Please understand that the Evolution and Creation are theories. Both are works of faith. We can only deal with what we can observe. However, our understandings of the observations are sifted through our presuppositions. If one has trouble with a particular presupposition the reason is that you may not be comfortable with or even know that you have a pre disposed view. To thine own self be true, William Shakespeare. This is the point of this woman’s objections.
These dimwits want the "weaknesses" of evolution taught in schools but how dare we demand that the "complete lack of physical evidence" of Creationsim be taught in their fundy church.
(cont. my last comment): So instead of debating for and against different models in class, it's better to learn _why_ or _how_ some theory was formed, what questions it answered that had been unexplained before, what predictions it makes and how the theory has been tested (or may be tested in the future) etc. Challenging existing theories should imo thus _not_ take a disproportionaly large amount of time from regular education. (Research into new theories is better done at universities.)
Evaluating evidence for and against different models, that is good in general. HOWEVER: Two reasons to _not_ spend too much time on that when kids are young are: a) if it takes away too much time from learning what we already know (ranging from science/biology/evolution, to math, to psychology, to history, etc), then they will be behind those who learned more. And b) there's the risk of politicizing science (e.g. by letting extreme religious groups affect future scientific litteracy).
What does that old weird lady want, to make Texas youths complete ignorants? The universe IS 13.7 billion years old, it IS expanding and it IS accelerating it's expansion, these are the facts even though they may go against the fairytales the old llady was probably taught in sunday school ages ago:)
Why do people think the universe has an age or that it began with anything? Isn't time neither linear nor occuring at a constant rate and limitless? Where is there room for a beginning or even an end?
@winterstellar "These idiots are making America look ridiculous." <- It would be bad if this was representative of the USA as a whole. If so, I don't doubt that other countries (e.g. China) will catch up quickly when it comes to scientific breakthroughs. On the other hand, people in the USA are perhaps more and more becoming aware of the current situation of scientific litteracy levels, and can do something about it before it is too late? Good luck (from Sweden).
I'm not fully convinced of the Big Bang myself. Not all observed bodies show a red shift, and even the ones that do may simply because we're spinning around near the end of a galaxial arm and our sun as well. This is something that will take more science to determine. I wouldn't be shocked if the universe is eternal honestly, and wouldn't THAT really take a bite out of creationist's claims?
@gvman3670 Kind of the point i was trying to make. Incredible when these houswifes and dentists are trying to redefine science. Hence my point about them sticking to astrology.
We need to take the manufacturing of school text books away from Texas. Way away from Texas. Religion and creation is retarded very retarded literally. How can one ignorant woman change what thousands of extremely smart scientists have come up with??????????
If they can decide that, then it is only logical that they can make a decision about something as trivial as when to start drinking and having sex. Just give it all to the damn brats.
Perhaps we should also be asking high school students to figure out a way to unite the theory of gravity with quantum mechanics.
And in an effort to teach the controversy, we should have lecture, likely at the gr 12 level since its pretty advanced, about what will happen to the Standard Model should the Higgs boson be found to have a mass of more then 180GeV
Students should also learn about problems with the SM, like Neutrio mass, and baryogenesis.
They can twist science and facts as much as they want. They can pretend no evidence exists to the contrary of their beliefs. They can lie, spin, chip away and chisel all they want.
Sad very sad...This is what happens when you get an overdose of the jesus juice....Let idiots run your country and in a few years, your no better than saudi arabia, sudan, pakistan, or afghanistan....sad very sad.
@itzahazylife And this is where democracy will fail. That is why you don't vote for who staffs a nuclear reactor, build a space shuttle, or design a skyscraper. You get specialists to do that job. The public is not smart enough to know what is best for it..
@wondergundy the american public has failed itself. through action it has chosen to invest more in self interest of the individual. It has not learned to select against cognitive dissonance and instead promotes it. Over time this will grow until the policies it implements will have more damaging effects and it will collapse. I wonder if we are spiraling into a new dark age.
@guaflar !=1 =2 is a strictly an abstract possibility. It certainly is not true on a sub atomic level. Math is not perfect. I don't know why anyone would have total faith in it.
TO HELL WITH THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLICAL ESTIMATE OF HOW OLD THE EARTH IS. I DON'T CONSULT DOCTOR SUSE FOR WHICH MEDICINE TO TAKE WHEN I GET A COLD. This makes me sick.
What the fuck would a high-school student know in regards to how old the universe is?
The people that study those kinds of things are PhD graduates in astro-physics for fucks sake! And instead of the students getting their results from the most modern astronomy there is, they're told to make up a number on their own?
This anti-science movement emerging in America is really scary!
What really stunned me was when that old witch whose part of the panel asked:
"does this open up the fact that you would be able to talk about the literal Biblical interpretation of how old the Earth is?"
How does that have ANY place what-so-ever in a science class?!!?! We're learning modern science, not Bronze Age mythology!!! This is utterly disgraceful!!! Makes me furious!!!
@1971SuperLead It is somewhat ironic that a theist should be using the word "belief" as an insult! The only belief at the heart of science is that the laws of physics are constant, so that an experiment can be repeated at another time, in another place, under the same conditions, and produce the same results. (Oh, and that knowing is better than not knowing.) Wouldn't you say this is a reasonable belief to hold?
@RedGreenInBlue I am not insulting anyone. I merely point out what seems obvious enough. All science is based on the assumption that the physical universe actually exists and that what appears as repetitious is evidence for truth. I'm not saying to throw away science, but do see it for what it is. It is based on the belief that matter exists and that repetitious events are real events.
A man must have beliefs or he will not get out of bed, but let's be honest, they are but beliefs.
@1971SuperLead Your first statement is false. Your second statement is not even wrong.
A Christian may say that he believes in God and he may also say that he believes in gravity. He may believe in both because of his experiences. However, there is a fundamental difference between a belief in God and a belief in gravity. Gravity is demonstrable, but one's beliefs in god cannot lead to experiments demonstrating existence.
@quidproquo2004 Oh no, God is quite demonstrable. Just not in a scientific way. God is actually demonstrable in a more convincing way than gravity is. The personal relationship a person can have with God is an experience that is more real than your relationship with your own mother. There is a reason that since the beginning of time and in all parts of the world man has had spiritual history. It's because it's real. More real than the earth you're standing on.
@1971SuperLead You can tell me that you have a relationship with something you call God, but that's not a demonstration of existence. If I told you that I have a relationship with the tooth fairy, would you believe me?
"There is a reason that since the beginning of time and in all parts of the world man has had spiritual history."
I don't really know what you mean by "spiritual history," but human behavior is not evidence for the existence of what you call God.
@quidproquo2004 I can't demonstrate God to you, but you can demonstrate God to yourself, if you care to.
"Spiritual history" is the history of man's spiritual beliefs.
Everything is evidence for the existence of God. Absolutely everything. But you have to be willing to see the evidence. If you don't want to see it...you won't. God will not thwart your freewill. To have every right to remain unaware of your Creator.
@1971SuperLead " "Spiritual history" is the history of man's spiritual beliefs." But this is just an argument from popularity. Just because man believes there is something greater than us that is labeled God, doesn't imply and is certainly not evidence that it exists.
