@juanarruti, even if it is, the lifetime of matter is not infinite. Eventually even protons and neutrons will decay into energy. So the universe may go on forever as an ever thinning void of homogeneous energy.
God is a fictional storybook character who gives hope to those who cannot bear the fact that we do not go to some eternal paradise when we die. Your matter is simply returned to the universe from which it was created. GET OVER IT!
I don't think our universe's singularity should be the only bang in the galaxy, to believe again that our universe is the centre of the universe or only universe like ptolmy thought and religious believers enforced, years ago we where @ the centre of the universe just because its a shady part in science---who is to say that we r actually within an atom within another universe and so on---Our universe boundaries begins with the blank length and ends in another bigger universe's blank length---
u believers in the faith r clueless. what about all the bloodshed and violence in the name of a divine pursuit. the spanish inquisition, the crusades, the witch hunts. all done in the name of god. religion=war. all that book does is teach people willful ignorance. easy to turn a blind eye to fact and reason.
A warm "FUCK YOU" for all the stupid faith-heads who actually think that videos like these are made by real scientists. This is where the evil conspiracy paranoia has lead: people pretending to be scientists in order to disprove the current discoveries that contradict the bible.
Uaz, when I spoke of wisdom I wasn't talking about my own wisdom, I was talking about the collective wisdom of the human race. It is impossible to deny that it has increased. It increases yearly with continuing research and developments.
Darwinian natural selection has nothing to do with intelligence, it is to do with how well a species is adapted to its environment. Species find a niche in which they can survive. An earthworm is not particularly intelligent, and yet it survives.
In pro-science video's I always see religious people get thumbs down. In pro-religion video's I always see scientific people get thumbs down. Proves to me that most people search for video's that confirm their beliefs. It's a way of holding on to something you know so you don't have to adapt to something new. The different between science and religion is that science will inevitably let go of it's own theories if a better one emerges, and religion will always stay the same, under the ---
In anycase I think there r two seperate issues here. Who created the universe? How was it created? Mostly all whom have commented here ve spokn about how and not who, this said I suggest you luk into Topology u may learn someting about the structure of the universe
I agree that the Big Band Theory is not verified but there is proof that the universe is expanding, one of them is cosmic backround radiation. Im curious to know what you think its doing. Do you think its static?
Static? yes and no. Expanding? yes and no. Not in the way we preceive it to be.
The Universe is bound by laws instituted by God it cannot expand in the sense your thinking because there is nothing to expand into.
Personally, I don't believe that the universe has a end or edge of its own, it is infinite. There is no beginning to it nor is their an end to it in as much the same way as there is no beginning or end to God.
Yes, of course it is, now go read some creationist propaganda and you won't have to listen to the nasty scientist any more.
You actually just read the word "dark" and thought "ooh that means evil!". It's "dark" because it's difficult to detect, not because it's some black cloud of nasty evilness. How can you live in a society MADE by science and not show the slighest respect of knowledge of it? How many diseases have been eradicated by religion? Why do you think you have electric power?
How many diseases have been eradicated by religion?
None that I know of, but Hospitals are a direct result of people of faith in caring for others which is the foundation of all medical research.
Why do I think I have electric power?
Because of the need for it based on the infrastructured society I live in.
God created this world and everything in it. What science discovers is only discovered based on God's timetable for it to be utilized.We are slaves of time and space, unlike God
Uaz, my point is that if you reject the scientific method as a way of knowing things, then why do you use medicine. It's all made using the same materialistic scientific method that tells us about the big bang and evolution. If you dismiss those, then you dismiss the scientific method. If you dismiss the scientific method, then you really shouldn't trust medicine, since the only thing that tells us that it works, is the scientific method.
I don't reject science, science is a great thing. I do reject some scientific ideologies based on personal beliefs such as evolution and the big bang theories taught as if they were facts, thats not science.
Science is science, if you want to bring personal beliefs into the mix then it shouldn't be one sided.
Medicine was not created from personal beliefs but from trial and error, not assumptions labeled as facts.
They are both science and are accepted as such by the vast majority of the scientific community.
Don't you realise that you're just singling out those theories as false simply because they contradict YOUR personal beliefs? Have you really done honest research about these topics? These aren't fringe theories, evolution is central to our understanding of biology. The evidence from multiple lines of investigation all shows us the same tree of evolutionary descent.
If you're genuinely interested, I recommend the site talkorigins org
It has a section called 29+ evidences for macroevolution. It also includes links to response articles from creationist websites.
You won't believe me, but these creationists deliberately misrepresent evolution and the big bang to make them look absurd and never refer you to the responses of the scientific community. Look into it more and you'll see how dishonest the anti-evolution movement is. Don't take my work for it, look.
How dishonest the honest are? lol. The anti-evolution movement is headed by ordinary everyday people that see how wrong it is to teach that garbage to our kids is.
It is after all the same principle that Hitler based his "selection" survival of the fittest off of.
You got that backwards, its the evolutionist movement that is being dishonest. I've looked at the "evidence" and well there just isn't any. Its all assumption and not factual.
Evolutionary ideology is nothing but a religion in its own right, it certainly does not belong in the classroom. It needs to have its own church, "The Church of Darwinism".
Yeah I've read some Discovery institute stuff. It's shockingly misrepresentative. But I don't intend to keep banging my head against this particular wall.
Oh and if you want a specific example of dishonesty, do you know Alan Bonsell and William Buckingham? They're fellows of the Discovery Institute and they testified in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial to determine if ID should be taught in school.
They lied under oath, and the judge wrote the following
(please check this and don't take my word for it, read the judge's decision and look at what happened in that case if you truly care about the truth)
"Witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions," Jones wrote. "The inescapable truth is that both [Alan] Bonsell and [William] Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions. ... Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner. ... Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony."
The dishonest people I'm talking about are the likes of Michael Behe, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, and countless others who promote distortions of evolutionary theory. But if you've already decided what you think and you're closed to further argument, then good day to you sir and I hope you stumble across the truth some day.
Uaz31 you are talking utter rubbish. Evolution is supported by evidence therefore it is not a religion. The biblical version of creation is nothing but a story written by people in a time when they didn't know any better. What is sad is that in a time when we do know better, there are still people who believe the fairy story.
Uaz31 I have read all your comments and you are a complete idiot. Comparing evolution (a natural process) to Hitler's ideology is absurd. If there is any evidence against evolution then it is you, as it is hard to see how natural selection could have produced somebody so stupid. I'm surprised you've manage to survived as long as you have.
"If there is any evidence against evolution then it is you, as it is hard to see how natural selection could have produced somebody so stupid."
Well, given that for centuries people who spoke out against certain absurd ideas were tortured and killed, it seems that credulous stupidity might be a survival advantage in that environment.
Only someone as evolved as you would be capable of picking up on such wisdom!
We all know how inferior some people are as a result of not being as evolved as you! If you try really hard maybe your offspring can be just like Hitler cause we all know how much more evolved he was.
No need to invoke Godwin's Law. What's Hitler got to do with anything? Have you been watching Expelled? Are you going to imply that he was implementing evolutionary ideas by committing genocide? Anti-semitism and genocidal stupidity was around for centuries before Darwin. What's your actual point? Do you have one?
But if you want to talk about the Nazis, did you know that their belt buckles had the words "Gott mit uns" (God with us) on them? Funny that.
Yes, but just because someone claims to be a christian or a God doesn't mean they are.
Hitler wanted to control the masses and so if people believed he was a christian then he would hold more power over people who would not put their trust in him otherwise.
Its not a new concept, politicians do it today. The pope exaltes himself over the church for presteige and authority. Its a very ancient practice for gaining power.
The U.S. dollar says that too... so that mean you trust in God?
Fair enough. He probably would have said he was christian whether he was or not. You still haven't explained what point you were trying to make by bringing up Hitler in the first place.
I'm guessing it's some kind of conflation of evolution and eugenics, like Ben Stein did in his stupid documentary. Acceptance of evolution leading to eugenics makes about as much sense as acceptance of the germ theory leading to deliberately spreading disease. But I don't know if that's where you were going.
He's probably referring to miro evolution concept not macro evolution. The variation within a species, but never from one species to another, which has never been observed.
In other words he supports science but not evolution, which is not science its a religion.
Yeah I hear this a lot but do you think atomic theory is a religion because no-one has SEEN an atom? Do you reject forensics too? If blood spatter analysis, powder burns, bullet matching, fingerprints, DNA analysis are completely worthless if no-one SAW the murder take place? These techniques are used to convict people of murders that no-one except the alleged suspect and victim could have seen. Maybe there are other forms of evidence other than eyewitness testimony. Did you ever consider that?
So I'd really like to know why you people aren't objecting just as strongly to forensic science when it's used to determine whether to send people to prison. Surely if you reject any form of evidence other than direct observation, then you must think that thousands of people have been unfairly convicted of murder? Care to explain why we never hear a peep about this if your big problem with evolution is that it's not been observed by an eyewitness?
Like I said, it is something that produces results. Your argument reminds me of the one about gravity, gravity is easy to prove u just have to jump up and down or drop a pencil.
Forensic science is a legit science, it can be measured and has results it is something you can see. The problem is when you call macro evolution a science let alone compare macro evolution with these sciences.
Those are all examples that produce results, something you can measure.
Macro evolution is not even comparable to those sciences you mentioned because it doesn't. You base it on a complete faith based belief that it is, thus verifying it being a religion.
