily mean that a singularity was at the root of it.
You're ignoring evidence you already conceded because you don't like the conclusion it leads to. That is *bad* science.
Again, big bang and expansion are the SAME THING, I didn't say they're seperate. The term big bang was used to describe the expansion theory. If you haven't even understood that, then you haven't been paying attention.
I don't have the funds, nor the interest frankly, to gather the means required to observe expansion, it takes a long time to do as we need sufficient time for bodies to drift apart in order to map the changes. Fortunately the experts do, and they offer the data freely.
@TheFounderUtopia This whole post is built on a fallacy. You need to re-read my post. It in no way implies that I accept expansion as fact, you assume it to mean I accept it. It does not bother me is because it in no way can be use as evidence of a 'big bang". And please stop denying you believe in "big bang" theory you cannot have an expansion with some sort of explosion or initial cause.
"It does not bother me is because it in no way can be use as evidence of a 'big bang"."
"you cannot have an expansion with some sort of explosion or initial cause"
If, in your own words, expansion is automatic proof of an "explosion" (which is redundant, because expansion *is* explosion) then not having a problem with expansion equates to not having a problem with the explosion.
Also, I didn't deny the big bang because it's the same thing as expansion.
@TheFounderUtopia "If, in your own words, expansion is automatic proof of an "explosion" (which is redundant, because expansion *is* explosion) " Who's putting words in who's mouth?
I do not have a clue what you find confusing about the quoted passage.
Post 2:
First of all, the quote you supplied here is not what you were referring to when you accused me of putting words in your mouth; what you were referring to was me saying that you "accept" expansion - when in truth, I did not.
Secondly, that quote is an accurate paraphrase of what you said. You told me that you cannot have expansion without an explosion. Therefore, to you, explosion is proof of expansion.
*Note - I got the posts in the wrong order. "Post 1" refers to the one with the question marks. "Post 2" refers to the one about putting words in your mouth.
@TheFounderUtopia I've stated throughout my post that I don't agree with expansion theory nor "big bang" theory, ((((even before the suppose examples you give))) go back and read. How could you possibly conclude any statement I've made afterwords point to me agreeing with "expansion' or 'big bang"?
I'll tell you for the third time, I haven't said you agree with it. You told me that you don't have a problem with it, and that's all I've referenced.
The fact that I've had to repeat this triviality over and over implies you are being intentionally dishonest, trying to drag this debate in circles for fear of being wrong - I would like to believe that you're better than that.
I'll explain it again. Expansion is observable, it isn't a theory. Expansion theory attempts to explain it.
What would colliding particles have to do with a "big bang"? Are they trying to use a "big crash" to prove a "big bang"? What crashed together to start the "big bang"? Where did the energy come from that started this "crash" or "bang"?
The collision of the protons in the LHC may release unique energies and radiations that may only have previously been present at the start of the cosmic expansion (aka big bang).
Think of it like this... if we wanted to simulate the heat generated in the sun, we could either try to make an entire sun, or use focussed lasers to heat up a single point to that temperature.
This is basically a highly focussed simulation of some of the factors in the big bang but in a very small area.
@TheFounderUtopia Sorry but you haven't explained anything. You've only perpetuated all the assumptions. In your own words your said; "MAY only HAVE previously been present". it doesn't matter what particles or energy are produced measured with the LHC, it doesn't prove a "big band" it only proves that they smashed something together and got a result from the smash. There's nothing there that can connect it to a "big bang".
It's not an attempt at "proving" the big bang, it's an attempt at *understanding* it. Cosmic expansion is a fact, we know this because it's still going on, the "big bang" isn't something that happened, it's happenING.
Everything in the universe, even space itself, is all flying away from a single point, a massive burst that basic physics tells us must have certain properties.
The LHC emulates some of those properties so we can get a closer look at them and understand them better.
@TheFounderUtopia Expansion is a theory as well as the "big bang theory". So please excuse me if I don't except it as fact. All is based on assumption. So yes it is an attempt to prove "big bang" theory in a since.
Speaking of expansion
If I were on another "planet" in a galaxy in the far reaches of the universe and I were looking back in the direction of the Earth in my own version of the hubble, tell me, what do you think I would see?
No, expansion *theory* is a theory. What the theory attempts to do is explain the observed *fact* of expansion. Just like gravity, the *theory* of gravity is an attempt to explain the *fact* that it exists. These theories can be wrong, indeed there are conflicting theories about gravity, but the facts can't.
Understanding the difference between an observation and a theory that attempts to explain it is very important. You need to recognize that expansion is observation, NOT theory.
Also, I can't answer your question because you didn't stipulate a distance. Hubble has a very limited range despite being highly advanced, someone at "the rar reaches of the universe" using their own hubble would likely be unable to even make out our galazy (assuming there wasn't something else in the way to block their sight of our galaxy in the first place that is).
You said looking back in the direction of earth. I assumed you were asking if you would be able to see Earth or our galaxy from there.
Either way, I can't say with any certainty what you would see from there, it would take a complex universe model to extrapolate such a thing and the universe is not so well charted I think at this point to make such an estimation.
Suffice to say you would likely see plenty of other stars, galaxies, planets and nebulas from that vantage point.
I'll try to answer each of your questions in seperate posts. So please bear with me and wait for me to finish before replying.
I also ask that you be more openminded, you've clearly already come into this with your mind made up. Have some respect for science. Science is what allows us to have this conversation, and in all likelihood you already owe your life to it many times over.