Example: Lots of people believe that climatologists are conspiring with the NWO to destroy human rights...but that's simply false.
@quidproquo2004 Everythiung is evidence for God. All the churches, scriptures, cave paintings, statues, etc are all evidence of a spiritual reality. They simply are not PROOF. But their is no proof of anything. All we have is evidence....and evidence is not proof.
How do you know the universe even exists? When you study quantunm science it is quite easy to raise this question. "Reality is merely an illusion,..." - Einstein
@1971SuperLead Are the thousands of people around the world who believe that they were abducted by aliens or who believe they have encountered aliens evidence of aliens? Of course not. In fact, aside from god, it is one of the greatest examples of a thing believed in without evidence.
And I have to say, you must be working with a very different definition of evidence. From a scientific perspective, only empirical evidence is of any value.
@quidproquo2004 Yes, there is evidence for everything. You may want to do a little reseach on the word "evidence". Evidence is not proof. Evidence is merely a sign that something may be true. Evidence is not proof of something being true.....otherwise it wouldn't be evidence but proof. Hence the two different words.
Aliens are real of course. It is ridiculous to believe earth is the only planet in an invite universe to have life upon it.
I don't mean to butt in but universe means: everything that exists anywhere. I'm definitely not defending mr quid but its the one sentence he wrote that made sense. you and I are also apart of the universe
I have always held that the universe is infinite and all inclusive. Even the empty vacuums are a part of the universe.
We see this universe.......but what are we seeing? Is what we are seeing really real? Science is based on the belief that the universe is really real, but we don't really know if it is, and the reason for that.....is because it's NOT really real. It is but a dream of the Collective Imagination formed by beliefs and desires.
Much like how the sun does not revolve around the earth, nature does not revolve around man. With that in mind how in the hell can you say the universe we know is not real? As a christian myself, I find that insulting. We know something is real if it is physical and testable. How else would you use a computer?
@NUTCASE71733 If you don't want to be insulted, I suggest you grow up or stop reading You Tube comments.
Why do you believe the physical is real? Why do you believe scientific tests can determine reality? What makes you think the computer is anything more than just a dream?
I suggest you look at the world from a sub atomic perspective and now tell me what reality is, for from this level the computer looks like outer space. All objects are as solid as the universe from this perspective.
The atoms make up what we consider physical dumbass. We have no idea what else there may be as of yet, and until we know we cannot say there is anything else out there. That is known as intellectual honesty. Something you clearly lack by the sound of things.
@NUTCASE71733 Can you really see an atom? Maybe you just see the light reflecting off something. What do you really know? What can any man know except that he exists and how he feels?
I like your attempts to make your self feel superior by attempting to insult me. How's it working out for oyu?
I could say the same to you. You're insulting people's intelligence with your psychobabble. I may not be able to see an atom but they made specialized microscopes to do just that. Look up Electron Microscope and you might see some vids showing the images of real atoms. We exist. Deal with it.
@NUTCASE71733 If you're insulted by my beliefs....you've got issues. Good luck with your condition.
I said "What can any man know except that he exists and how he feels?" This sentence suggests that I do know we exist. The thing you might want to ask yourself is "What am I besides existing?"
An electron microscope proves nothing. Why do you believe knowledge can be obtained from it? What makes you so sure Truth is revealed by it? Does it even really exist?
Your beleifs are insulting for the reasons I've stated; it insults mankinds intelligence much in the same way creationism does. There is no evidence for anything beyond this reality, so we can't know if it exists or not. As such we must say we don't know yet, and we can't know until evidence presents itself. Deal with it.
@NUTCASE71733, Before I turned 16 I too could be insulted by another person's beliefs, so I guess I can understand your condition. It was a great liberation to discover people's beliefs have no impact on me. I hope you make this discovery soon.
There is evidence for everything, however evidence is never proof, hence the two different words and definitions. But if you believe that evidence equals proof, I don't mind, enjoy your fantasy.
Evidence is paramount in science. There is evidence we exist, but there is no evidence for what you suggest. Until evidence is found we can't say we know something exists. That is blind faith, which is what religion relies on. I may be christian but I'll accept the idea god isn't real when the time comes.
The universe as we know it IS reality so your point is rendered moot. Don't try to act like every other nutjob who says "Talk to god more", you'll get shot down every time.
@NUTCASE71733 It seems that your definition of reality came to you rather thoughtlessly. If you believe that physical objects really exist, that's your right, but I believe if you dared to question these beliefs you'd find out that your conclusions are not founded on the unshakable.
Don't forget to talk to God...my Christian friend.
I suppose the reason why these creationists have so much trouble wrapping their minds around the idea of universal expansion, is that their minds are incapable of personal expansion.
@SinnFein4ever These people are in charge of education standards, I guess these guys are the back up plan if the riddlin, fluriod and aspartame, don't work to dumb down the population.
How do I rate this...do I like the video for making sure people know what people are trying to push on the world...or do I dislike it because the people talking are full of it?
yes... lets' let HIGH SCHOOL students discuss how many billions of years old the universe is... then we can ask them the best course of action when surgically removing a brain tumor...
Since when do council board have the say of what is science and what is not science? There were scientists there, and some idiots who confused up everything. Listen to the scientists.
@lordnimr0d The redshift of light due to special relativity is what he's talking about. hes obviously a creationist and this is 'his thing' that he talks about. Ask him anything outside that and he has no clue.
light passing a gravity well will be red-shifted, but thats reversed again as the light leaves the well!
Basically this guy goes to a channel, asks his opening question then launches into his retarded little Q&A.
@MumblingMickey creationist? wow your a weirdo no wonder you guys couldnt beat the english. i'm trying to learn something and the only person who made any sense at all was "gamesbok" but i used a bad analogy to start off with.
@kenny8331 you used an atrocious analogy to begin with... a really, really, really bad one...
the concept of 'red shifting' has nothing to do with the idea of light being 'scattered' by the dust in the atmosphere... you can't in fact actaully see the red shift of a star without a spectrometer, its not part of the visible spectrum.
So telling someone else their understanding of relativity is bad, and using such an analogy is pretty much creationist as it gets. You should sign up! you qualify.
yipppeee... excellant, all that industry and business will be coming my way... nice to see finally America screwing itself up....way to go...
Now all we Europeans need to do is get the Chinese to manufacture...and get US companies to move to Europe...where our population are obviously educated... then we can package your shit and sell it back to you....
I'd give the US a decade or so...then its all downhill... super stuff
The irony: Houston, Texas is home to NASA's Mission Control Center which helped put a man on the moon, whose astronauts brought back moon rocks 4.5 billion years old, which helped scientists understand the age of our solar system and the formation of our moon.
What the fuck is this lady chattin about? The scientific community has 'estimated' the age of the universe to 13.75 +/- 0.17 billion years. What group of morons elected this retard to be in control of what children learn in the science classroom. This shit drives me insane...