No, it's evidence-based. Perhaps you just think it's faith-based because you've never actually tried to look at the evidence.
The effects of evolution can indeed be measured, in ways you probably aren't even aware of.
If you're interested in learning about some of them, google: 29 evidences evolution, and you'll find the first result is an article that describes, in detail, many different lines of evidence from multiple disciplines that all point to the same conclusion.
Thats all double talk man...if you have observable evidence for macro evolution you might want to inform the molecular biologists know about it, because they don't have it.
Name one, just one of your evidences please...I'd be more than happy to shoot it down for ya.
They don't have it? I suppose the molecular biologist Craig Venter was just joking when he said that the evidence from DNA is sufficient to demonstrate "macro"-evolution.
And I just gave you a link to a detailed list of evidences. It's not just any one piece of evidence that makes the case so strong. It's multiple lines of evidence all pointing to the same conclusion.
But if you want to try to "shoot one down", try ERVs. I won't bother explaining what they are since you seem so well-informed.
How repugnant. First you compare evolution to nazism and now you claim my children could be like Hitler. As for your first comment, people today are no more or less intelligent than the first homosapiens. Our wisdom has increased and because we have langauge we can communicate that wisdom. Being less intelligent will not mean you will die out because wisdom can be passed on.
Yes the Nazis believed in natural selection of humans as a result of Darwin's teachings. Of course your children could be like Hitler if you teach them that evolution garbage.
Our wisdom has not increased in the slightest, if anything its decreased. Technology is built on the backs of all the research done before from people who were much more wise than yourself.
In a Godless Darwinian society, yes the "less intelligent", according to the Darwinian, would die out while they prosper.
Uaz, it didn't take Darwin to realise that if you wipe out a particular variety of an organism, there will be no more of that variety born in the next generation.
That was known by farmers and animal breeders since the birth of agriculture. Darwin's insight is that NATURE can do this selective breeding as well as human intervention.
Antisemetic genocidal insanity existed LONG before Darwin. I abhor that kind of evil stupidity and I learned about evolution when I was a child. So there.
We don't think society should be modelled after the way things work in nature. If we did, then we wouldn't wear clothes, live in buildings, use computers, cure disease, use industrial scale agriculture, etc.
Why would we do all this unnatural stuff and then decide that we should follow nature in it's example of who breeds and who dies? Human civilisation has been a history of fighting against nature. Why would we suddenly surrender to it in the case of evolution? It's nonsense.
Regarding your comment about a godless society. Have you actually looked at the data for the most non-religious countries in the world like Sweden and Denmark? They have some of the lowest crime rates and highest standards of living in the world, and there's no sign of eugenics to be found.
Ironically, most of the antisemetic fervour came out of religious insanity. Your rantings have no connection with reality. How do you explain godless countries like Sweden and Denmark eh?
Uaz31. Just because you are taught evolution, doesn't make you a Nazi. I was taught evolution in a Catholic school. Are we all little Hitlers now? I am a scientist, as is my father. Are we Nazis now? Of all the brain-dead arguments I have heard this is not only the most stupid but also the most offensive.
I never said if you were taught evolution that it makes you a nazi only that it shares the same ideology as the nazi had that some races are better than others which would have to be true if we all evolved.
As Ben Stein put it, "if evolution is true, then Hitler was right".
"As Ben Stein put it, "if evolution is true, then Hitler was right"
Uaz, that's like saying, if gravity is true, then jumping off a cliff is right. I can't understand why you think that just because nature is cruel and unforgiving, we have to be that way too.
If you think we need to model our societies based on the way nature treats us, why do you believe in medicine? If the germ theory of disease is true, then antibiotics are wrong. Do you really not see the absurdity of this?
Hitler believed in a superior race which was influenced by Darwins teachings. It was taught that they were superior race and that other races were as dogs.
If we evolved then obviously some races are more evolved than others so naturally they would be concidered inferior and thus Hitler being correct is weeding out the inferior races because after all we would be nothing more than animals.
How the Hell is that the same as jumping off a cliff to test gravity?!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I never said that I think we need to model our society based on how nature treats us and I don't know where the Hell you got that from but it wasn't from me.
Personnally I believe we need to model our societies on how Christ taught us to not Darwin.
Why do I believe in medicine? Because it helps alleviate illnesses. Why do you believe in medicine?
Why would antibiotics be wrong because of the germ theory?
These counter arguments are not even comparable to my statement.
Time is a funny thing tec. One would think that the energy released from the big bang would be stronger than that of the gravitation pull of objects on each other too. Time will eventually tell. I hope this answers your question maybe I need to elaborate.
sorry but I don't understand why we have 'physics for presidents'. cause without doing the math you don't really learn physics really. i know i've seen 'physics for poets', 'physics for english majors' etc etc i have heard reasons why it's good but i don't know. it just doesn't sound kosher to have physics not presented in clear mathematical detail.?
Ahh I love these lectures that are NOT boring hehe...Time dosen't exist because all we are doing is counting up and up. Time is man made.
I think that the UFT will come soon though, but not by complex theories but by simple observations, after all the Universe is already made for us, why should we add extra theories too it? The UFT already exists but it seems that it is so subtle most people have run past it...
What are you saying? I've re-read your comment six times and I can't get anything meaningful out of it. The unified field theory doesn't need theories and it actually exists already but people have "run past it"? Add extra theories? Universe made for us? WTF?
Yes, I am serious my friend. Why bother looking for a needle in a haystack if we ARE that needle itself. Here is the key, you have to look two sides of the coin :
1. We are affected by other forces in the Universe.
2. We are the only force in the Universe affecting reality itself.
I have to push away all of science and physics to understand the world around me, it's time to rewrite physics... The flood will come soon my friend.
None of those things really matter. What matters is that you seem to cherish ignorance and confusion. I don't understand anything you say. Up is not down, and squares are not circles. Less is not more.
If you just destroy the meaning of words no wonder you don't think knowledge is possible. There is a real world of fascinating ideas out there, far more englightening than obscurantist rhetorical nonsense. Click on my username and watch the playlist of Cosmos, you'll see knowledge is good.
Hmmm. Interesting. But there is still one point which never fails to arouse thoughts in my mind though. What was before the before the big bang? Yes some cynics are gonna argue that theres was a big crunch and so on. But then, what caused the maiden big bang? Think about it. It can drive you nuts.
There are many speculations, but as yet no evidence of any prior state of existence. In fact, our theories break down at the point of the singularity, when the universe was only a fraction of a second old. Some speculate that the big bang is the other end of a black hole in another universe, and that black holes in our universe lead to other baby universes, each inheriting the characteristics of the "parent" with perhaps some "mutations". Perhaps universes evolve. No-one knows... yet.
Exactly my point. Even the entire concept of time is smashed into pieces where Planck time is concerned. But then this makes you want to go deeper down into the rabbit hole! But here's the problem : Most(if not all) concepts in physics are theorised with respect to time. Even in applied math etc; time is the driving force of everything we know. But if it fails to exist! well... you know the rest!
Indeed, we need another Einstein, to revolutionaise our approach and dispel our assumptions and mistakes that we are oblivous to at the moment. The results large hadron collider plus some brilliant scientists will perhaps give us more answers, and more questions.
Sweet, so you've been keeping up with the LHC as well. So on a personal note, what is your take on the issue of time? I've been reviewing some papers by physicists. Time is always said to be only a concept. I have not found any experimental substantiation which proves it's existence. I mean, something which we depend upon so heavily may turn out to be fictitious! It must have bothered you!
I'm not really sure what you mean. Isn't the existence of time trivially obvious, at least on the macroscopic scale? With no time, all events would occur simeltaneously, there could be no motion, no change. I remember that past and not the future. If I move away from a grenade before it explodes, that has very different results than if I allow time to pass before trying to move. That's an experiment right there. Perhaps I mistook your meaning.
Entropy always increases in a closed system in the direction of forward time. That's a consistent result and a way to distinguish the "direction" of time. Why we experience it as a continuing narrative is another question that has more to do with consciousness and that is something that I find quite puzzling, not just time perception, but consciousness itself.
Yeah,interesting point.Qtd's 2nd law pretty much sums that up eh? So about the grenade experiment - you mention that in the macro level, time is obvious right? But the thing is i can likewise argue, at the micro(planck time) The time taken for 1 electron to jump from valence 2 conduction band is 10-43 seconds. comparing this to 1 second is like comparing our preverbial 1 sec to infinitum!
Indeed, some very strange things occur at the quantum level. The uncertainty of the position and velocity of any particle/wave is another example. But if these kind of quantum effects applied to macroscopic objects, I would be able to quantum tunnel through a wall and stuff like that. On our scale, the uncertainty in position is extremely small, and so I think the strange effects of quantum time weirdness would also be diminished into obscurity.
It is strange to realise that the macroscopic universe seems to have different rules to the microscopic one, but this is of course just our biases as creatures that evolved on this scale. A full explanation of this apparent contradiction apparently eludes us, but both the evidence from the macroscopic and the microscopic are both equally valid. Such strangeness humbles the human mind.
Yes.This has indeed been a great sharing experience. But the lack of corroboration between the gerneral and quantum levels is beginning to take a toll on my sanity. Guess we will always be bound by these thresholds and only death(hopefully) will give us true enlightenment. But then again, why would insignificant creatures like us ever begin to fathom what an Nth dimensional being put in place right? Hoho...