The experts know what they're doing, and we need to be properly educated before we have the right to criticize.
If this information is required before we can "have a complete theory", then by the same standard, we need to understand absolutely everything about the brain before we can theorize that it is where our intelligence resides.
Cosmic expansion is not a theory on how the universe began, or what precipitated it. Cosmic expansion is a phenomenon wherein we can observe that the universe has exploded from a single point. The theory attempts to explain the expansion, not the preceeding cause.
So just as with the brain analogy, not having all the data on something doesn't mean the data you *do* have has no value. There's no bias in observation, we don't need to be forwarding an agenda (such as speculating on what started expansion) in order to observe the expansion itself. You're the one asigning this motive, not science.
So for the theory on expansion being studied by the LHC, the actual beginnings of the universe are irrelevant. It's no more a part of that theory than evolution is.
Expansion is not an explosion of material *into* a spacial region, expansion is an explosion *of* space. Understanding this distinction is very important. Space itself is being created by the big bang and creating the void which matter is filling, the entire thing is self-contained so there is no concept of "outside" the explosion, because space would not exist outside it, and therefore there would *be* no outside of it.
We're not expanding *into* a region, we are an *expanding region.*
Same answer. We're not expanding to occupy a space, what's happening is the fabric of space is growing. Picture a slightly limp balloon with many dots drawn on it, now picture inflating it. The distance between the dots increases, not just because they're moving, but because the space between them is actually lengthening.
The *reason* we're still expanding is because the big bang is still happening, we're all riding on the inertia of that explosion as is space itself, this is the expansion.
You need to remember that facts are observable, theories are the conjecture. There's no such thing as a woo% proven theory in science because there could always be something we never knew about that turns everything on its head. Thus the only factual things are what we observe.
What we can observe is that the universe is for some reason expanding from a single point, the explosiong is factual because we see it. The LHC is an attempt to better understand that explosion by simulating it closely.
@TheFounderUtopia You need to remember your facts are only self evident. They mean nothing to me. "because there could always be something we never knew about" this is the crux of the argument, you will admit there could be something besides what you think to be true as long as it fits into your perceived idea of the universe. That is not science, real science would allow for anything to be possible, not just what you choose to label as scientific.
"You need to remember your facts are only self evident. They mean nothing to me"
Exactly! Facts *are* self evident. :) They do not *have* any intrinsic meaning, either to you or anyone else. If an apple falls from a tree in front of you, that is a fact. What caused it, that's what you apply speculation to.
The fact that science is not so arrogant as to claim it can never be wrong is not a weakness, so pointing out that every theory is falsifiable proves that they're *good* science.
No... **sigh** you don't get "proof" for an analogy..
..jesus christ...
Ok, look, the balloon thing is an example to simplify the expansion of space in a way that you can relate to easier. The expansion of space is observasble fact, it isn't a theory because it doesn't need a theory.
It's like saying "It's only a theory that the apple fell from that tree just now". The theory is the *explanation*, not the observation. Why can't you understand this, I've explained it several times?
@TheFounderUtopia Just because you think someone doesn't understand a particular thing doesn't make you argument fact. That's a little arrogant don't you think? The rest of this is nothing but speculation.
You're putting words in my mouth, I never said my "argument" is fact because I'm not *making* an argument. Nevertheless, the fact that you don't understand this matter and yet already have made up your mind against it is indicative that you are guilty of the arrogance you accuse me of
I'm explaining the difference between theory and fact, while not *having* a theory or opinion of my own.
You are attempting to prove a theory must be wrong Without understanding it.
@TheFounderUtopia I never said the LHC was studying expansion, that is part of your argument not mine.
Of course it matters what was before the "bang" you only say it is irrelevant because you refuse to accept that there could be another alternative. You can throw out theories, assert your opinions, try to dismiss everything with different kinds of analogies but in the end you will have to accept that there are other possibilities. Simply denying it doesn't make it go away.
You're misunderstanding my case.I'm not refusing to accept an "alternative" because I'm not accepting anything for there to be an alternative TO. There is no theory relevant to the LHC or cosmic expansion which has anything to do with what happened to CAUSE expansion.
I don't *know* what caused it, I don't have an opinion on what caused it because there is no evidence, no observable facts on which to speculate about such a thing. The LHC is about studying the *expansion* itself.
@TheFounderUtopia The purpose of the LHC is to try and capture the moments just after the "big bang". I've heard this from the scientist's own mouths. This implies a "big bang", never mind expansion. Expansion doesn't bother me, what bothers me is to say expansion is proof of a "big bang" when it is not. It may appear to be proof but appearances can be deceptive. But I predict, what ever they find they will use it as proof, when it cannot be proof. Collision doesn't equal "big bang"
First of all, the phrase "big bang" was a prejorative term invented by proponants of the steady state universe model in order to make fun of the expansion model when it was first concieved. Big bang and cosmic expansion mean the same thing.
Try to understand, the observable fact is that the entire universe is expanding -you just said this doesn't bother you. The universe is flying apart. The LHC simulates the moment just after this explosion first began -not what happened before it.
Now, while expansion theories do not offer an actual genesis theory, there are other theories out there (such as cosmic expansion triggered by an unstable supermassive singularity or the higgs boson particle).
It is possible that the LHC might give us so much information about what the universe was like the instant after it started expanding, that we might be able to figure out if any of these theories are correct. But the only thing we can actually hope for is to learn as much as we can.