@lordnimr0d just look up "einstien eclipse" or something like that. its the light that is red shifted, not the star itself, just the light that passes by the sun
@lordnimr0d actually it does. you dont know what your talking about. its a known and proven fact that a stars light is red shifted when it is next to the sun during a solar eclipse compared to when it is farther away from the suns gravity. and to say that the stars light isnt affected by our suns gravity is ridiculous if you know anything about GR
@kenny8331 Thats not true, I have no idea at all where you are getting this idiocy from. The suns gravity will bend light in accordance with special relativity as the light approaches the sun. A stars light will redshift as it passes by the suns gravity well, however it blue shifts back again it leaves that gravity well thus there is no difference whatsoever from an observer on earths perspective.
Now read a book and stop being such a moron! And erm, I know a LOT about general relativity!
@MumblingMickey what i was asking was if the passing by alot of stars or gravity on the way here could make it look red shifted to us. maybe if it happens enough times we could observe it here. maybe you didnt read everything i said cause i dont think you understood what i was saying genius.
@kenny8331 even if the light from a star passed by a billion stars on its way... it wouldn't make a tiny bit of difference to the red/blue shift from an observer on earths perspective... the quantity of stars is irrelevant... and the only thing that could halt that light is something massive enough to bed the light so much it never escaped the well... which is how black holes are detected.
@MumblingMickey wait i thought they were detected by surrounding bodies motions, x-rays and lensing not the halting of light. doesnt light lose some energy when it passes thru the dense gravity also causing the light to have to travel farther before it gets to earth?
@kenny8331 Black holes are detected using a mass spectrometry of passing stars... when that spectral analysis is interrupted by the 'absence' of the elements previously detected and no electromagnetic or other radiation is received then thats basically a black hole...
For this reason since you are trying to detect the ABSENCE of something then black holes are hard to find... because they have to pass in front of something... usually a parent star they are in orbit around.
@kenny8331 lensing refers to the facility for light to be 'bent' around spacetime, that doesn't slow light down, light has no mass.
It just takes the light 'longer' to go around the curve in spacetime. A 'lensing' effect leaves a footprint that tells you how wide the arc is to start with just as a regular magnify glass does. Using the standard lensing 4GM/rc^2 to work out the angle of deflection the mass of the lens is calculated.
In fact a search is on to use this phenomena AS a telescope.
@MumblingMickey well i thought that redshift is also used as a measurement of time. so i figured that if the lensing makes the light travel farther it would take more time to travel that longer distance therefore changing the redshift. the more gravity, the more lensing, the more distance, the more time, the more redshift
@kenny8331 red shifting is a measurement of the acceleration of an object 'relative' to an observer at any given point. If you got on a space craft and headed toward a red shifted star faster than its heading away from you...then it would appear blue shifted...but only blue shifted to you! and if you were in front of it... in its path...it will appear blue shifted.
but a lens won't affect the speed of the object behind it... nor will affect its distance... nor its calculated distance.
Cont. All lenses affect the time it takes light to traverse their well... to make the object appear 1% closer would require a pretty massive well... thus a hugely massive object...
The effect was predicted by Einstein but wasn't observed in nature until the 70's some time... not sure who discovered it... but it was two distant quasars known boringly enough as the twin quasars!
And gravitational lenses like this, by their nature, tell us more precisely how distant the observed object is.
@MumblingMickey oh i thought you were saying the lights longer wavelength(redshift) was caused by [the expansion of "spacetime"] stretching the light.
@kenny8331 It doesn't 'stretch it' expanding the fabric of space time just like pulling all four corners of a rubber sheet will simply increase the distance... but only from the perspective of an observer standing beside the rubber sheet.
The red shift is caused by an increase in the wavelength of the light yes, and a blue shift by a decrease. As I said those correct themselves while entering and leaving a gravitational field. Unless you are INSIDE the well. On earth we are inside a well.
@kenny8331 Well the fact is that the gravity well extends quite far... but eventually the force is so weak that neither object can affect the other to any degree. One of the more famous laws governing this is Gauss's law of gravity. Fg=mg(r).
And yes we are taking measurements from inside a gravity well (even from hubble which does have mass!
But earth is not exactly a massive object. So we compensate for that in the same way we patch GPS satellites to account for relativity.
@kenny8331 well no we don't bother really... the earths mass is so small in comparison that we'd really only be compensating by something like nanoseconds.
For objects like GPS satellites in orbit around the earth... if we didn't take account of the earths gravity well then GPS satellites would fall out by 7 km a day!
But for distant quasars an extra nanosecond or two added to a few billion years makes no difference.
We don't bother to compensate for objects that are not at great astronomical distances when there is a direct line of sight. Even though the combined mass of objects in the way might throw off calculations, the miscalculation by the computers we use is larger.
From earth the difference between each is off by about one year out of billions.
If we were trying to send data TO such a distant object through the lens that would be a different matter!
@MumblingMickey oh ok. can someting be outside the gravity well and still orbit the object causing the well? btw thanks for explaining all this to me because i have no other way of learning. my internet is on my phone and most pages i try to read just wont show up on it and theres no way i could learn this stuff from the few books they have on these subjects at the libraries around here. i cant even watch video on this phone(never even saw this one) but i can comment and ask questions so thanks
@kenny8331 "can someting be outside the gravity well and still orbit the object causing the well? "
No.
But the 'gravity' effect and the 'time dilation' effect are governed differently... time dilation and therefore lensing are expressed by whats called Schwarzschild metric which I can't type here... YT doesn't allow me to use mathematical expressions.
@kenny8331 But the facility makes more DISTANT objects appear closer... not further away... essentially it tells you that more distant objects are nearer to the observer... So a galaxy (or usually portion of a galaxy) that looks as it its 5.51 billion light years distant might actually be 5.55 billion light years distant.
A lens...just like any lens makes the object appear closer... not further. But the lens itself is auto correcting in spectrometry... the red or blue shift is not affected!
@MumblingMickey with the lensed twins, when does the light "split"? is it after it leaves the star it splits at the lense or does it go around in the two directions straight from the star?
@kenny8331 A lens is basically a dent in space an analogy might be putting a bowling ball on a stretched rubber sheet with a checkered pattern on it. The bowling ball makes a dent in the sheet, if we left the dent and removed the ball, whats left we consider a gravity well.
When light reaches the gravity well it continues to follow a straight line, but space is distorted now, so a straight line is longer. Since a real gravity well is 4 dimensional the light goes around it in all directions!
@kenny8331 It'd certainly be very unlikely they were perfectly in sync... but that because the lens is not directly in front of them... just like moving your head if you put a magnifying glass over something....
@kenny8331 In addition gravitational lenses are transitory because the stars, the earth and the object in between must be in alignment for the effect to take place.
What might effect the time 'perceived' by the observer would be the opposite of a gravitational lens... a bump in space-time. Every massive object creates a well or 'dent' in specetime... theoretically space-time can be bent the other way too!
But there are no known instances of this. It would require the exact opposite of gravity.
@kenny8331 No gravity is gravity, even attractant objects can move away from one another. ... the closest to the opposite of gravity (which has not yet been observed ) is the very weak force of dark energy... which does have a 'repulsion' rather than an attraction... the problem with dark energy of course is that you'd need an entire universe of the stuff to create any meaningful repulsion.
You can download tons of books free of charge from Project Gutenberg.
@MumblingMickey dark energy causes expansion which is measured with the redshift. isnt that what we were talking about man. is there any other way the redshift can be explained?