I seriously doubt that the destruction of my thinking apparatus will do anything to increase my ability to think. If anything, I'm hoping that I'll live long enough to witness the singularity and be able upgrade my brain with computer technology.
If there is a supreme godlike mind in the universe, it is in the far future, a product of accelerating evolution reaching to the limit of physics. Let us not look to the past for god, but to the future.
Sometimes I get sucked in to reading the comments. What an asshole we have here! (if it's not a joke - it's hard to tell) It's science, not ego-massaging, so chill! Jeez...
hmm ive spent about 5 hours today as of now researching different physics topics (some people do heroin, i do science) from bosons and femions, quark-gluon plasma to fundamental interaction and quintessence. but the most interesting subject to me seems to be gravity: this quasi-Fictitious force and its relationship to time.
discuntzone talks too much, and i found his threat to be very amusing if he was so powerful he wouldn't spend all of his time be an annoying bugger on the net.
It just amazes me how people can think that they understand something enough to argue about it when they haven't even grasped the basic principles involved. From his reaction it sounds like he's not used to anyone pointing out his ignorance, and I guess that's why he never learned anything. The funniest thing is that he used a puppet account (rabi1969) to agree with himself, and it's obvious because he put the same name into both accounts, visible on the channels.
When you can understand how matter is made then you will understand how the universe was created! PM me if you want to know how I believe matter is being created! So many unknowns will be answered when matter creation is understood. No such thing as anti-gravity either.
Galaxies are not all evenly spaced, that's just completely wrong, they exist in clusters. Also dark matter is not what you described, not even close. You didn't even get basic facts right sorry. Where did you get your information from? I suggest that you watch Stephen Hawking's Universe to start with and prepare to really learn something: watch?v=MZa7px6NtFY
If there was a big bang that started the universe then why are galaxies evenly spaced at 600mly apart? And if it was a big bang then how did matter spread from one point to 600bly. An explosion of that sort would make a only ring of matter not spaced apart and everywhere! Thats IQ for ya!
Dark energy is nothing more than displacement of energy that seperates matter. Simple! Like the sun creating a solar wind. The wind is an outward motion of energy being released from a single entity. Creating a curb "distance" away from other stars and planets.
well i dont wish to agrue with you but his is definetely not that answer to the question ..i've asked 8 physicists so far and each were giving me a different answer ..and again i'am very supportive of the big bang theory !!!!
ok sorry to interrupt guys but i think i do understand where you come from discountzone and it is really an important question but i think the answer to this is that the speed of light is the speed limit inside the universe but perhaps the expansion of the universe can be alot faster although the universe contain mass wich i will find out more about this and i'll let you know !
Okay now I get what you were talking about, inflation. The exponential expansion of space after the big bang, which expanded space faster than light. However since the speed of light is relative, it doesn't move locally faster than light because it's the space itself that is expanding. I think that's the general idea anyway and this is where the dark energy comes in.
Also, using sock accounts to tell yourself how important your own questions are might be less obvious if you didn't use the same name on both accounts.
what you need to do instead of you answering people's question you need to get a nice job such as cleaning people's shoes with the disgusting attitude of yours your butt hole ..by the way you are really messing with a very WRONG person ! get lost SOB
Don't you think you're over-reacting a little? All I said is your english isn't great and that you don't know much about physics. Is that really worth investing so much anger in? Sorry if you felt insulted, but the fact is I couldn't understand what you meant, and I didn't think pointing that out would be such a big deal. These are complex issues that require high precision in communication and no political correctness will change that fact.
and i do have alot to learn ? lol you just dont know who your talking to ,i hate to brag about myself but i can tell how stupid and dumb you are ,you cant even culculate how much energy would it takes to get to half the speed of light LOL if i eva see you i would spit on you because your nothing but an empty cup and a BIG FAT ZERO !
you just cant answer my question wich i can understand how ignorant when you just say that ...if you cant answer people's question than DO NOT SAY NOTHING OK ?
hey you listen here your despicable little bug garding your comment about my english i speak 6 languages how many do you speak ? this is not the issue how ever your rudeness was total uncalled for ! if you cant answer my question just say you cant i would've understand that!
and by the way i've done a further reseach about how much energy would it take the atom to push it to half the speed of light and it truns out that it would take more energy than the visible universe to do that ..you can culculate that yourself if you want. like i said i'm very supportive of the big bang but i wanna get an answer to this question !
Sorry I don't wish to be rude but I found your question to be incoherent. Sorry if english isn't your first language, but I really don't know what you're asking. It doesn't take that much energy to accelerate atoms to half light speed, you're just wrong sorry. Look at the equations again.
"Average speed of the universe is 71% of light velocity" - what the hell are you talking about here? I don't wish to insult you here, but I think you have to acknowledge that you have a lot to learn here.
about 50 sextillion miles from our standing point and matter has been traviling evey since the big bang 13.7 billion years , so in alittle culculation the shows that the universe average speed is about 71% of light velocity but how can that happend ?
ok well first i do appreciate your time and i fully understood where you come from but this is not the answer to my question . my question was as i mention the entire universe were all in one star right ? but right now the matter or mass had stretched all the way though
but my personal opinion i really support the fact that the heaven and earth were attached together because everything out there just like it is here so there is an answer to my question i'm quite sure because to me the big bang theory is a logical explanation so if someone knows the answers please reply ..sorry for taking long ..thanks !
Well firstly, we know about things billions of light years away not because we went there, but because the light comes to us from there. You'd be suprised how much information is in that light. The light tells us about the anture of what emitted that light and how fast it was moving when it emitted it. Check out my video "Age of the Universe" to learn more about that.
Secondly, accelerating an atom to half the speed of light doesn't take an infinite amount of energy, that's what is required to get it to the speed of light, not half. Light, travelling at the speed of light, gets to us from these distant places because it has been travelling for the same number of years as it's distance in light years. So the objects 10 billion light years away emitted their light 10 billion years ago.
If you're interested in cosmology, it might be worth watching a documentary about it. One of the best is a long one by Carl Sagan called Cosmos which you can find the first episode for on google video. There's also Stephen Hawkings Universe which is on youtube, here's the partial link for the first part:
watch?v=jd1tgLQg4ZU
They explain much more of what we've learned about the universe and how we know what we know.
wich on the other hand if i take a single atom and i wanna accelerate it to HALF the speed of light using conventional rocket fuel the amount of fuel required will be greater than the mass of the entire visible universe! so how could matter in a period of 13.7 billion yeas had traveled that far when matter suppose to travel alot less than light speed and cant even reach HALF the speed of light ??!!!!
the big bang theory stated that the entire universe was infinitely densted together in a size like a star and it exploited so it was matter denst together but how come they say the universe 13.7 billion years old and we've explored about 10 billion light years of the universe inwich equevalent to about 50 sextillion miles (one follow by 21 zeroz) so how could matter have gotting that far and reached that distance ?
ok well i do have a very important question here that boggled me! no object with mass can accelerate to the speed of light that because the total energy of an object is its mass x v2 so as it speed up it gets more massive as it opproaches light speed it mass becomes near infinity require infinat amount of energy to push it faster my question is
There is a lot of evidence supporting the big bang theory, which is why the dark energy was postulated. The dark matter was postulated because the observed effects of gravity couldn't be accounted for by the visible stars. Much of the dark matter will simply be dust and basically matter that is... dark, not radiating light. At least some of it will be that, which is what makes it absurd when people bluntly say it doesn't exist. It shows that you don't know what you're talking about.
Another example of this kind of thing is the discovery of Neptune. There was a lot of evidence that Newton's laws could predict the motions of cannonballs and planets to a high accuracy. However the orbit of Uranus was a bit off. This meant that either there is something wrong with the equations, or there is another planet out there. The existence of the other planet was later confirmed, and named Neptune.
For similar reasons the existence of dark energy was postulated, because of anomalies in the evidence, which mean either the theories are wrong, or there is a bit of evidence we haven't found yet. Dark energy is the label for what is causing this anomaly.
The dark energy is really just a label for whatever is causing the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, which is supported by a lot of observational evidence.
So what is your better explanation for all the observational evidence? Do you know anything about the observational evidence or are you just ignorantly claiming that you know that things you don't even understand can't be true. Maybe you should learn more about what you are talking about before saying you know it isn't so.
Yes whatever. I unfortunaltey am ignorant (as you claim) but you don't remember that this ridiculous approach led scientists to believe to Ehrere. EHEheheheheh LOL. Bu I am ignorant
At 4:10,listen as he says"Why is the universe 10% helium,maybe it was all CREATED in the early universe"...end quote.I really don't understand why religious people and science can't try to understand each other better and get along!I believe in God(Jesus),do you know he did'nt CREATE the universe,in what ever way he chose?I don't.God bless us all.
What we see in the universe is a trend towards complexity and organisation from simple chaotic beginnings. Complexity comes late in the universe after the simple physical processes have created complex emergent properties like galaxies and life. Putting a complex thing like god at the beginning just doesn't seem to fit when you look at it like this. It just leaves you with a need to explain where god came from when there's no process to create god.
So I just don't find that argument very compelling. It begins with an assumption which is unprovable and obviously anthropomorphic. The idea of god has been consistently modified over the centuries as all the things god was supposed to explain have been explained by science. I don't understand why people need to draw a human face on the universe to appreciate it. It's beautiful enough without us having to pretend it's all about us. To me it's missing the point and the true beauty.