Moments after the expansion began, when the raw material of the universe was all still jammed together into one place having not yet flown very far apart, protons would have colided with each other as a part of the energetic reactions taking place at the time.
Now as I understand it, the LHC is designed to simulated those reactions, reactions that could only have previously taken place in that one instant at the start of time. There's nothing to "prove" with this, only things to understand.
As I said, expansion is the observation, expansion theory attempts to explain it. Yes it is assumption - well, speculation really, but so is all science. If we didn't make assumptions science would stop.
You cant make any science test with space. So, you cant proof, space expanding or curving.
I have science test and i can proof, photons emit energy and thats why light bending and redshifting with out expanding space and with out curving/bending space!
Etimespace videos and you know how visible Universe born and how visible Universe energy/matter moving in space who already been there!
Once they get this Hadron Collider up & running properly, they can finally answer the question that has bothered mankind for centuries: why does the Porridge Bird lay its eggs while it's flying??
Humans are apes, as the term ape doesn't refer to a particular species. Apes are members of the superfamily Hominoidea, of which humans are a part of.
This things the biggest waste of money and resources in history..a desperate attempt to prove that our current scientific theories are correct. There is overwhelming evidence that they are false. Even when they find no higgs, they will just come up with more excuses as to why they couldn't find it...This is why our understanding of the world has made zero progress in scientific understanding since Einstein, we're stuck on ideas that he himself said were incomplete and fundamentally false.
lazychimp123 2 months ago
@lazychimp123
There are so many things wrong with what you said i can't decide if your just incredibly arrogant or another internet troll voicing an uneducated opinion.
Firstly to say we have made "zero progress in scientific understanding since Einstein" is just retarded.
Your telling me since 1955 scientific progress just stopped?
STFU
Secondly CERN's primary objective is to find the boson but its not its soul purpose.
For example the discovery that was made recently about the neutrino.
grant11102 2 months ago in playlist 2nd favs
@lazychimp123
So far the LHC have discovered a new particle, discovered that the neutrino travels faster than light and has shown us invaluable data regarding how particles behave at a quantum level and how they behave in certain environments within thee LHC.
People like you said the same thing when research was done on the electron and semi conductive material.
But what we learned from that research has changed our world.
For you to say nothing has progressed since 1955 is just stupid.
grant11102 2 months ago in playlist 2nd favs
@lazychimp123 what theories do you propose then?
rameez92 1 month ago
Wa-Wait a minute...can that machine use time travel? If it can, that'd be amazing! I mean, we could be able to go back in time to stop the 9/11 attacks!
ROBLOXChris 3 months ago
@ROBLOXChris
understanding fail
EyeHi 2 months ago
Thanks for the upload Phil
daskalaka 5 months ago
All i could hear was half life soundtracks in my head while watching this
FreddyThaNightmare 5 months ago
kill button:)
i love it.
ImmortalUniverse 5 months ago
Id bet if all the LHC and ISS's unecessary space money was concentrated solely on life extension, we could be living 100 years longer by now.
ASSHOLELA 7 months ago
@MrIrishlogic Nasa Fake Apollo Science
DeadJesus100 7 months ago
PHIL PLAIT the Nasa Propaganda fairy
This Idiot of note is too scare dto debate the Fake moon lan dings in public.
Phil you are a Traitor to the USA
DeadJesus100 7 months ago
Looking down 100m of access shaft, reminds me of the opening sequence to "The Time Tunnel" (late 60s' sci fi series)
trespire 7 months ago
I am not convinced all this is just for the sake of science. LHC has cost billions and there must be a payoff somewhere. A cheap source of energy maybe that is not dangerous like a nuclear reactor?
TheSpiritof1969 8 months ago
its professor Brian Cox!
will8831 11 months ago 6
THIS IS INSANE O_O ..
but will it blend?
ookthomas 11 months ago
@ookthomas ;)
2012singularity2012 10 months ago
@ookthomas how the fuck you wanna find a blender that is big enough.
nbombadil 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
KILL SCIENTISTS IN THE NAME OF GOD!
6580006247 1 year ago
detectors detecting
hibou17 1 year ago
Who paid for this thing?
djvartan 1 year ago
The Trojans hahaha
1GirlWith1Mission 1 year ago
imagine what we could do if we would divert all our resources to science instead of war and other bullcrap. I admire these people, gods in my book.
IROOnMIKE 1 year ago
@IROOnMIKE Seriously. With all the money we spent on war and such, we could have built a few of these. Or a really big one :)
suomik1988 1 year ago
Comment removed
IROOnMIKE 1 year ago
Great video, well explained. Science truly rocks !
peppermann 1 year ago
What Mankind could potentially discover at this facility, may well ensure that our species survives into the 22nd Century.
ludwigvonsteampole1 1 year ago
Dr. Brian Cox look cool in real life. lol Love his fine british accent.
kbstorror 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The time has come for Free energy to be revealed ,But the big oil corporations don't want that technology revealed,Get a motor that works with the power of magnets only at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Free yourself!
hungarylnnjsd 1 year ago
I believe one of these machines also proved Einstein's theory of special relativity.
Really cool stuff.
Havoc5487 1 year ago
Ok, how many of you were going "That's what SHE said!" every time he mentioned the size of the LHC's components? Raise your hands.