@kenny8331 The expansion due to dark energy...hmmm... well firstly dark energy is theoretical and we haven't observed any yet even though it accounts for over 70% of the universe. However objects physically moving away from one another is what causes the redshift, the actual acceleration.
Its not even clear right now that dark energy has the repulsion effect that increases the universes size... So the only answer I can give you is 'I don't know', You'd need to ask roger penrose.
@kenny8331 However if you are interested in this area of physics (Spectroscopy) you can start by reading up on Edwin Hubble, or in the case of learning a little about Relativity, gravity and light from a basic perspective Leonard Susskind has a few online lectures.
And btw I'm of German decent... a group who also managed to lose a war against the English!
Why is someone that is not an expert in science allowed to post a stupid comment on youtube? Can some one post the contact info of this guy? This makes me sick.
i have a couple questions i dont understand. why is the sky red when the sun is setting? we know the sun isnt racing away from us but it seems to be red shifted at times and could this have anything to do with the reason that the galaxys we see are red shifted?
@MomoTheBellyDancer i just looked it up it says "Solar radiation travels in a straight line unless it is deflected by gravity or by particles of matter.This process is why the sky appears red at dawn or dusk.Because light travelling to you at these times has been subjected to far more extensive scattering." Whats that mean?the more stuff between you and a star the more red it will look but it wont affect the shifting of light even if the light is scattered toward red for a bunch of light years?
@MomoTheBellyDancer i'm not talking about "earths" atmosphere, im sure there are places dense enough like gas clouds or with enough gravity along the way to earth and i thought theres no such thing as a vacuum.during an eclipse the stars next to the sun are more red shifted than when they arent near the suns gravity so wouldnt they go by alot of stars on the way here?my computer is on my phone so i cant read as much as i would like.most pages dont work.never even seen this video.
"Is there some sort of ailment that prevents you from opening a book? "
Would you believe that guy according o his profile is 30 years old... 30! ...not 3 years old... or 13... actaully 30 years old... a grown adult...presumably with kids! Wow!
If I came across somebody in real life that was said stuff like that I'd assume they were mentally retarded... yet he can type!
Poor americans,why are you so eager to throw common sense and logic out the window. Next up will be to get rid of doctors and surgeons because prayer is sufficient?
Please understand that the Evolution and Creation are theories. Both are works of faith. We can only deal with what we can observe. However, our understandings of the observations are sifted through our presuppositions. If one has trouble with a particular presupposition the reason is that you may not be comfortable with or even know that you have a pre disposed view. To thine own self be true, William Shakespeare. This is the point of this woman’s objections.
Reddogovereasy 6 days ago
These dimwits want the "weaknesses" of evolution taught in schools but how dare we demand that the "complete lack of physical evidence" of Creationsim be taught in their fundy church.
jknengr796 1 month ago
(cont. my last comment): So instead of debating for and against different models in class, it's better to learn _why_ or _how_ some theory was formed, what questions it answered that had been unexplained before, what predictions it makes and how the theory has been tested (or may be tested in the future) etc. Challenging existing theories should imo thus _not_ take a disproportionaly large amount of time from regular education. (Research into new theories is better done at universities.)
0debug 2 months ago
Evaluating evidence for and against different models, that is good in general. HOWEVER: Two reasons to _not_ spend too much time on that when kids are young are: a) if it takes away too much time from learning what we already know (ranging from science/biology/evolution, to math, to psychology, to history, etc), then they will be behind those who learned more. And b) there's the risk of politicizing science (e.g. by letting extreme religious groups affect future scientific litteracy).
0debug 2 months ago
And now all your kids can work at wallmart. LOL
krapptacular 2 months ago in playlist More videos from NatCen4ScienceEd
What does that old weird lady want, to make Texas youths complete ignorants? The universe IS 13.7 billion years old, it IS expanding and it IS accelerating it's expansion, these are the facts even though they may go against the fairytales the old llady was probably taught in sunday school ages ago:)
winterstellar 3 months ago
Why do people think the universe has an age or that it began with anything? Isn't time neither linear nor occuring at a constant rate and limitless? Where is there room for a beginning or even an end?
kyjodo 4 months ago
its just there always has been no beginning no end .Who says theres been a big bang? humans lol we know nothing apart from fuck the planet up ;)
coljohno79 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@coljohno79 Actually we do know there was a big bang...
Helge129 4 months ago
These idiots are making America look ridiculous. How can a lady as ignorant as that be allowed to be on a board on education?
winterstellar 5 months ago 5
@winterstellar MONEY.
shifragri 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@winterstellar "These idiots are making America look ridiculous." <- It would be bad if this was representative of the USA as a whole. If so, I don't doubt that other countries (e.g. China) will catch up quickly when it comes to scientific breakthroughs. On the other hand, people in the USA are perhaps more and more becoming aware of the current situation of scientific litteracy levels, and can do something about it before it is too late? Good luck (from Sweden).
0debug 2 months ago
I'm not fully convinced of the Big Bang myself. Not all observed bodies show a red shift, and even the ones that do may simply because we're spinning around near the end of a galaxial arm and our sun as well. This is something that will take more science to determine. I wouldn't be shocked if the universe is eternal honestly, and wouldn't THAT really take a bite out of creationist's claims?
gvman3670 5 months ago
Stick to astrology dumb bi*¤h.
baldurus1 5 months ago
@baldurus1 No, I think kids should stick to "astronomy" in class. LOL
gvman3670 5 months ago
@gvman3670 Kind of the point i was trying to make. Incredible when these houswifes and dentists are trying to redefine science. Hence my point about them sticking to astrology.
baldurus1 5 months ago
We need to take the manufacturing of school text books away from Texas. Way away from Texas. Religion and creation is retarded very retarded literally. How can one ignorant woman change what thousands of extremely smart scientists have come up with??????????
baxtar1963 5 months ago
If they can decide that, then it is only logical that they can make a decision about something as trivial as when to start drinking and having sex. Just give it all to the damn brats.
minirock000 6 months ago
what the fuck I don't even... I mean wtf?
Lunacy.
preacherZer0 6 months ago
and people say religion isn't harmful.
aierce 7 months ago
i think my IQ dropped a little as I watched this.
ndrthrdr1 7 months ago
Perhaps we should also be asking high school students to figure out a way to unite the theory of gravity with quantum mechanics.
And in an effort to teach the controversy, we should have lecture, likely at the gr 12 level since its pretty advanced, about what will happen to the Standard Model should the Higgs boson be found to have a mass of more then 180GeV
Students should also learn about problems with the SM, like Neutrio mass, and baryogenesis.
Teach the controversy!
Craigmw45 7 months ago
This is Rick Perry's vision for the entire country. (He appointed her).
artgoat 7 months ago 6
They can twist science and facts as much as they want. They can pretend no evidence exists to the contrary of their beliefs. They can lie, spin, chip away and chisel all they want.
They won't get away with it.
Coryscott5 7 months ago
Should i like or dislike this clip???
I mean this women is SOO STUPID!!!
wearsil09 7 months ago
oh my god... D:
CarlSagan6 7 months ago
Sad very sad...This is what happens when you get an overdose of the jesus juice....Let idiots run your country and in a few years, your no better than saudi arabia, sudan, pakistan, or afghanistan....sad very sad.
ueks69 7 months ago 2
Comment removed
ueks69 7 months ago
I cried at the end.