Dark energy....oohhhh look out, its going to get you!
See, those who call their religion, "religion" explain "evil" by: the Devil!
It is the Devil, the Prince of Darkness, who makes the world imperfect and contrary to the wishes of the good god.
In cosmology, this evil force that contradicts all big bang predictions, is Dark Matter.... dark, evil, bad.... but good, very good! Thank you prince of dark matter you have come to the rescue of our god: the big bang.
Wow, you really don't know what you're talking about do you? Trust a religious person to read something by name alone. Dark matter just means we can't see it. It's just a label given to the matter that must be there which is not emitting light, because we see the effects of it's gravity. It's called dark matter because it is <b>dark</b> and in not bright. Dead stars and interstellar gas accounts for a lot of it. Do you feel stupid yet?
Physcists really are just making it up as they are going along, just like the founders of religions did, but they try to convince you that they are right because they are more rational. It's still nonsense, listening to this. I wonder how many decades or centuries it will be until the next breakthrough... I wonder if another Einstein or Newton will ever come out of this society. It's sad, but today we're left with jobsworths, people who have been educated to think in a certain way.
Haha oh man that's funny. Most of high technology relies on the fact that quantum physics makes accurate predictions. Have you heard of transistors? Or lasers? Or computers? You're using the proof that science works to tell me that it doesn't! I mean that's just hilarious. Science gets real results that work in the real world. Do you really think computers would work if they were made based on <i>made up</i> theories?
Well your comment was about how physicists are making <i>it</i> up as they go along, it being physics I thought. I was making a point about the scientific method, which is used to determine all these theories.
The point is that we look at the light coming from the stars, and it is redshifted, the stars are moving away from us. This has been confirmed by scientists all over the world. There's nothing they'd like better than to discover something different and win a nobel prize.
There's also the background microwave radiation. This isn't made up, it was found. It's consistent with the predictions of the big bang. Do you have a better way of explaining the evidence? No scientist is asking anyone to accept this as a kind of absolute truth. The problem is that you are expecting science to do what religion does. The models used are approximations of reality, and are consistent with all the evidence. One bit of negative evidence would eliminate the theory.
I do not expect science to answer the unanswerable I expect it to be scientific! I have yet to mention religion at all I'm talking about dark matter/energy and negative pressure in these comments. The truth is not about taking sides or agreeing with people, it's about making theories that resemble observations.
The professor in this video is still thinking in terms that pre-date the discovery of dark matter, so how can we improve our model of the universe if we're still trapped thinking of it in old terms? This OBSERVATION has led me to conclude that we're waiting on another genius to shake things up, to make disagreements with the established model so that knowledge can progress and the dogma of jobsworths can be debunked!
Who's trapped? The scientific method of peer review is still open. People have been working on new hypotheses like string theory, which is something which hasn't been confirmed by observation, and so isn't theory. There are plenty of other hypotheses out there and bigger particle accelerators are being built. There's the LISA array which will measure gravity waves and give us more observations. The research is ongoing.
There's no dogma in science, at least not in the long term. There's a self correcting mechanism of peer review and experimentation. There may be resistance to new ideas if there is no evidence but why shouldn't there be?
If evidence is found that contradicts an existing theory, it will be checked and confirmed, but if the theory just doesn't accomodate it, then the theory has to be thrown out. Scientific theories are designed to be falsifiable to avoid that kind of dogmatism.
You forget that it is human beings that are involved in the scientific process, and it is my conjecture from a psychological and sociological perspective that the groups that become involved in certain specialised fields often tend to come from certain backgrounds and show certain personality traits, it is my conjecture that the wrong personality types are entering these fields of science and that we're awaiting a radical change in the very personnel rather than a new observation.
But if science really was done that way, how could it come up with accurate predictions? You can't get a theory into the scientific community unless there is evidence that can be verified by anyone. Do you think that scientists sit around and vote on what theory they want to believe in and then look for evidence that fits it? The scientific method is the way we get around these human biases, with double blind experiments.
All I'm saying is that there's a hierarchy involved, and those at the top are the authority. Consider that the centuries between Newton and Einstein were so vast because of the hierarchy itself, those who claim to be the defenders of the scientific method are often defending their own positions within the community.
But it's not like that. What are you basing that on? Scientists who have been working on theories for decades will admit they are wrong if the evidence shows them to be. All scientific theories are falsifiable. Where do you get this idea that there is this dogmatism? The scientific method was designed to avoid these kinds of problems, and that's why it works. Have you researched it? Look up scientific method on wikipedia.
Well I certainly agree that it's not about taking sides. Sorry if I seem condescending, it's just that I thought you were rubbishing the scientific method, which is what I thought was funny.
You did mention religion, you said phyisicists are making stuff up like the founders of religion did. What is it about the big bang theory that you think doesn't agree with the observations? Dark energy and matter haven't been described properly yet, they're just placeholders for the effects we see.
It's an idea, that the model of the universe was almost perfect until dark matter came along, then we find out that the matter we'd based our model of the universe on was only 5% of the matter in the universe and that we knew nothing about the other 95% except that it has a gravitational effect!
This should have completely demolished our known models of the universe, of course, and brought everything into question, but all physicists these days have managed to do is to squeeze it into the old model and say that it "somehow" answers every problem that's arisen from our model of the universe and how observation disagrees with it.
Well the dark matter could be something as simple as large amounts of interstellar dust or something. It could also be some kind of uncharged elementary particle that doesn't interact with normal matter. The fact that we don't know what it is doesn't mean it isn't there. I don't understand what your problem is with this observation. Scientists don't claim to know much more than that. What claims are being made that you think are unreasonable?
is not hard for me to belive that the universe came from nothing, im just saying, what if..., because any way the teory misses something between the "nothing" and the super dense mass that cooled off and expanded and exploted... im not saying this is none sense i do belive this... as he said: "speculations"
Well I'm sure there is more we don't know than we do know, but invoking a god just seems arbitrary to me. It's clearly an anthropomorphism, god was made in our image. It's our human arrogance that makes us assume that since we create things with intention, that the universe and life must have been created with intention. It's not impossible, but I don't see any reason to suppose it, especially since it's an idea from a time when we knew far less.
Okay, but then what created god? Did god just come from nothing? If you're finding it hard to believe that a mindless universe could come from nothing, why isn't it harder to believe that god could come from nothing?
I think the idea is that God is "outside of time", as one interview between Richard Dawkins and some other guy (sorry) suggested. So God never began, he always existed because infinity have have no beginning. The theory of everything, on the other hand, is the equivalent of a circle which must explain its own existance. Where do circles begin? Impossibility! Infinite existance is the only option.
This has been flagged as spam show
great video! thanks for sharing this one..
adelle0001 3 months ago
If there is infinite space is it not safe to assume time is infinite?
juanarruti 1 year ago
@juanarruti, even if it is, the lifetime of matter is not infinite. Eventually even protons and neutrons will decay into energy. So the universe may go on forever as an ever thinning void of homogeneous energy.
theinquisitor 1 year ago
it was actually 13.7 billion years ago not 14 billion just saying
TotalGameMaster 1 year ago
@TotalGameMaster, actually it's 13.7 billion, with error bars of plus or minus 2 million. Just saying : )
theinquisitor 1 year ago
God is a fictional storybook character who gives hope to those who cannot bear the fact that we do not go to some eternal paradise when we die. Your matter is simply returned to the universe from which it was created. GET OVER IT!
Redmilitiageneral 1 year ago 3
Maybe it's the atomic structure of space itself
yellowlght 2 years ago
We should look at in the full spectrum. Maybe it is aftershock rippling against nothing.
Johnnysandler 2 years ago
After all its just space and time.
benjaminjean1984 2 years ago
I don't think our universe's singularity should be the only bang in the galaxy, to believe again that our universe is the centre of the universe or only universe like ptolmy thought and religious believers enforced, years ago we where @ the centre of the universe just because its a shady part in science---who is to say that we r actually within an atom within another universe and so on---Our universe boundaries begins with the blank length and ends in another bigger universe's blank length---
benjaminjean1984 2 years ago 2
u believers in the faith r clueless. what about all the bloodshed and violence in the name of a divine pursuit. the spanish inquisition, the crusades, the witch hunts. all done in the name of god. religion=war. all that book does is teach people willful ignorance. easy to turn a blind eye to fact and reason.
asinine81 3 years ago
A warm "FUCK YOU" for all the stupid faith-heads who actually think that videos like these are made by real scientists. This is where the evil conspiracy paranoia has lead: people pretending to be scientists in order to disprove the current discoveries that contradict the bible.
grotillum 3 years ago
Uaz, when I spoke of wisdom I wasn't talking about my own wisdom, I was talking about the collective wisdom of the human race. It is impossible to deny that it has increased. It increases yearly with continuing research and developments.
Darwinian natural selection has nothing to do with intelligence, it is to do with how well a species is adapted to its environment. Species find a niche in which they can survive. An earthworm is not particularly intelligent, and yet it survives.
dominickearney 3 years ago
Thats not wisdom thats understanding, wisdom is what you do with that understanding.
It is entirely possible to have understanding but lack wisdom.