(looks around) Just me, then. Okay. Moving on.
lesorciercalifornien 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free energy technology exists!But the Oil coporations life depends on covering this up,Get the blueprints for a real Magnet motor free enegy machine at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Let the revolution begin!
cadentavaricegrtrj 1 year ago
atleast if the expiriment goes wrong we will die within less than a second so dont worry :p
eleszar1 1 year ago
@eleszar1 the test was two years ago :P
krustynails 1 year ago
what happens if the magnets stop to working???? O.o a black hole will suck everything in?
eleszar1 1 year ago
Looks like massive alien tech. DAZ GOVRNMENT NOT TELLIN US SUMMIT!!!!
Noogymonster 1 year ago
Good
TheMiloEdge 1 year ago
I've asked elsewhere. What effect upon the protons when apply eienstiens theory of relativity???
JoePublicVA 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@transfoby
you're a fucking moron
coldironhands1 1 year ago
@transfoby You know about all this kind of stuff cant you explain it to me in like a summarised...thing because if I read it its like gonna just go riiiiiight over my head.
VanHalen383 1 year ago
@transfoby Ummmm ok I admit I didnt read it I just looked at the pictures DAMN YOU GOT ME! I still love the LHC :D!
VanHalen383 1 year ago
@transfoby I read.....some of it and basically what i managed to understand is that they help poor people, which is probably completely wrong because Im 15, hate politics and dont understand politics. :D Thanks for trying!
VanHalen383 1 year ago
i wish to go there..
d3nisk3n 1 year ago
@transfoby :P No I don't actually...explain please :)?
VanHalen383 1 year ago
the hydraulics that got pointed out were most probably not air, but oil.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
LOL i love the kill planet button.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
how do you get from ATLAS to CMS, is there a shuttle?? Or did you have to take a highway?
coldironhands1 1 year ago
@BoxingOwnz do you think we will ever get any were with greed on this planet first of all all people on this planet should live equal no reach no poor anad stop killing each other and then my be we can move on to number 1 think about it . And dont believe everything this guys tell u man. If hes so smart and all the technology improvements to help us out seem to be more and more expansive to run y is that when we are so more advance and why are we still on the stupid gas over a 100 year old.help
raffi7900 1 year ago
How did you get to visit CERN!?!? I'm very interested in all of this and would LOVE to see CERN for myself.. :D
EmilyLoyche 1 year ago
im proud to be a human being when i watch this...good job! species!!!!
TaNgLeD2121 1 year ago
ok i 'not too good at understanding this but if this experiment goes wrong,what are the consecuenses
MrPHANTOMX9 1 year ago
@MrPHANTOMX9 the consecuenses? well if the expiriment goes wrong a massive black hole will open and suck earth within less than 1 minute, Or massive explosion like big bang whole galaxy will fking disapear in zero seconds
eleszar1 1 year ago
@eleszar1 LoL, this simply is not true.
2012singularity2012 10 months ago
at 2:02 he flicks us off
TheHaron68 1 year ago
Truly is incredible. What man has made. Imagine in 50 years time. 100 years. Really is mind boggling. Great video. Good stuff.
commanderilz 1 year ago
OMG 1:07 is that guy i forget his name but he on wonders of the universe
R4GEAG41NSTTH3M4CH1N 1 year ago
@R4GEAG41NSTTH3M4CH1N Professor Brian Cox :P
VanHalen383 1 year ago
They cant make a BLACK HOLE in the Large Hadron Collider. It takes more power then we have there.
panther247 1 year ago
@panther247 You're correct, black holes also require an enormous ammount of pressure and MASS to create
1963TNT 1 year ago
And the point of making this is too................. Destroy our planet for fun?
coolboy2554 1 year ago
Black Hole humour aside... Most of the technological marvels of the past 100 years have come in no small measure from the pursuit of war. With that in mind, would any world power invest this many Billions in this "Earth Donut" in the hopes of benign scientific understanding?
PaulGrantDesigns 1 year ago
Chris Morris in search of the elusive Shatners boson particle
JamesMSha 1 year ago
They must construct additional pylons.
deathtap 1 year ago
One of the things I want to do before I DIE:
Look down the center of that thing....
DackIsBack 1 year ago
NEEDS MORE DETECTORS...
You're not going to get the data you need with that many, Unfortunately it will take 1000 years to compute the kinda data you guys want to, The best answer you'll ever get from a computer is either 0 or in your case... 1
DackIsBack 1 year ago
Dude you are one lucky man to ge that tour. Are you friends with Brisn & Gia?
daredeveldave 1 year ago
how do we know if it wasn't the collider that created the universe? we could be stuck in a time loop a 13 million year loop to the piont of the collider trying to make stuff like the big bang. it seems like nature can't produce a big bang and it was humans that created the universe. unwittingly of course
azeivio 1 year ago
THE END IS NEAR
beltonbarilyn 1 year ago
Thanks for sharing the experience!
mattrsk 1 year ago 2
Its amazing that to see things that are smaller, we need instruments that are bigger!
antony492 1 year ago
black mesa soon?
sidthemyth 1 year ago
Is that chris Morris at around 2:00?
xytronite 1 year ago
Sadly, as you can see from the LHC webcams they run a skeleton crew of a few poor college students. Fix this link to view. meltronx com/lhcweb/ . The LHC is no big deal.
rbolo29 1 year ago
This whole place looks huge and I can't even imagine how much planning they had to do in order to build each and every single equipment..it's crazy and astonishing :o
faxik 1 year ago
ahhh I only wish I could get a tour like that!