SmallGreenPlanetoid 8 months ago
Let me ask thing. Why aren't scientists on boards of education. Why are they putting uneducated retards on them?
AndrzejWLipski 10 months ago
@AndrzejWLipski
because they get elected to the board of education..i guess the people of texas want people they can have a beer with on the board of education.
itzahazylife 10 months ago
@itzahazylife And this is where democracy will fail. That is why you don't vote for who staffs a nuclear reactor, build a space shuttle, or design a skyscraper. You get specialists to do that job. The public is not smart enough to know what is best for it..
AndrzejWLipski 10 months ago
@AndrzejWLipski IF THE PUBLIC IS TRULY NOT SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW WHAT IS GOOD FOR IT.....THE EDUCATION SYSTEM HAS FAILED US.
wondergundy 9 months ago
@wondergundy the american public has failed itself. through action it has chosen to invest more in self interest of the individual. It has not learned to select against cognitive dissonance and instead promotes it. Over time this will grow until the policies it implements will have more damaging effects and it will collapse. I wonder if we are spiraling into a new dark age.
AndrzejWLipski 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cargill you mindless twit
AndrzejWLipski 10 months ago
I'm getting sick from watching this...
UnmannedTricycle 11 months ago
How the hell would high school students be able to make any estimate as to the age of the universe?
bogartnumbertwo 11 months ago
Let's face it....school teaches nothing but opinions.
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead correct! math is an opinion. maybe 1 + 1 = 3... hmmm..
guaflar 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead correct! math is an opinion. maybe 1 + 1 = 3... hmmm..
guaflar 1 year ago
@guaflar !=1 =2 is a strictly an abstract possibility. It certainly is not true on a sub atomic level. Math is not perfect. I don't know why anyone would have total faith in it.
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead Oops. I meant 1 + 1 = 2 is strictly an opinion.
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
How did these people get those jobs?
Forserean 1 year ago
Holy crap, this is terrifying! How can they get away with this?
GrimJackal 1 year ago
that is like saying the earth is flat...she is not qualified to be in her position...
gergsar 1 year ago
TO HELL WITH THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLICAL ESTIMATE OF HOW OLD THE EARTH IS. I DON'T CONSULT DOCTOR SUSE FOR WHICH MEDICINE TO TAKE WHEN I GET A COLD. This makes me sick.
XXXREVOLVERXXX 1 year ago
So.. when did the United States become a 3rd world country in terms of science?
Did we give up after we put a man on the moon?
A0DBOB 1 year ago
@TheJohnFrum
These ID-proponents are nothing but intellectual vandals.
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
What the fuck would a high-school student know in regards to how old the universe is?
The people that study those kinds of things are PhD graduates in astro-physics for fucks sake! And instead of the students getting their results from the most modern astronomy there is, they're told to make up a number on their own?
This anti-science movement emerging in America is really scary!
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
what a bunch of tolls, these ID-eots are dumbing down your nation, it is sad on so many levels.
ueks69 1 year ago
@ueks69
What really stunned me was when that old witch whose part of the panel asked:
"does this open up the fact that you would be able to talk about the literal Biblical interpretation of how old the Earth is?"
How does that have ANY place what-so-ever in a science class?!!?! We're learning modern science, not Bronze Age mythology!!! This is utterly disgraceful!!! Makes me furious!!!
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
What a bunch of tools.......These ID-eots is dumbing down your nation, it is sad on so many levels.
ueks69 1 year ago
Please, please keep religion out of science classes.
quidproquo2004 1 year ago 40
@quidproquo2004 But science is a religion. It is based on nothing but beliefs.
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead It is somewhat ironic that a theist should be using the word "belief" as an insult! The only belief at the heart of science is that the laws of physics are constant, so that an experiment can be repeated at another time, in another place, under the same conditions, and produce the same results. (Oh, and that knowing is better than not knowing.) Wouldn't you say this is a reasonable belief to hold?
RedGreenInBlue 1 year ago
@RedGreenInBlue I am not insulting anyone. I merely point out what seems obvious enough. All science is based on the assumption that the physical universe actually exists and that what appears as repetitious is evidence for truth. I'm not saying to throw away science, but do see it for what it is. It is based on the belief that matter exists and that repetitious events are real events.
A man must have beliefs or he will not get out of bed, but let's be honest, they are but beliefs.
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead Your first statement is false. Your second statement is not even wrong.
A Christian may say that he believes in God and he may also say that he believes in gravity. He may believe in both because of his experiences. However, there is a fundamental difference between a belief in God and a belief in gravity. Gravity is demonstrable, but one's beliefs in god cannot lead to experiments demonstrating existence.
quidproquo2004 1 year ago
@quidproquo2004 Oh no, God is quite demonstrable. Just not in a scientific way. God is actually demonstrable in a more convincing way than gravity is. The personal relationship a person can have with God is an experience that is more real than your relationship with your own mother. There is a reason that since the beginning of time and in all parts of the world man has had spiritual history. It's because it's real. More real than the earth you're standing on.
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead You can tell me that you have a relationship with something you call God, but that's not a demonstration of existence. If I told you that I have a relationship with the tooth fairy, would you believe me?
"There is a reason that since the beginning of time and in all parts of the world man has had spiritual history."
I don't really know what you mean by "spiritual history," but human behavior is not evidence for the existence of what you call God.
quidproquo2004 1 year ago
@quidproquo2004 I can't demonstrate God to you, but you can demonstrate God to yourself, if you care to.
"Spiritual history" is the history of man's spiritual beliefs.
Everything is evidence for the existence of God. Absolutely everything. But you have to be willing to see the evidence. If you don't want to see it...you won't. God will not thwart your freewill. To have every right to remain unaware of your Creator.
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
@1971SuperLead " "Spiritual history" is the history of man's spiritual beliefs." But this is just an argument from popularity. Just because man believes there is something greater than us that is labeled God, doesn't imply and is certainly not evidence that it exists.
Example: Lots of people believe that climatologists are conspiring with the NWO to destroy human rights...but that's simply false.
How do you know that the universe was created?
quidproquo2004 11 months ago
@quidproquo2004 Everythiung is evidence for God. All the churches, scriptures, cave paintings, statues, etc are all evidence of a spiritual reality. They simply are not PROOF. But their is no proof of anything. All we have is evidence....and evidence is not proof.
How do you know the universe even exists? When you study quantunm science it is quite easy to raise this question. "Reality is merely an illusion,..." - Einstein
1971SuperLead 11 months ago
@1971SuperLead Are the thousands of people around the world who believe that they were abducted by aliens or who believe they have encountered aliens evidence of aliens? Of course not. In fact, aside from god, it is one of the greatest examples of a thing believed in without evidence.
And I have to say, you must be working with a very different definition of evidence. From a scientific perspective, only empirical evidence is of any value.
I'm a part of the universe. That's how I know.
quidproquo2004 11 months ago
@quidproquo2004 Yes, there is evidence for everything. You may want to do a little reseach on the word "evidence". Evidence is not proof. Evidence is merely a sign that something may be true. Evidence is not proof of something being true.....otherwise it wouldn't be evidence but proof. Hence the two different words.