Uaz31 3 years ago
Alright, understanding then. Our understanding has increased.
dominickearney 3 years ago
In pro-science video's I always see religious people get thumbs down. In pro-religion video's I always see scientific people get thumbs down. Proves to me that most people search for video's that confirm their beliefs. It's a way of holding on to something you know so you don't have to adapt to something new. The different between science and religion is that science will inevitably let go of it's own theories if a better one emerges, and religion will always stay the same, under the ---
666Luftballons 3 years ago
--- assumption of it's own absolute truth. If only religions were actually concerned with absolute truths, then I would have no problem with this.
666Luftballons 3 years ago
Difference*
666Luftballons 3 years ago
Part 3 of comment to Uaz 31. my apologies
In anycase I think there r two seperate issues here. Who created the universe? How was it created? Mostly all whom have commented here ve spokn about how and not who, this said I suggest you luk into Topology u may learn someting about the structure of the universe
KulKid001 3 years ago
In much the same way that time and space are connected so is God and science.
If the who is the how and the why then God has everything to do with the topic and should not be exempt.
Uaz31 3 years ago
Big bang theory is not verified... galaxies are moving in every direction, there is no proof of an expanding universe as a result of "big bang"
Uaz31 3 years ago
I agree that the Big Band Theory is not verified but there is proof that the universe is expanding, one of them is cosmic backround radiation. Im curious to know what you think its doing. Do you think its static?
KulKid001 3 years ago
Static? yes and no. Expanding? yes and no. Not in the way we preceive it to be.
The Universe is bound by laws instituted by God it cannot expand in the sense your thinking because there is nothing to expand into.
Personally, I don't believe that the universe has a end or edge of its own, it is infinite. There is no beginning to it nor is their an end to it in as much the same way as there is no beginning or end to God.
Uaz31 3 years ago
Dark energy is Satan.
Uaz31 3 years ago
Yes, of course it is, now go read some creationist propaganda and you won't have to listen to the nasty scientist any more.
You actually just read the word "dark" and thought "ooh that means evil!". It's "dark" because it's difficult to detect, not because it's some black cloud of nasty evilness. How can you live in a society MADE by science and not show the slighest respect of knowledge of it? How many diseases have been eradicated by religion? Why do you think you have electric power?
theinquisitor 3 years ago
How many diseases have been eradicated by religion?
None that I know of, but Hospitals are a direct result of people of faith in caring for others which is the foundation of all medical research.
Why do I think I have electric power?
Because of the need for it based on the infrastructured society I live in.
God created this world and everything in it. What science discovers is only discovered based on God's timetable for it to be utilized.We are slaves of time and space, unlike God
Uaz31 3 years ago
Uaz, my point is that if you reject the scientific method as a way of knowing things, then why do you use medicine. It's all made using the same materialistic scientific method that tells us about the big bang and evolution. If you dismiss those, then you dismiss the scientific method. If you dismiss the scientific method, then you really shouldn't trust medicine, since the only thing that tells us that it works, is the scientific method.
The ignorant inconsistency and ingratitute of it.
theinquisitor 3 years ago
I don't reject science, science is a great thing. I do reject some scientific ideologies based on personal beliefs such as evolution and the big bang theories taught as if they were facts, thats not science.
Science is science, if you want to bring personal beliefs into the mix then it shouldn't be one sided.
Medicine was not created from personal beliefs but from trial and error, not assumptions labeled as facts.
Uaz31 3 years ago
They are both science and are accepted as such by the vast majority of the scientific community.
Don't you realise that you're just singling out those theories as false simply because they contradict YOUR personal beliefs? Have you really done honest research about these topics? These aren't fringe theories, evolution is central to our understanding of biology. The evidence from multiple lines of investigation all shows us the same tree of evolutionary descent.
theinquisitor 3 years ago
If you're genuinely interested, I recommend the site talkorigins org
It has a section called 29+ evidences for macroevolution. It also includes links to response articles from creationist websites.
You won't believe me, but these creationists deliberately misrepresent evolution and the big bang to make them look absurd and never refer you to the responses of the scientific community. Look into it more and you'll see how dishonest the anti-evolution movement is. Don't take my work for it, look.
theinquisitor 3 years ago
How dishonest the honest are? lol. The anti-evolution movement is headed by ordinary everyday people that see how wrong it is to teach that garbage to our kids is.
It is after all the same principle that Hitler based his "selection" survival of the fittest off of.
You got that backwards, its the evolutionist movement that is being dishonest. I've looked at the "evidence" and well there just isn't any. Its all assumption and not factual.
Uaz31 3 years ago
Evolutionary ideology is nothing but a religion in its own right, it certainly does not belong in the classroom. It needs to have its own church, "The Church of Darwinism".
Uaz31 3 years ago
I suggest you look up ICR's website they have alot of interesting facts. Great to see what the rate team is up too as well.
Discovery Institute is a great one to check out as well.
Uaz31 3 years ago
Yeah I've read some Discovery institute stuff. It's shockingly misrepresentative. But I don't intend to keep banging my head against this particular wall.
theinquisitor 3 years ago
Oh and if you want a specific example of dishonesty, do you know Alan Bonsell and William Buckingham? They're fellows of the Discovery Institute and they testified in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial to determine if ID should be taught in school.
They lied under oath, and the judge wrote the following
(please check this and don't take my word for it, read the judge's decision and look at what happened in that case if you truly care about the truth)
(continued)
theinquisitor 3 years ago
"Witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions," Jones wrote. "The inescapable truth is that both [Alan] Bonsell and [William] Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions. ... Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner. ... Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony."
That's the dishonesty I'm talking about.
theinquisitor 3 years ago
The dishonest people I'm talking about are the likes of Michael Behe, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, and countless others who promote distortions of evolutionary theory. But if you've already decided what you think and you're closed to further argument, then good day to you sir and I hope you stumble across the truth some day.
theinquisitor 3 years ago
Uaz31 you are talking utter rubbish. Evolution is supported by evidence therefore it is not a religion. The biblical version of creation is nothing but a story written by people in a time when they didn't know any better. What is sad is that in a time when we do know better, there are still people who believe the fairy story.
dominickearney 3 years ago
Uaz31 I have read all your comments and you are a complete idiot. Comparing evolution (a natural process) to Hitler's ideology is absurd. If there is any evidence against evolution then it is you, as it is hard to see how natural selection could have produced somebody so stupid. I'm surprised you've manage to survived as long as you have.
dominickearney 3 years ago
"If there is any evidence against evolution then it is you, as it is hard to see how natural selection could have produced somebody so stupid."
Well, given that for centuries people who spoke out against certain absurd ideas were tortured and killed, it seems that credulous stupidity might be a survival advantage in that environment.
theinquisitor 3 years ago
I think that must be it.
dominickearney 3 years ago
RIGHT! That's why the majority today are sooo smart! Natural selection in action! The stupid survive and the wise die out.
Uaz31 3 years ago
Only someone as evolved as you would be capable of picking up on such wisdom!
We all know how inferior some people are as a result of not being as evolved as you! If you try really hard maybe your offspring can be just like Hitler cause we all know how much more evolved he was.
Uaz31 3 years ago
It was a joke Uaz. Calm down.
No need to invoke Godwin's Law. What's Hitler got to do with anything? Have you been watching Expelled? Are you going to imply that he was implementing evolutionary ideas by committing genocide? Anti-semitism and genocidal stupidity was around for centuries before Darwin. What's your actual point? Do you have one?
But if you want to talk about the Nazis, did you know that their belt buckles had the words "Gott mit uns" (God with us) on them? Funny that.
theinquisitor 3 years ago
Yes, but just because someone claims to be a christian or a God doesn't mean they are.
Hitler wanted to control the masses and so if people believed he was a christian then he would hold more power over people who would not put their trust in him otherwise.
Its not a new concept, politicians do it today. The pope exaltes himself over the church for presteige and authority. Its a very ancient practice for gaining power.
The U.S. dollar says that too... so that mean you trust in God?
Uaz31 3 years ago
Fair enough. He probably would have said he was christian whether he was or not. You still haven't explained what point you were trying to make by bringing up Hitler in the first place.
I'm guessing it's some kind of conflation of evolution and eugenics, like Ben Stein did in his stupid documentary. Acceptance of evolution leading to eugenics makes about as much sense as acceptance of the germ theory leading to deliberately spreading disease. But I don't know if that's where you were going.
theinquisitor 3 years ago
He's probably referring to miro evolution concept not macro evolution. The variation within a species, but never from one species to another, which has never been observed.
In other words he supports science but not evolution, which is not science its a religion.
Uaz31 3 years ago
Yeah I hear this a lot but do you think atomic theory is a religion because no-one has SEEN an atom? Do you reject forensics too? If blood spatter analysis, powder burns, bullet matching, fingerprints, DNA analysis are completely worthless if no-one SAW the murder take place? These techniques are used to convict people of murders that no-one except the alleged suspect and victim could have seen. Maybe there are other forms of evidence other than eyewitness testimony. Did you ever consider that?
theinquisitor 3 years ago
So I'd really like to know why you people aren't objecting just as strongly to forensic science when it's used to determine whether to send people to prison. Surely if you reject any form of evidence other than direct observation, then you must think that thousands of people have been unfairly convicted of murder? Care to explain why we never hear a peep about this if your big problem with evolution is that it's not been observed by an eyewitness?
theinquisitor 3 years ago
Like I said, it is something that produces results. Your argument reminds me of the one about gravity, gravity is easy to prove u just have to jump up and down or drop a pencil.