LaPistolerina 1 year ago
Yeah, cause it really does that.
BiZinatChos 1 year ago
can anybody remember D-Ream?
psychobollox 1 year ago
Wow that's what it makes diferent from other species.. out brain.. just amazing
yoye11 1 year ago
its the inside of the death star
DewTheDewDude 1 year ago
north korea are building one of these as well
madinthehead 1 year ago
Makes perfect sense.
ervin2 1 year ago
Kuba this machine mite get rid of stavatin in 3rd world countrys coz with this thay mite be able to invet thing under ower imagination
matzer1110 1 year ago
So what exactly is the experament suppose to solve? Why do this opposed to the other efforts the funds could be used for that are visible or more applicable,just to put it into prospective.
hereforthefunny 1 year ago
@hereforthefunny Its made to see what subatomic particles do when subjected to high energies. This could show conditions particles would have underwent at a time very close to the big bang. Potentially, it could have high enough energy to find the higgs boson. As far as application, its not the point. When penicillin was invented, there was no application for it, however it revolutionized modern medicine. Thousands of examples have similar stories. We do science because we want to learn.
theclint88 1 year ago 28
@theclint88 The Big Bang. People accept this so easily! One thing is for sure: it is impossible to conceive of something more unlikely than the Big Bang. Think about it!
2012singularity2012 10 months ago
@2012singularity2012
I have thought about it. There's an entire class devoted to understanding the expansion of the universe in my undergrad degree. The evidence for it is very sound. The fact that you think its impossible to conceive of anything less likely than the Big Bang shows you have not looked at the evidence.
theclint88 10 months ago
@theclint88 Dude Penicillin saved the lives of countless soldiers during WWII. Pls get ur facts right
balakum888 7 months ago
@balakum888 Penicillin was first discovered in 1928 and while it would later serve well during WWII, at the initial time of discovery, there was no application for it. In fact, it wasn't even thought to be viable long enough in the body to counteract any bacteria-based diseases. It would take more than a decade before they realized what they had.
theclint88 7 months ago
@MrIrishlogic haha thats exactly what i try to explain to my mum when she says "But why do you want to know all this? All you need to know is that youre here." which isn't true, we were given the power to KNOW we have to use it and expand on it.
VanHalen383 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
money well spent the science cant get us off of fossil fuels , people have no work and starving to death and scientists guys want to get protons to hit each other lol I think it be better if we lunch t the scientists with the government s of the world and get them to collide heads at the speed of light now that be a nice experiment for the whole world to see lol i hope the reading that they get will tell them to go fuck them self's !!!!!!!!!
raffi7900 1 year ago
yeah people are starving and you are spending money for that piece of crap you dont need called computer... give it to charity!
want us to get off fossil fuel or sth? you have to make reserch and that costs MONEY my friend. untill you realize that or come up with an idea how to reserch new technologies without spending money i suggest you shut up with your boring idealistic, everything but realistic bullshit. if you have theory that will make world perfect SHARE IT WITH US!
KubaTheBrudzio 1 year ago 4
yes i know what muons are , yeash i trying to watch the lhc etc...
system0system0 1 year ago
It's not a question of how much money is being spent on building and operating it. What scares me is what the scientists are promising to convince the politicians to spend all that money. They been spending money building progressively larger colliders for decades.
Some I think, "It will be really cool and we will learn a lot about tiny particles", would not cut it.
Nomoreidsleft 2 years ago
Zziggi wants a billion for bible research.
gugaberg123 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's a massive waste of money.
Zziggi 2 years ago
@Zziggi it is NOT a massive waste of money!
VanHalen383 2 years ago 47
@VanHalen383 I read all the non-caps D:
Noogymonster 1 year ago
@Noogymonster What?
VanHalen383 1 year ago
@VanHalen383 it is NOT a massive waste of time, I read all the non caps... as in
is is a massive waste of time.
Noogymonster 1 year ago
@Noogymonster Your mom is a massive waste of money :)
VanHalen383 1 year ago 2
@Zziggi
I couldn't agree with you more. Whoever coming up with this theory is costing 9 billion dollars and more. Plus it takes decades to process the data. Basically they will die before anyone finds out it's a stupid investment.
rickylain 1 year ago
awsome,wish i knew more about physics its so interesting
richtwelve 2 years ago 4
LOL, ok, just escuse yourself from anythign you wish, anyone reading will see your attempt to twist what I said.
Yes, they are the same thing, they are theories. You cannot prove expansion is fact. The only thing you have to go on is others opinions of a picture of a red dot on a picture.
neoverse 2 years ago
@neoverse
Again, expansion is the observable fact, expansion theory is the attempt to explain it.
We can observe expansion happening in real time (albeit a long time) because the universe is still flying apart. Technically the only expansion we can prove is that which happened since we started to observe it and the present day, this is all that can be really considered observable; therefore factual.
Mathematical models take this information and retrace expansion to the start. This is theory.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago 3
will the hadron collider benefit mankind in anyway ?
FIGHTFANNERD3 2 years ago
@TheFounderUtopia Well, I'm sorry you believe that fairy tale and have faith in it. but that does not make it scientific fact, it's only belief. You have to believe that the whole universe was jam packed into a infinitesimal dot then one day it exploded or what ever to get what you think to be true to work out in paper. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it fact. If it were fact there would be no argument about it.
neoverse 2 years ago
@neoverse
your argument is inconsistent, you just said that you already don't have a problem with expansion. As I explained, it's observable fact that the universe is expanding away from a single point.