Aliens are real of course. It is ridiculous to believe earth is the only planet in an invite universe to have life upon it.
How do you know you are part of the universe?
1971SuperLead 11 months ago
@1971SuperLead
I don't mean to butt in but universe means: everything that exists anywhere. I'm definitely not defending mr quid but its the one sentence he wrote that made sense. you and I are also apart of the universe
heeh2 11 months ago
@heeh2 Funny you wrote "apart". Just coincidence?
I have always held that the universe is infinite and all inclusive. Even the empty vacuums are a part of the universe.
We see this universe.......but what are we seeing? Is what we are seeing really real? Science is based on the belief that the universe is really real, but we don't really know if it is, and the reason for that.....is because it's NOT really real. It is but a dream of the Collective Imagination formed by beliefs and desires.
1971SuperLead 11 months ago
@1971SuperLead
well, that's just a tautology.
heeh2 11 months ago
@heeh2 Exactly what are you seeking clarification on?
1971SuperLead 11 months ago
@1971SuperLead
I'm not seeking clarification... you responded to my satisfaction :)
I was just saying that the rant attached to the response is a tautology.
heeh2 11 months ago
@1971SuperLead
Much like how the sun does not revolve around the earth, nature does not revolve around man. With that in mind how in the hell can you say the universe we know is not real? As a christian myself, I find that insulting. We know something is real if it is physical and testable. How else would you use a computer?
NUTCASE71733 10 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 If you don't want to be insulted, I suggest you grow up or stop reading You Tube comments.
Why do you believe the physical is real? Why do you believe scientific tests can determine reality? What makes you think the computer is anything more than just a dream?
I suggest you look at the world from a sub atomic perspective and now tell me what reality is, for from this level the computer looks like outer space. All objects are as solid as the universe from this perspective.
1971SuperLead 10 months ago
@1971SuperLead
The atoms make up what we consider physical dumbass. We have no idea what else there may be as of yet, and until we know we cannot say there is anything else out there. That is known as intellectual honesty. Something you clearly lack by the sound of things.
NUTCASE71733 10 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 Can you really see an atom? Maybe you just see the light reflecting off something. What do you really know? What can any man know except that he exists and how he feels?
I like your attempts to make your self feel superior by attempting to insult me. How's it working out for oyu?
1971SuperLead 10 months ago
@1971SuperLead
I could say the same to you. You're insulting people's intelligence with your psychobabble. I may not be able to see an atom but they made specialized microscopes to do just that. Look up Electron Microscope and you might see some vids showing the images of real atoms. We exist. Deal with it.
NUTCASE71733 10 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 If you're insulted by my beliefs....you've got issues. Good luck with your condition.
I said "What can any man know except that he exists and how he feels?" This sentence suggests that I do know we exist. The thing you might want to ask yourself is "What am I besides existing?"
An electron microscope proves nothing. Why do you believe knowledge can be obtained from it? What makes you so sure Truth is revealed by it? Does it even really exist?
1971SuperLead 10 months ago
@1971SuperLead
Your beleifs are insulting for the reasons I've stated; it insults mankinds intelligence much in the same way creationism does. There is no evidence for anything beyond this reality, so we can't know if it exists or not. As such we must say we don't know yet, and we can't know until evidence presents itself. Deal with it.
NUTCASE71733 10 months ago
@NUTCASE71733, Before I turned 16 I too could be insulted by another person's beliefs, so I guess I can understand your condition. It was a great liberation to discover people's beliefs have no impact on me. I hope you make this discovery soon.
There is evidence for everything, however evidence is never proof, hence the two different words and definitions. But if you believe that evidence equals proof, I don't mind, enjoy your fantasy.
1971SuperLead 10 months ago
@1971SuperLead
Evidence is paramount in science. There is evidence we exist, but there is no evidence for what you suggest. Until evidence is found we can't say we know something exists. That is blind faith, which is what religion relies on. I may be christian but I'll accept the idea god isn't real when the time comes.
NUTCASE71733 10 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 Science is the study of the physical universe, not reality. There is proof we exist and there is evidence that everything else exists.
Blind faith is believing science can detect reality. You'd be better off with philosophy.
You could know God. You just need to talk to him more.
1971SuperLead 10 months ago
@1971SuperLead
The universe as we know it IS reality so your point is rendered moot. Don't try to act like every other nutjob who says "Talk to god more", you'll get shot down every time.
NUTCASE71733 10 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 It seems that your definition of reality came to you rather thoughtlessly. If you believe that physical objects really exist, that's your right, but I believe if you dared to question these beliefs you'd find out that your conclusions are not founded on the unshakable.
Don't forget to talk to God...my Christian friend.
1971SuperLead 10 months ago
I suppose the reason why these creationists have so much trouble wrapping their minds around the idea of universal expansion, is that their minds are incapable of personal expansion.
SinnFein4ever 1 year ago 2
@SinnFein4ever These people are in charge of education standards, I guess these guys are the back up plan if the riddlin, fluriod and aspartame, don't work to dumb down the population.
Bristow42 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
These people should be executed.
tyrvidar 1 year ago
These people make me depressed to be Texan....at least my representative on the SBoE is sane and voted against these whackjobs.
sakar181 1 year ago 3
How do I rate this...do I like the video for making sure people know what people are trying to push on the world...or do I dislike it because the people talking are full of it?
geminirat84 1 year ago 5
yes... lets' let HIGH SCHOOL students discuss how many billions of years old the universe is... then we can ask them the best course of action when surgically removing a brain tumor...
xxxxkimoxxxx 1 year ago 37
she is an idiot
she has to read even her own questions
not a scientist just a lucky cunt with a good job
she thinks is smart now
Johnandvanessa 1 year ago
Since when do council board have the say of what is science and what is not science? There were scientists there, and some idiots who confused up everything. Listen to the scientists.
Entertainmentwf 1 year ago
Holy shit wow!
paolo27th 1 year ago
@lordnimr0d The redshift of light due to special relativity is what he's talking about. hes obviously a creationist and this is 'his thing' that he talks about. Ask him anything outside that and he has no clue.
light passing a gravity well will be red-shifted, but thats reversed again as the light leaves the well!
Basically this guy goes to a channel, asks his opening question then launches into his retarded little Q&A.
This time he bumped into the wrong guy. ;)
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey creationist? wow your a weirdo no wonder you guys couldnt beat the english. i'm trying to learn something and the only person who made any sense at all was "gamesbok" but i used a bad analogy to start off with.
kenny8331 1 year ago
@kenny8331 you used an atrocious analogy to begin with... a really, really, really bad one...
the concept of 'red shifting' has nothing to do with the idea of light being 'scattered' by the dust in the atmosphere... you can't in fact actaully see the red shift of a star without a spectrometer, its not part of the visible spectrum.
So telling someone else their understanding of relativity is bad, and using such an analogy is pretty much creationist as it gets. You should sign up! you qualify.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
yipppeee... excellant, all that industry and business will be coming my way... nice to see finally America screwing itself up....way to go...
Now all we Europeans need to do is get the Chinese to manufacture...and get US companies to move to Europe...where our population are obviously educated... then we can package your shit and sell it back to you....