Forensic science is a legit science, it can be measured and has results it is something you can see. The problem is when you call macro evolution a science let alone compare macro evolution with these sciences.
Uaz31 3 years ago
Those are all examples that produce results, something you can measure.
Macro evolution is not even comparable to those sciences you mentioned because it doesn't. You base it on a complete faith based belief that it is, thus verifying it being a religion.
Uaz31 3 years ago
Oh the projection.
No, it's evidence-based. Perhaps you just think it's faith-based because you've never actually tried to look at the evidence.
The effects of evolution can indeed be measured, in ways you probably aren't even aware of.
If you're interested in learning about some of them, google: 29 evidences evolution, and you'll find the first result is an article that describes, in detail, many different lines of evidence from multiple disciplines that all point to the same conclusion.
theinquisitor 3 years ago
Thats all double talk man...if you have observable evidence for macro evolution you might want to inform the molecular biologists know about it, because they don't have it.
Name one, just one of your evidences please...I'd be more than happy to shoot it down for ya.
Uaz31 3 years ago
They don't have it? I suppose the molecular biologist Craig Venter was just joking when he said that the evidence from DNA is sufficient to demonstrate "macro"-evolution.
And I just gave you a link to a detailed list of evidences. It's not just any one piece of evidence that makes the case so strong. It's multiple lines of evidence all pointing to the same conclusion.
But if you want to try to "shoot one down", try ERVs. I won't bother explaining what they are since you seem so well-informed.
theinquisitor 3 years ago
How repugnant. First you compare evolution to nazism and now you claim my children could be like Hitler. As for your first comment, people today are no more or less intelligent than the first homosapiens. Our wisdom has increased and because we have langauge we can communicate that wisdom. Being less intelligent will not mean you will die out because wisdom can be passed on.
dominickearney 3 years ago
Yes the Nazis believed in natural selection of humans as a result of Darwin's teachings. Of course your children could be like Hitler if you teach them that evolution garbage.
Our wisdom has not increased in the slightest, if anything its decreased. Technology is built on the backs of all the research done before from people who were much more wise than yourself.
In a Godless Darwinian society, yes the "less intelligent", according to the Darwinian, would die out while they prosper.
Uaz31 3 years ago
Uaz, it didn't take Darwin to realise that if you wipe out a particular variety of an organism, there will be no more of that variety born in the next generation.
That was known by farmers and animal breeders since the birth of agriculture. Darwin's insight is that NATURE can do this selective breeding as well as human intervention.
Antisemetic genocidal insanity existed LONG before Darwin. I abhor that kind of evil stupidity and I learned about evolution when I was a child. So there.
theinquisitor 3 years ago
(continued)
We don't think society should be modelled after the way things work in nature. If we did, then we wouldn't wear clothes, live in buildings, use computers, cure disease, use industrial scale agriculture, etc.
Why would we do all this unnatural stuff and then decide that we should follow nature in it's example of who breeds and who dies? Human civilisation has been a history of fighting against nature. Why would we suddenly surrender to it in the case of evolution? It's nonsense.
theinquisitor 3 years ago
(continued)
Regarding your comment about a godless society. Have you actually looked at the data for the most non-religious countries in the world like Sweden and Denmark? They have some of the lowest crime rates and highest standards of living in the world, and there's no sign of eugenics to be found.
Ironically, most of the antisemetic fervour came out of religious insanity. Your rantings have no connection with reality. How do you explain godless countries like Sweden and Denmark eh?
theinquisitor 3 years ago
Uaz31. Just because you are taught evolution, doesn't make you a Nazi. I was taught evolution in a Catholic school. Are we all little Hitlers now? I am a scientist, as is my father. Are we Nazis now? Of all the brain-dead arguments I have heard this is not only the most stupid but also the most offensive.
dominickearney 3 years ago
I never said if you were taught evolution that it makes you a nazi only that it shares the same ideology as the nazi had that some races are better than others which would have to be true if we all evolved.
As Ben Stein put it, "if evolution is true, then Hitler was right".
Uaz31 3 years ago
"As Ben Stein put it, "if evolution is true, then Hitler was right"
Uaz, that's like saying, if gravity is true, then jumping off a cliff is right. I can't understand why you think that just because nature is cruel and unforgiving, we have to be that way too.
If you think we need to model our societies based on the way nature treats us, why do you believe in medicine? If the germ theory of disease is true, then antibiotics are wrong. Do you really not see the absurdity of this?
theinquisitor 3 years ago
Hitler believed in a superior race which was influenced by Darwins teachings. It was taught that they were superior race and that other races were as dogs.
If we evolved then obviously some races are more evolved than others so naturally they would be concidered inferior and thus Hitler being correct is weeding out the inferior races because after all we would be nothing more than animals.
How the Hell is that the same as jumping off a cliff to test gravity?!
Uaz31 3 years ago
How does one evolve anyhow? of coarse we don't all evolve to the same degree...how could we?
"my daddy's more evolved that your daddy!" mentality...thats what the Nazi children were taught growin up.
Uaz31 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I never said that I think we need to model our society based on how nature treats us and I don't know where the Hell you got that from but it wasn't from me.
Personnally I believe we need to model our societies on how Christ taught us to not Darwin.
Why do I believe in medicine? Because it helps alleviate illnesses. Why do you believe in medicine?
Why would antibiotics be wrong because of the germ theory?
These counter arguments are not even comparable to my statement.
Uaz31 3 years ago
That was a bit of a joke the dark matter is Satan but doens't mean it couldnt be true...but I wont go around teaching its a fact.
Uaz31 3 years ago
*energy
Uaz31 3 years ago
Wouldn't infinite vacuum (potential) be able to overcome finite gravity (energy)?
tecnoblix 3 years ago
yes it would, blackhole is an example of that.
Uaz31 3 years ago
Time is a funny thing tec. One would think that the energy released from the big bang would be stronger than that of the gravitation pull of objects on each other too. Time will eventually tell. I hope this answers your question maybe I need to elaborate.
KulKid001 3 years ago
...ghrrr now I hate physics more.
Boltterman37 3 years ago
Hi there. Whats up?
Would you like to work with new physics?
lets check it out some videos first.
Idea from Kuopio is video where i told how visible universe really MOVES
No gravity is a video where i told why there is no gravity at all
I can explain everything with one power. That power is pressure. That because atoms expanding all a time. So, space dont expanding.
See you
Etimespace 3 years ago
sorry but I don't understand why we have 'physics for presidents'. cause without doing the math you don't really learn physics really. i know i've seen 'physics for poets', 'physics for english majors' etc etc i have heard reasons why it's good but i don't know. it just doesn't sound kosher to have physics not presented in clear mathematical detail.?
tennischumpion 3 years ago
The unified field theory has been discovered!!! You can view it on my channel.
BrentJarvis 4 years ago
Ahh I love these lectures that are NOT boring hehe...Time dosen't exist because all we are doing is counting up and up. Time is man made.
I think that the UFT will come soon though, but not by complex theories but by simple observations, after all the Universe is already made for us, why should we add extra theories too it? The UFT already exists but it seems that it is so subtle most people have run past it...
boringlecture 4 years ago
What are you saying? I've re-read your comment six times and I can't get anything meaningful out of it. The unified field theory doesn't need theories and it actually exists already but people have "run past it"? Add extra theories? Universe made for us? WTF?
theinquisitor 4 years ago
Yes, I am serious my friend. Why bother looking for a needle in a haystack if we ARE that needle itself. Here is the key, you have to look two sides of the coin :
1. We are affected by other forces in the Universe.
2. We are the only force in the Universe affecting reality itself.
I have to push away all of science and physics to understand the world around me, it's time to rewrite physics... The flood will come soon my friend.
boringlecture 4 years ago
You talk much, yet say little. You haven't been watching "what the bleep" have you?
theinquisitor 4 years ago
Hmm, never heard of that show.
Well, I'm not a physicist, and I'm not taking any real classes, I've never been to University. But so what? Does it really make any difference?
The more you know the less you know. heheh...
boringlecture 4 years ago
None of those things really matter. What matters is that you seem to cherish ignorance and confusion. I don't understand anything you say. Up is not down, and squares are not circles. Less is not more.