Something cannot expand if it was not once closer together. If you accept that the universe is expanding then you also accept that it was once *less* expanded, and that's all that I'm saying.
Belief doesn't enter into it, I don't have any opinions on what caused expansion one way or another.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
I also made it perfectly clear that the singularity theory is *seperate* from the expansion theory.
There is no way of knowing with the data that we have how expansion was initiated - all we can know for a fact is that it is expanding. The evidence indicates we're expanding apart from a single point but that doesn't necessarily mean that a singularity was at the root of it.
You're ignoring evidence you already conceded because you don't like the conclusion it leads to. That is *bad* science.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
@TheFounderUtopia Hmm, This post is pretty much bases on the same assumption made in the last post.
"big bang" and expansion are not separate, they are joined at the hip.
Who is we?
What theories or equations did you come up with to explain expansion theory?
What telescope(s) have you built to study stars?
What measuring device(s) have you built to study the light spectrum?
neoverse 2 years ago
@neoverse
Again, big bang and expansion are the SAME THING, I didn't say they're seperate. The term big bang was used to describe the expansion theory. If you haven't even understood that, then you haven't been paying attention.
I don't have the funds, nor the interest frankly, to gather the means required to observe expansion, it takes a long time to do as we need sufficient time for bodies to drift apart in order to map the changes. Fortunately the experts do, and they offer the data freely.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
@TheFounderUtopia "I also made it perfectly clear that the singularity theory is *seperate* from the expansion theory.
"
??????
neoverse 2 years ago
@TheFounderUtopia This whole post is built on a fallacy. You need to re-read my post. It in no way implies that I accept expansion as fact, you assume it to mean I accept it. It does not bother me is because it in no way can be use as evidence of a 'big bang". And please stop denying you believe in "big bang" theory you cannot have an expansion with some sort of explosion or initial cause.
neoverse 2 years ago
@neoverse
Another contradiction.
"It does not bother me is because it in no way can be use as evidence of a 'big bang"."
"you cannot have an expansion with some sort of explosion or initial cause"
If, in your own words, expansion is automatic proof of an "explosion" (which is redundant, because expansion *is* explosion) then not having a problem with expansion equates to not having a problem with the explosion.
Also, I didn't deny the big bang because it's the same thing as expansion.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
@TheFounderUtopia Making a statement does not imply agreement, unless the statement specifically points to an agreement. Try again.
Please answer the questions
neoverse 2 years ago
@neoverse
I didn't say you agreed, I said you have no problem with it. You're putting words in my mouth to accuse me of putting words in yours.
Ironic much?
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheFounderUtopia "If, in your own words, expansion is automatic proof of an "explosion" (which is redundant, because expansion *is* explosion) " Who's putting words in who's mouth?
neoverse 2 years ago
Post 1:
I do not have a clue what you find confusing about the quoted passage.
Post 2:
First of all, the quote you supplied here is not what you were referring to when you accused me of putting words in your mouth; what you were referring to was me saying that you "accept" expansion - when in truth, I did not.
Secondly, that quote is an accurate paraphrase of what you said. You told me that you cannot have expansion without an explosion. Therefore, to you, explosion is proof of expansion.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
*Note - I got the posts in the wrong order. "Post 1" refers to the one with the question marks. "Post 2" refers to the one about putting words in your mouth.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
@TheFounderUtopia I've stated throughout my post that I don't agree with expansion theory nor "big bang" theory, ((((even before the suppose examples you give))) go back and read. How could you possibly conclude any statement I've made afterwords point to me agreeing with "expansion' or 'big bang"?
neoverse 2 years ago
@neoverse
I'll tell you for the third time, I haven't said you agree with it. You told me that you don't have a problem with it, and that's all I've referenced.
The fact that I've had to repeat this triviality over and over implies you are being intentionally dishonest, trying to drag this debate in circles for fear of being wrong - I would like to believe that you're better than that.
I'll explain it again. Expansion is observable, it isn't a theory. Expansion theory attempts to explain it.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
Also, I'll explain once more than expansion theory and "big bang" theory are the same thing.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
What would colliding particles have to do with a "big bang"? Are they trying to use a "big crash" to prove a "big bang"? What crashed together to start the "big bang"? Where did the energy come from that started this "crash" or "bang"?
neoverse 2 years ago
@neoverse
The collision of the protons in the LHC may release unique energies and radiations that may only have previously been present at the start of the cosmic expansion (aka big bang).
Think of it like this... if we wanted to simulate the heat generated in the sun, we could either try to make an entire sun, or use focussed lasers to heat up a single point to that temperature.
This is basically a highly focussed simulation of some of the factors in the big bang but in a very small area.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
@TheFounderUtopia Sorry but you haven't explained anything. You've only perpetuated all the assumptions. In your own words your said; "MAY only HAVE previously been present". it doesn't matter what particles or energy are produced measured with the LHC, it doesn't prove a "big band" it only proves that they smashed something together and got a result from the smash. There's nothing there that can connect it to a "big bang".
neoverse 2 years ago
@neoverse
It's not an attempt at "proving" the big bang, it's an attempt at *understanding* it. Cosmic expansion is a fact, we know this because it's still going on, the "big bang" isn't something that happened, it's happenING.
Everything in the universe, even space itself, is all flying away from a single point, a massive burst that basic physics tells us must have certain properties.