I'd give the US a decade or so...then its all downhill... super stuff
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
The irony: Houston, Texas is home to NASA's Mission Control Center which helped put a man on the moon, whose astronauts brought back moon rocks 4.5 billion years old, which helped scientists understand the age of our solar system and the formation of our moon.
KFalcon17 1 year ago
What the fuck is this lady chattin about? The scientific community has 'estimated' the age of the universe to 13.75 +/- 0.17 billion years. What group of morons elected this retard to be in control of what children learn in the science classroom. This shit drives me insane...
xxzmikezxx 1 year ago
The stupid...
it BURNS!!!
singring76 1 year ago 5
@lordnimr0d just look up "einstien eclipse" or something like that. its the light that is red shifted, not the star itself, just the light that passes by the sun
kenny8331 1 year ago
@lordnimr0d not the star itself nimrod. the stars light
kenny8331 1 year ago
@lordnimr0d actually it does. you dont know what your talking about. its a known and proven fact that a stars light is red shifted when it is next to the sun during a solar eclipse compared to when it is farther away from the suns gravity. and to say that the stars light isnt affected by our suns gravity is ridiculous if you know anything about GR
kenny8331 1 year ago
@kenny8331 Thats not true, I have no idea at all where you are getting this idiocy from. The suns gravity will bend light in accordance with special relativity as the light approaches the sun. A stars light will redshift as it passes by the suns gravity well, however it blue shifts back again it leaves that gravity well thus there is no difference whatsoever from an observer on earths perspective.
Now read a book and stop being such a moron! And erm, I know a LOT about general relativity!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey what i was asking was if the passing by alot of stars or gravity on the way here could make it look red shifted to us. maybe if it happens enough times we could observe it here. maybe you didnt read everything i said cause i dont think you understood what i was saying genius.
kenny8331 1 year ago
@kenny8331 even if the light from a star passed by a billion stars on its way... it wouldn't make a tiny bit of difference to the red/blue shift from an observer on earths perspective... the quantity of stars is irrelevant... and the only thing that could halt that light is something massive enough to bed the light so much it never escaped the well... which is how black holes are detected.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey wait i thought they were detected by surrounding bodies motions, x-rays and lensing not the halting of light. doesnt light lose some energy when it passes thru the dense gravity also causing the light to have to travel farther before it gets to earth?
kenny8331 1 year ago
@kenny8331 Black holes are detected using a mass spectrometry of passing stars... when that spectral analysis is interrupted by the 'absence' of the elements previously detected and no electromagnetic or other radiation is received then thats basically a black hole...
For this reason since you are trying to detect the ABSENCE of something then black holes are hard to find... because they have to pass in front of something... usually a parent star they are in orbit around.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@kenny8331 lensing refers to the facility for light to be 'bent' around spacetime, that doesn't slow light down, light has no mass.
It just takes the light 'longer' to go around the curve in spacetime. A 'lensing' effect leaves a footprint that tells you how wide the arc is to start with just as a regular magnify glass does. Using the standard lensing 4GM/rc^2 to work out the angle of deflection the mass of the lens is calculated.
In fact a search is on to use this phenomena AS a telescope.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey well i thought that redshift is also used as a measurement of time. so i figured that if the lensing makes the light travel farther it would take more time to travel that longer distance therefore changing the redshift. the more gravity, the more lensing, the more distance, the more time, the more redshift
kenny8331 1 year ago
@kenny8331 red shifting is a measurement of the acceleration of an object 'relative' to an observer at any given point. If you got on a space craft and headed toward a red shifted star faster than its heading away from you...then it would appear blue shifted...but only blue shifted to you! and if you were in front of it... in its path...it will appear blue shifted.
but a lens won't affect the speed of the object behind it... nor will affect its distance... nor its calculated distance.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
Cont. All lenses affect the time it takes light to traverse their well... to make the object appear 1% closer would require a pretty massive well... thus a hugely massive object...
The effect was predicted by Einstein but wasn't observed in nature until the 70's some time... not sure who discovered it... but it was two distant quasars known boringly enough as the twin quasars!
And gravitational lenses like this, by their nature, tell us more precisely how distant the observed object is.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey oh i thought you were saying the lights longer wavelength(redshift) was caused by [the expansion of "spacetime"] stretching the light.
kenny8331 1 year ago
@kenny8331 It doesn't 'stretch it' expanding the fabric of space time just like pulling all four corners of a rubber sheet will simply increase the distance... but only from the perspective of an observer standing beside the rubber sheet.
The red shift is caused by an increase in the wavelength of the light yes, and a blue shift by a decrease. As I said those correct themselves while entering and leaving a gravitational field. Unless you are INSIDE the well. On earth we are inside a well.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey oh ok but aren't we taking our measurements from inside a gravity well?
kenny8331 1 year ago
@kenny8331 Well the fact is that the gravity well extends quite far... but eventually the force is so weak that neither object can affect the other to any degree. One of the more famous laws governing this is Gauss's law of gravity. Fg=mg(r).
And yes we are taking measurements from inside a gravity well (even from hubble which does have mass!
But earth is not exactly a massive object. So we compensate for that in the same way we patch GPS satellites to account for relativity.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey so they have to compensate for the earths, suns and whatevers in the middle of this galaxy. if thats true it sucks
kenny8331 1 year ago
@kenny8331 well no we don't bother really... the earths mass is so small in comparison that we'd really only be compensating by something like nanoseconds.
For objects like GPS satellites in orbit around the earth... if we didn't take account of the earths gravity well then GPS satellites would fall out by 7 km a day!
But for distant quasars an extra nanosecond or two added to a few billion years makes no difference.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
We don't bother to compensate for objects that are not at great astronomical distances when there is a direct line of sight. Even though the combined mass of objects in the way might throw off calculations, the miscalculation by the computers we use is larger.
From earth the difference between each is off by about one year out of billions.
If we were trying to send data TO such a distant object through the lens that would be a different matter!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey oh ok. can someting be outside the gravity well and still orbit the object causing the well?
kenny8331 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey oh ok. can someting be outside the gravity well and still orbit the object causing the well? btw thanks for explaining all this to me because i have no other way of learning. my internet is on my phone and most pages i try to read just wont show up on it and theres no way i could learn this stuff from the few books they have on these subjects at the libraries around here. i cant even watch video on this phone(never even saw this one) but i can comment and ask questions so thanks
kenny8331 1 year ago
@kenny8331 "can someting be outside the gravity well and still orbit the object causing the well? "
No.
But the 'gravity' effect and the 'time dilation' effect are governed differently... time dilation and therefore lensing are expressed by whats called Schwarzschild metric which I can't type here... YT doesn't allow me to use mathematical expressions.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@kenny8331 But the facility makes more DISTANT objects appear closer... not further away... essentially it tells you that more distant objects are nearer to the observer... So a galaxy (or usually portion of a galaxy) that looks as it its 5.51 billion light years distant might actually be 5.55 billion light years distant.