If you just destroy the meaning of words no wonder you don't think knowledge is possible. There is a real world of fascinating ideas out there, far more englightening than obscurantist rhetorical nonsense. Click on my username and watch the playlist of Cosmos, you'll see knowledge is good.
theinquisitor 4 years ago
Hmmm. Interesting. But there is still one point which never fails to arouse thoughts in my mind though. What was before the before the big bang? Yes some cynics are gonna argue that theres was a big crunch and so on. But then, what caused the maiden big bang? Think about it. It can drive you nuts.
moxillen 4 years ago
There are many speculations, but as yet no evidence of any prior state of existence. In fact, our theories break down at the point of the singularity, when the universe was only a fraction of a second old. Some speculate that the big bang is the other end of a black hole in another universe, and that black holes in our universe lead to other baby universes, each inheriting the characteristics of the "parent" with perhaps some "mutations". Perhaps universes evolve. No-one knows... yet.
theinquisitor 4 years ago
Exactly my point. Even the entire concept of time is smashed into pieces where Planck time is concerned. But then this makes you want to go deeper down into the rabbit hole! But here's the problem : Most(if not all) concepts in physics are theorised with respect to time. Even in applied math etc; time is the driving force of everything we know. But if it fails to exist! well... you know the rest!
moxillen 4 years ago
Indeed, we need another Einstein, to revolutionaise our approach and dispel our assumptions and mistakes that we are oblivous to at the moment. The results large hadron collider plus some brilliant scientists will perhaps give us more answers, and more questions.
theinquisitor 4 years ago
Sweet, so you've been keeping up with the LHC as well. So on a personal note, what is your take on the issue of time? I've been reviewing some papers by physicists. Time is always said to be only a concept. I have not found any experimental substantiation which proves it's existence. I mean, something which we depend upon so heavily may turn out to be fictitious! It must have bothered you!
moxillen 4 years ago
I'm not really sure what you mean. Isn't the existence of time trivially obvious, at least on the macroscopic scale? With no time, all events would occur simeltaneously, there could be no motion, no change. I remember that past and not the future. If I move away from a grenade before it explodes, that has very different results than if I allow time to pass before trying to move. That's an experiment right there. Perhaps I mistook your meaning.
theinquisitor 4 years ago
Entropy always increases in a closed system in the direction of forward time. That's a consistent result and a way to distinguish the "direction" of time. Why we experience it as a continuing narrative is another question that has more to do with consciousness and that is something that I find quite puzzling, not just time perception, but consciousness itself.
theinquisitor 4 years ago
Yeah,interesting point.Qtd's 2nd law pretty much sums that up eh? So about the grenade experiment - you mention that in the macro level, time is obvious right? But the thing is i can likewise argue, at the micro(planck time) The time taken for 1 electron to jump from valence 2 conduction band is 10-43 seconds. comparing this to 1 second is like comparing our preverbial 1 sec to infinitum!
moxillen 4 years ago
Indeed, some very strange things occur at the quantum level. The uncertainty of the position and velocity of any particle/wave is another example. But if these kind of quantum effects applied to macroscopic objects, I would be able to quantum tunnel through a wall and stuff like that. On our scale, the uncertainty in position is extremely small, and so I think the strange effects of quantum time weirdness would also be diminished into obscurity.
theinquisitor 4 years ago
It is strange to realise that the macroscopic universe seems to have different rules to the microscopic one, but this is of course just our biases as creatures that evolved on this scale. A full explanation of this apparent contradiction apparently eludes us, but both the evidence from the macroscopic and the microscopic are both equally valid. Such strangeness humbles the human mind.
theinquisitor 4 years ago
Yes.This has indeed been a great sharing experience. But the lack of corroboration between the gerneral and quantum levels is beginning to take a toll on my sanity. Guess we will always be bound by these thresholds and only death(hopefully) will give us true enlightenment. But then again, why would insignificant creatures like us ever begin to fathom what an Nth dimensional being put in place right? Hoho...
moxillen 4 years ago
I seriously doubt that the destruction of my thinking apparatus will do anything to increase my ability to think. If anything, I'm hoping that I'll live long enough to witness the singularity and be able upgrade my brain with computer technology.
If there is a supreme godlike mind in the universe, it is in the far future, a product of accelerating evolution reaching to the limit of physics. Let us not look to the past for god, but to the future.
theinquisitor 4 years ago
i think the problem you ask is because the physics here is presented with mathematical detail. then it becomes more confusing.
i dunno. i think it's more confusing to present physics without the math.
tennischumpion 3 years ago
Sometimes I get sucked in to reading the comments. What an asshole we have here! (if it's not a joke - it's hard to tell) It's science, not ego-massaging, so chill! Jeez...
Clausfarre 4 years ago
hmm ive spent about 5 hours today as of now researching different physics topics (some people do heroin, i do science) from bosons and femions, quark-gluon plasma to fundamental interaction and quintessence. but the most interesting subject to me seems to be gravity: this quasi-Fictitious force and its relationship to time.
sturmgeist1819 4 years ago
discuntzone talks too much, and i found his threat to be very amusing if he was so powerful he wouldn't spend all of his time be an annoying bugger on the net.
sirth0mas 4 years ago
It just amazes me how people can think that they understand something enough to argue about it when they haven't even grasped the basic principles involved. From his reaction it sounds like he's not used to anyone pointing out his ignorance, and I guess that's why he never learned anything. The funniest thing is that he used a puppet account (rabi1969) to agree with himself, and it's obvious because he put the same name into both accounts, visible on the channels.
theinquisitor 4 years ago
When you can understand how matter is made then you will understand how the universe was created! PM me if you want to know how I believe matter is being created! So many unknowns will be answered when matter creation is understood. No such thing as anti-gravity either.
bignewgame 4 years ago
Galaxies are not all evenly spaced, that's just completely wrong, they exist in clusters. Also dark matter is not what you described, not even close. You didn't even get basic facts right sorry. Where did you get your information from? I suggest that you watch Stephen Hawking's Universe to start with and prepare to really learn something: watch?v=MZa7px6NtFY
theinquisitor 4 years ago
If there was a big bang that started the universe then why are galaxies evenly spaced at 600mly apart? And if it was a big bang then how did matter spread from one point to 600bly. An explosion of that sort would make a only ring of matter not spaced apart and everywhere! Thats IQ for ya!
bignewgame 4 years ago
Dark energy is nothing more than displacement of energy that seperates matter. Simple! Like the sun creating a solar wind. The wind is an outward motion of energy being released from a single entity. Creating a curb "distance" away from other stars and planets.
bignewgame 4 years ago
well i dont wish to agrue with you but his is definetely not that answer to the question ..i've asked 8 physicists so far and each were giving me a different answer ..and again i'am very supportive of the big bang theory !!!!
discountzone 4 years ago
I didn't even understand your question. I'm not trying to be rude but I have no idea what you are asking.
theinquisitor 4 years ago
ok sorry to interrupt guys but i think i do understand where you come from discountzone and it is really an important question but i think the answer to this is that the speed of light is the speed limit inside the universe but perhaps the expansion of the universe can be alot faster although the universe contain mass wich i will find out more about this and i'll let you know !
rabi1969 4 years ago
Okay now I get what you were talking about, inflation. The exponential expansion of space after the big bang, which expanded space faster than light. However since the speed of light is relative, it doesn't move locally faster than light because it's the space itself that is expanding. I think that's the general idea anyway and this is where the dark energy comes in.
theinquisitor 4 years ago
Also, using sock accounts to tell yourself how important your own questions are might be less obvious if you didn't use the same name on both accounts.
theinquisitor 4 years ago
what you need to do instead of you answering people's question you need to get a nice job such as cleaning people's shoes with the disgusting attitude of yours your butt hole ..by the way you are really messing with a very WRONG person ! get lost SOB
discountzone 4 years ago
Don't you think you're over-reacting a little? All I said is your english isn't great and that you don't know much about physics. Is that really worth investing so much anger in? Sorry if you felt insulted, but the fact is I couldn't understand what you meant, and I didn't think pointing that out would be such a big deal. These are complex issues that require high precision in communication and no political correctness will change that fact.
theinquisitor 4 years ago
and i do have alot to learn ? lol you just dont know who your talking to ,i hate to brag about myself but i can tell how stupid and dumb you are ,you cant even culculate how much energy would it takes to get to half the speed of light LOL if i eva see you i would spit on you because your nothing but an empty cup and a BIG FAT ZERO !
discountzone 4 years ago
you just cant answer my question wich i can understand how ignorant when you just say that ...if you cant answer people's question than DO NOT SAY NOTHING OK ?
discountzone 4 years ago
hey you listen here your despicable little bug garding your comment about my english i speak 6 languages how many do you speak ? this is not the issue how ever your rudeness was total uncalled for ! if you cant answer my question just say you cant i would've understand that!
discountzone 4 years ago
and by the way i've done a further reseach about how much energy would it take the atom to push it to half the speed of light and it truns out that it would take more energy than the visible universe to do that ..you can culculate that yourself if you want. like i said i'm very supportive of the big bang but i wanna get an answer to this question !
discountzone 4 years ago
Sorry I don't wish to be rude but I found your question to be incoherent. Sorry if english isn't your first language, but I really don't know what you're asking. It doesn't take that much energy to accelerate atoms to half light speed, you're just wrong sorry. Look at the equations again.