The LHC emulates some of those properties so we can get a closer look at them and understand them better.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
@TheFounderUtopia Expansion is a theory as well as the "big bang theory". So please excuse me if I don't except it as fact. All is based on assumption. So yes it is an attempt to prove "big bang" theory in a since.
Speaking of expansion
If I were on another "planet" in a galaxy in the far reaches of the universe and I were looking back in the direction of the Earth in my own version of the hubble, tell me, what do you think I would see?
neoverse 2 years ago
@neoverse
No, expansion *theory* is a theory. What the theory attempts to do is explain the observed *fact* of expansion. Just like gravity, the *theory* of gravity is an attempt to explain the *fact* that it exists. These theories can be wrong, indeed there are conflicting theories about gravity, but the facts can't.
Understanding the difference between an observation and a theory that attempts to explain it is very important. You need to recognize that expansion is observation, NOT theory.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
Also, I can't answer your question because you didn't stipulate a distance. Hubble has a very limited range despite being highly advanced, someone at "the rar reaches of the universe" using their own hubble would likely be unable to even make out our galazy (assuming there wasn't something else in the way to block their sight of our galaxy in the first place that is).
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
@TheFounderUtopia What the heck does not being able to see galaxy have to do with what I said. The would be plenty other galaxies around to see.
neoverse 2 years ago
@neoverse
You said looking back in the direction of earth. I assumed you were asking if you would be able to see Earth or our galaxy from there.
Either way, I can't say with any certainty what you would see from there, it would take a complex universe model to extrapolate such a thing and the universe is not so well charted I think at this point to make such an estimation.
Suffice to say you would likely see plenty of other stars, galaxies, planets and nebulas from that vantage point.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
@TheFounderUtopia I agree to disagree on expansion.
1) What exploded?
2) Where did the energy to explode it come from?
3)How can something explode into a region that is nothing.
4)Even if it did explode into a region of nothing how is it that it is still expanding into that nothingness.
All of these things need to be addressed or you have no complete theory, much less a fact.
LHC is just a giant expensive toy for egg heads.
neoverse 2 years ago
I'll try to answer each of your questions in seperate posts. So please bear with me and wait for me to finish before replying.
I also ask that you be more openminded, you've clearly already come into this with your mind made up. Have some respect for science. Science is what allows us to have this conversation, and in all likelihood you already owe your life to it many times over.
The experts know what they're doing, and we need to be properly educated before we have the right to criticize.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
1) - 2)
If this information is required before we can "have a complete theory", then by the same standard, we need to understand absolutely everything about the brain before we can theorize that it is where our intelligence resides.
Cosmic expansion is not a theory on how the universe began, or what precipitated it. Cosmic expansion is a phenomenon wherein we can observe that the universe has exploded from a single point. The theory attempts to explain the expansion, not the preceeding cause.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
So just as with the brain analogy, not having all the data on something doesn't mean the data you *do* have has no value. There's no bias in observation, we don't need to be forwarding an agenda (such as speculating on what started expansion) in order to observe the expansion itself. You're the one asigning this motive, not science.
So for the theory on expansion being studied by the LHC, the actual beginnings of the universe are irrelevant. It's no more a part of that theory than evolution is.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
3)
Expansion is not an explosion of material *into* a spacial region, expansion is an explosion *of* space. Understanding this distinction is very important. Space itself is being created by the big bang and creating the void which matter is filling, the entire thing is self-contained so there is no concept of "outside" the explosion, because space would not exist outside it, and therefore there would *be* no outside of it.
We're not expanding *into* a region, we are an *expanding region.*
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
4)
Same answer. We're not expanding to occupy a space, what's happening is the fabric of space is growing. Picture a slightly limp balloon with many dots drawn on it, now picture inflating it. The distance between the dots increases, not just because they're moving, but because the space between them is actually lengthening.
The *reason* we're still expanding is because the big bang is still happening, we're all riding on the inertia of that explosion as is space itself, this is the expansion.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
You need to remember that facts are observable, theories are the conjecture. There's no such thing as a woo% proven theory in science because there could always be something we never knew about that turns everything on its head. Thus the only factual things are what we observe.
What we can observe is that the universe is for some reason expanding from a single point, the explosiong is factual because we see it. The LHC is an attempt to better understand that explosion by simulating it closely.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
*100%
No idea how that happened, lol
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
@TheFounderUtopia You need to remember your facts are only self evident. They mean nothing to me. "because there could always be something we never knew about" this is the crux of the argument, you will admit there could be something besides what you think to be true as long as it fits into your perceived idea of the universe. That is not science, real science would allow for anything to be possible, not just what you choose to label as scientific.
neoverse 2 years ago
@neoverse
"You need to remember your facts are only self evident. They mean nothing to me"
Exactly! Facts *are* self evident. :) They do not *have* any intrinsic meaning, either to you or anyone else. If an apple falls from a tree in front of you, that is a fact. What caused it, that's what you apply speculation to.
The fact that science is not so arrogant as to claim it can never be wrong is not a weakness, so pointing out that every theory is falsifiable proves that they're *good* science.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
@TheFounderUtopia LOL, sounds liek yo uread this straight out of a book. There is absolutely no proof of this balloon analogy. It's a theory.
neoverse 2 years ago
@neoverse
No... **sigh** you don't get "proof" for an analogy..
..jesus christ...