A lens...just like any lens makes the object appear closer... not further. But the lens itself is auto correcting in spectrometry... the red or blue shift is not affected!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey with the lensed twins, when does the light "split"? is it after it leaves the star it splits at the lense or does it go around in the two directions straight from the star?
kenny8331 1 year ago
@kenny8331 A lens is basically a dent in space an analogy might be putting a bowling ball on a stretched rubber sheet with a checkered pattern on it. The bowling ball makes a dent in the sheet, if we left the dent and removed the ball, whats left we consider a gravity well.
When light reaches the gravity well it continues to follow a straight line, but space is distorted now, so a straight line is longer. Since a real gravity well is 4 dimensional the light goes around it in all directions!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey when we see the twins arent they redshifted slightly differently since we see one before the other
kenny8331 1 year ago
@kenny8331 It'd certainly be very unlikely they were perfectly in sync... but that because the lens is not directly in front of them... just like moving your head if you put a magnifying glass over something....
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@kenny8331 Also... they... are only one! its one quasar showing two images... not sure you got that.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@kenny8331 In addition gravitational lenses are transitory because the stars, the earth and the object in between must be in alignment for the effect to take place.
What might effect the time 'perceived' by the observer would be the opposite of a gravitational lens... a bump in space-time. Every massive object creates a well or 'dent' in specetime... theoretically space-time can be bent the other way too!
But there are no known instances of this. It would require the exact opposite of gravity.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey isnt that what were talking about here? wouldnt expansion be the opposite of gravity?
kenny8331 1 year ago
@kenny8331 No gravity is gravity, even attractant objects can move away from one another. ... the closest to the opposite of gravity (which has not yet been observed ) is the very weak force of dark energy... which does have a 'repulsion' rather than an attraction... the problem with dark energy of course is that you'd need an entire universe of the stuff to create any meaningful repulsion.
You can download tons of books free of charge from Project Gutenberg.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey dark energy causes expansion which is measured with the redshift. isnt that what we were talking about man. is there any other way the redshift can be explained?
kenny8331 1 year ago
@kenny8331 The expansion due to dark energy...hmmm... well firstly dark energy is theoretical and we haven't observed any yet even though it accounts for over 70% of the universe. However objects physically moving away from one another is what causes the redshift, the actual acceleration.
Its not even clear right now that dark energy has the repulsion effect that increases the universes size... So the only answer I can give you is 'I don't know', You'd need to ask roger penrose.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@kenny8331 However if you are interested in this area of physics (Spectroscopy) you can start by reading up on Edwin Hubble, or in the case of learning a little about Relativity, gravity and light from a basic perspective Leonard Susskind has a few online lectures.
And btw I'm of German decent... a group who also managed to lose a war against the English!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey yea i was just talking shit my bloods german and irish 50/50.
kenny8331 1 year ago
Leave to Texas to be this fucked up! This shit is unreal. How can morons be in charge of what is taught to students!
Einsteinian99 1 year ago
I can proof, space dont expanding at all.
Check it out my videos
Hello Jim Carrey, i know how universe really working.
.
The beginning / The end
.
Etimespace 1 year ago
Why is someone that is not an expert in science allowed to post a stupid comment on youtube? Can some one post the contact info of this guy? This makes me sick.
qaiex 1 year ago
Motion to ammend (for Mis Cargill) carries 11 to 3????
Did 11 out of 14 board members find her convincing?
I understand that some people are stupid, but when 11 people carry their motion???
neoaeonian 1 year ago
Oh my.... Cargill is such an idiot.
Entertainmentwf 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Entertainmentwf
"Cargill is such an idiot."
Imagine if she opens a maths book!
"this calculus stuff makes no sense to me, I propose to remove it"
What a sad day for Texas this was. Texans of the future just became significantly dumber in dimocratic vote!
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
Who is sighing so hard when the guy reads that woman's proposal? I know I would.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
we can, and should fight this sort of thing... if humans last long enough, I believe religion will slowly go away...
gergsar 1 year ago
Why dont you be so kind and tell us how old the univers is ?
qaiex 1 year ago
@qaiex 13.75 ±0.17 billion years, since the big bang
gergsar 1 year ago
i have a couple questions i dont understand. why is the sky red when the sun is setting? we know the sun isnt racing away from us but it seems to be red shifted at times and could this have anything to do with the reason that the galaxys we see are red shifted?
kenny8331 1 year ago
@kenny8331 It isnt red shifted, because the Fraunhoffer lines, the spectral lines caused by elements, are not shifted.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok thanks
kenny8331 1 year ago
@kenny8331
"why is the sky red when the sun is setting?"
....
You have to be kidding, right? Surely you must know that the earth has an atmosphere. Work the rest out for yourself.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer i dk... well the earth has an atmosphere in the middle of the day too and its blue then. so tell me why its red at dusk?
kenny8331 1 year ago
@kenny8331
"so tell me why its red at dusk?"
Is there some sort of ailment that prevents you from opening a book?
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer i just looked it up it says "Solar radiation travels in a straight line unless it is deflected by gravity or by particles of matter.This process is why the sky appears red at dawn or dusk.Because light travelling to you at these times has been subjected to far more extensive scattering." Whats that mean?the more stuff between you and a star the more red it will look but it wont affect the shifting of light even if the light is scattered toward red for a bunch of light years?
kenny8331 1 year ago
@kenny8331
Why would the earth's atmosphere affect light while it travels through the vacuum of space? Read. Think. Then read again. Then think some more.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer i'm not talking about "earths" atmosphere, im sure there are places dense enough like gas clouds or with enough gravity along the way to earth and i thought theres no such thing as a vacuum.during an eclipse the stars next to the sun are more red shifted than when they arent near the suns gravity so wouldnt they go by alot of stars on the way here?my computer is on my phone so i cant read as much as i would like.most pages dont work.never even seen this video.
kenny8331 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer i knew you didnt know what you were talking about
kenny8331 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"Is there some sort of ailment that prevents you from opening a book? "
Would you believe that guy according o his profile is 30 years old... 30! ...not 3 years old... or 13... actaully 30 years old... a grown adult...presumably with kids! Wow!
If I came across somebody in real life that was said stuff like that I'd assume they were mentally retarded... yet he can type!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@kenny8331
" too and its blue then. "
Holy crap! you must have screamed 'WITCHCRAFT' the first time you saw a rainbow LOL
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist god makes rainbows its obvious
kenny8331 1 year ago
@kenny8331
Are you sure they don't come out of the pot of gold?
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist pots of gold dont exist
kenny8331 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kenny8331
"pots of gold dont exist"
Are you trying to tell me that the leprechauns have been lying all this time?
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist yes leprechauns are known liars and perverts
kenny8331 1 year ago
@kenny8331
HERESY! BURN HIM!!!
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@kenny8331 Erm... thats not what is meant by 'red shifted' or 'blue shifted' ...sheeesh
Are you really 30 years of age? and don't know what a dopler effect is? wow! thats.... like ... totally amazing....
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MumblingMickey i know what it is. what are you talking about?
kenny8331 1 year ago
Poor americans,why are you so eager to throw common sense and logic out the window. Next up will be to get rid of doctors and surgeons because prayer is sufficient?
KarmaKahn 1 year ago
@KarmaKahn youre an idiot
kenny8331 1 year ago
Holy fuck, we're falling too damn far behind because of these guys. If they want to secede, let them secede.
BigBlueSpaceGoat 1 year ago