Ok, look, the balloon thing is an example to simplify the expansion of space in a way that you can relate to easier. The expansion of space is observasble fact, it isn't a theory because it doesn't need a theory.
It's like saying "It's only a theory that the apple fell from that tree just now". The theory is the *explanation*, not the observation. Why can't you understand this, I've explained it several times?
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
@TheFounderUtopia
I think you are wasting your time on this @**hole.
anythreeletters 1 year ago
@TheFounderUtopia Just because you think someone doesn't understand a particular thing doesn't make you argument fact. That's a little arrogant don't you think? The rest of this is nothing but speculation.
neoverse 2 years ago
You're putting words in my mouth, I never said my "argument" is fact because I'm not *making* an argument. Nevertheless, the fact that you don't understand this matter and yet already have made up your mind against it is indicative that you are guilty of the arrogance you accuse me of
I'm explaining the difference between theory and fact, while not *having* a theory or opinion of my own.
You are attempting to prove a theory must be wrong Without understanding it.
So which of us is arrogant?
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
@TheFounderUtopia I never said the LHC was studying expansion, that is part of your argument not mine.
Of course it matters what was before the "bang" you only say it is irrelevant because you refuse to accept that there could be another alternative. You can throw out theories, assert your opinions, try to dismiss everything with different kinds of analogies but in the end you will have to accept that there are other possibilities. Simply denying it doesn't make it go away.
neoverse 2 years ago
@neoverse
You're misunderstanding my case.I'm not refusing to accept an "alternative" because I'm not accepting anything for there to be an alternative TO. There is no theory relevant to the LHC or cosmic expansion which has anything to do with what happened to CAUSE expansion.
I don't *know* what caused it, I don't have an opinion on what caused it because there is no evidence, no observable facts on which to speculate about such a thing. The LHC is about studying the *expansion* itself.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
@TheFounderUtopia The purpose of the LHC is to try and capture the moments just after the "big bang". I've heard this from the scientist's own mouths. This implies a "big bang", never mind expansion. Expansion doesn't bother me, what bothers me is to say expansion is proof of a "big bang" when it is not. It may appear to be proof but appearances can be deceptive. But I predict, what ever they find they will use it as proof, when it cannot be proof. Collision doesn't equal "big bang"
neoverse 2 years ago
@neoverse
First of all, the phrase "big bang" was a prejorative term invented by proponants of the steady state universe model in order to make fun of the expansion model when it was first concieved. Big bang and cosmic expansion mean the same thing.
Try to understand, the observable fact is that the entire universe is expanding -you just said this doesn't bother you. The universe is flying apart. The LHC simulates the moment just after this explosion first began -not what happened before it.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
Now, while expansion theories do not offer an actual genesis theory, there are other theories out there (such as cosmic expansion triggered by an unstable supermassive singularity or the higgs boson particle).
It is possible that the LHC might give us so much information about what the universe was like the instant after it started expanding, that we might be able to figure out if any of these theories are correct. But the only thing we can actually hope for is to learn as much as we can.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
Moments after the expansion began, when the raw material of the universe was all still jammed together into one place having not yet flown very far apart, protons would have colided with each other as a part of the energetic reactions taking place at the time.
Now as I understand it, the LHC is designed to simulated those reactions, reactions that could only have previously taken place in that one instant at the start of time. There's nothing to "prove" with this, only things to understand.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
@TheFounderUtopia Brains don't explode.
All you can observe is the current state of the universe, anything you derive from that is assumption/theory.
I could walk into a kitchen and see ketchup all over the walls the floor and the ceiling, am I to assume a bottle of ketchup exploded?
neoverse 2 years ago
@neoverse
As I said, expansion is the observation, expansion theory attempts to explain it. Yes it is assumption - well, speculation really, but so is all science. If we didn't make assumptions science would stop.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
I wish I could wake up the day they pump it up to 7 TeV! Then all the ignorants would shut up and be amazed by the results.
MarioLaClop 2 years ago
trial and error doesnt work on this level.
matshadwhite 2 years ago
For space projects, a great advance.
Dauton102 2 years ago
insn't this a doomdays device dangous t earth
jamesdean220103 2 years ago
no... your thinking about catolicism
XDUNYASAINT 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Big bang theory is religion!
You cant make any science test with space. So, you cant proof, space expanding or curving.
I have science test and i can proof, photons emit energy and thats why light bending and redshifting with out expanding space and with out curving/bending space!
Etimespace videos and you know how visible Universe born and how visible Universe energy/matter moving in space who already been there!
Etimespace 2 years ago
try to press the button ( Kill )
RadioactiveAcid 2 years ago 2
Once they get this Hadron Collider up & running properly, they can finally answer the question that has bothered mankind for centuries: why does the Porridge Bird lay its eggs while it's flying??
darkIink11111111111 2 years ago 8
This makes me proud to be an evolved Ape.
buckfushes 2 years ago 3
humans didnt evolve from apes ..
humans evolved from a common ancestor wich apes ALSO evolved from -.-
christians typically debate evolution mistaking what i said for "apes"..
sidewaysfcs0718 2 years ago
Humans are apes, as the term ape doesn't refer to a particular species. Apes are members of the superfamily Hominoidea, of which humans are a part of.
Spartan9688 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Isn't it just the Rhesus blood group's that are of the superfamily Hominoidea family?
KaOssis 2 years ago
I searched online a bit and came up with the members of Hominoidea being the families Hylobatidae, Pongidae, and Hominidae.
Spartan9688 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show