"Average speed of the universe is 71% of light velocity" - what the hell are you talking about here? I don't wish to insult you here, but I think you have to acknowledge that you have a lot to learn here.
theinquisitor 4 years ago
about 50 sextillion miles from our standing point and matter has been traviling evey since the big bang 13.7 billion years , so in alittle culculation the shows that the universe average speed is about 71% of light velocity but how can that happend ?
discountzone 4 years ago
ok well first i do appreciate your time and i fully understood where you come from but this is not the answer to my question . my question was as i mention the entire universe were all in one star right ? but right now the matter or mass had stretched all the way though
discountzone 4 years ago
but my personal opinion i really support the fact that the heaven and earth were attached together because everything out there just like it is here so there is an answer to my question i'm quite sure because to me the big bang theory is a logical explanation so if someone knows the answers please reply ..sorry for taking long ..thanks !
discountzone 4 years ago
Well firstly, we know about things billions of light years away not because we went there, but because the light comes to us from there. You'd be suprised how much information is in that light. The light tells us about the anture of what emitted that light and how fast it was moving when it emitted it. Check out my video "Age of the Universe" to learn more about that.
theinquisitor 4 years ago
Secondly, accelerating an atom to half the speed of light doesn't take an infinite amount of energy, that's what is required to get it to the speed of light, not half. Light, travelling at the speed of light, gets to us from these distant places because it has been travelling for the same number of years as it's distance in light years. So the objects 10 billion light years away emitted their light 10 billion years ago.
theinquisitor 4 years ago
If you're interested in cosmology, it might be worth watching a documentary about it. One of the best is a long one by Carl Sagan called Cosmos which you can find the first episode for on google video. There's also Stephen Hawkings Universe which is on youtube, here's the partial link for the first part:
watch?v=jd1tgLQg4ZU
They explain much more of what we've learned about the universe and how we know what we know.
theinquisitor 4 years ago
wich on the other hand if i take a single atom and i wanna accelerate it to HALF the speed of light using conventional rocket fuel the amount of fuel required will be greater than the mass of the entire visible universe! so how could matter in a period of 13.7 billion yeas had traveled that far when matter suppose to travel alot less than light speed and cant even reach HALF the speed of light ??!!!!
discountzone 4 years ago
the big bang theory stated that the entire universe was infinitely densted together in a size like a star and it exploited so it was matter denst together but how come they say the universe 13.7 billion years old and we've explored about 10 billion light years of the universe inwich equevalent to about 50 sextillion miles (one follow by 21 zeroz) so how could matter have gotting that far and reached that distance ?
discountzone 4 years ago
ok well i do have a very important question here that boggled me! no object with mass can accelerate to the speed of light that because the total energy of an object is its mass x v2 so as it speed up it gets more massive as it opproaches light speed it mass becomes near infinity require infinat amount of energy to push it faster my question is
discountzone 4 years ago
"maybe it's the vaccum itself...".
Or maybe the Big Bang is wrong and Dark Energy is a medioeval attempt to patch a wrong theory.
I say medioeval because BB is creationist.
WAKE UP! Dark energy and darm matter are only NEEDED TO SAVE THE BB.
fabbio8888 4 years ago
There is a lot of evidence supporting the big bang theory, which is why the dark energy was postulated. The dark matter was postulated because the observed effects of gravity couldn't be accounted for by the visible stars. Much of the dark matter will simply be dust and basically matter that is... dark, not radiating light. At least some of it will be that, which is what makes it absurd when people bluntly say it doesn't exist. It shows that you don't know what you're talking about.
theinquisitor 4 years ago
Another example of this kind of thing is the discovery of Neptune. There was a lot of evidence that Newton's laws could predict the motions of cannonballs and planets to a high accuracy. However the orbit of Uranus was a bit off. This meant that either there is something wrong with the equations, or there is another planet out there. The existence of the other planet was later confirmed, and named Neptune.
theinquisitor 4 years ago
For similar reasons the existence of dark energy was postulated, because of anomalies in the evidence, which mean either the theories are wrong, or there is a bit of evidence we haven't found yet. Dark energy is the label for what is causing this anomaly.
The dark energy is really just a label for whatever is causing the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, which is supported by a lot of observational evidence.
theinquisitor 4 years ago
So what is your better explanation for all the observational evidence? Do you know anything about the observational evidence or are you just ignorantly claiming that you know that things you don't even understand can't be true. Maybe you should learn more about what you are talking about before saying you know it isn't so.
theinquisitor 4 years ago
So what is your better explanation for all the life evidence (if not God)?
I don't support this point, I only show you that your claim is totally aotoreferential. "If you don't have the truth mine is the truth".
Look this is not debate, try to change.
fabbio8888 4 years ago
Yes whatever. I unfortunaltey am ignorant (as you claim) but you don't remember that this ridiculous approach led scientists to believe to Ehrere. EHEheheheheh LOL. Bu I am ignorant
fabbio8888 4 years ago
There must not be ENOUGH evidence but NO EVIDENCE of incoherences. But here they are.
Oh so easy to claim I don't know anything LOL. What a debate
fabbio8888 4 years ago
Wow- wish I had had a front row seat for this lecture!
gmpep3 4 years ago
god made us the big bang would of destroyed the twin towers the planes hit the towers what happened? it was life taken and desruction
wfl17 4 years ago
Well done wfl17, you win the award for the most incoherent comment of the week.
theinquisitor 4 years ago
Great, immensely interesting - do you have the continuation of these lectures -part 3 and 4? I can't find them!
Sakartvelo69 4 years ago
At 4:10,listen as he says"Why is the universe 10% helium,maybe it was all CREATED in the early universe"...end quote.I really don't understand why religious people and science can't try to understand each other better and get along!I believe in God(Jesus),do you know he did'nt CREATE the universe,in what ever way he chose?I don't.God bless us all.
ghost2be 4 years ago
In order for something to be created,there had to be a creator.
ghost2be 4 years ago
What we see in the universe is a trend towards complexity and organisation from simple chaotic beginnings. Complexity comes late in the universe after the simple physical processes have created complex emergent properties like galaxies and life. Putting a complex thing like god at the beginning just doesn't seem to fit when you look at it like this. It just leaves you with a need to explain where god came from when there's no process to create god.
theinquisitor 4 years ago
So I just don't find that argument very compelling. It begins with an assumption which is unprovable and obviously anthropomorphic. The idea of god has been consistently modified over the centuries as all the things god was supposed to explain have been explained by science. I don't understand why people need to draw a human face on the universe to appreciate it. It's beautiful enough without us having to pretend it's all about us. To me it's missing the point and the true beauty.
theinquisitor 4 years ago
Thank you for posting this interesting lecture.
Sarastarlight 4 years ago
Dark matter.... ooohhhh, scary!
Dark energy....oohhhh look out, its going to get you!
See, those who call their religion, "religion" explain "evil" by: the Devil!
It is the Devil, the Prince of Darkness, who makes the world imperfect and contrary to the wishes of the good god.
In cosmology, this evil force that contradicts all big bang predictions, is Dark Matter.... dark, evil, bad.... but good, very good! Thank you prince of dark matter you have come to the rescue of our god: the big bang.
DoorwayToHeaven 4 years ago
Wow, you really don't know what you're talking about do you? Trust a religious person to read something by name alone. Dark matter just means we can't see it. It's just a label given to the matter that must be there which is not emitting light, because we see the effects of it's gravity. It's called dark matter because it is <b>dark</b> and in not bright. Dead stars and interstellar gas accounts for a lot of it. Do you feel stupid yet?
theinquisitor 4 years ago
Physcists really are just making it up as they are going along, just like the founders of religions did, but they try to convince you that they are right because they are more rational. It's still nonsense, listening to this. I wonder how many decades or centuries it will be until the next breakthrough... I wonder if another Einstein or Newton will ever come out of this society. It's sad, but today we're left with jobsworths, people who have been educated to think in a certain way.
gratex 4 years ago
Haha oh man that's funny. Most of high technology relies on the fact that quantum physics makes accurate predictions. Have you heard of transistors? Or lasers? Or computers? You're using the proof that science works to tell me that it doesn't! I mean that's just hilarious. Science gets real results that work in the real world. Do you really think computers would work if they were made based on <i>made up</i> theories?
theinquisitor 4 years ago
All the things you are talking about worked before dark matter/energy were even conceived. Try again.
gratex 4 years ago
Well your comment was about how physicists are making <i>it</i> up as they go along, it being physics I thought. I was making a point about the scientific method, which is used to determine all these theories.
The point is that we look at the light coming from the stars, and it is redshifted, the stars are moving away from us. This has been confirmed by scientists all over the world. There's nothing they'd like better than to discover something different and win a nobel prize.
theinquisitor 4 years ago
There's also the background microwave radiation. This isn't made up, it was found. It's consistent with the predictions of the big bang. Do you have a better way of explaining the evidence? No scientist is asking anyone to accept this as a kind of absolute truth. The problem is that you are expecting science to do what religion does. The models used are approximations of reality, and are consistent with all the evidence. One bit of negative evidence would eliminate the theory.
theinquisitor 4 years ago
I do not expect science to answer the unanswerable I expect it to be scientific! I have yet to mention religion at all I'm talking about dark matter/energy and negative pressure in these comments. The truth is not about taking sides or agreeing with people, it's about making theories that resemble observations.
gratex 4 years ago
The professor in this video is still thinking in terms that pre-date the discovery of dark matter, so how can we improve our model of the universe if we're still trapped thinking of it in old terms? This OBSERVATION has led me to conclude that we're waiting on another genius to shake things up, to make disagreements with the established model so that knowledge can progress and the dogma of jobsworths can be debunked!
gratex 4 years ago
Who's trapped? The scientific method of peer review is still open. People have been working on new hypotheses like string theory, which is something which hasn't been confirmed by observation, and so isn't theory. There are plenty of other hypotheses out there and bigger particle accelerators are being built. There's the LISA array which will measure gravity waves and give us more observations. The research is ongoing.
theinquisitor 4 years ago
There's no dogma in science, at least not in the long term. There's a self correcting mechanism of peer review and experimentation. There may be resistance to new ideas if there is no evidence but why shouldn't there be?
If evidence is found that contradicts an existing theory, it will be checked and confirmed, but if the theory just doesn't accomodate it, then the theory has to be thrown out. Scientific theories are designed to be falsifiable to avoid that kind of dogmatism.
theinquisitor 4 years ago
You forget that it is human beings that are involved in the scientific process, and it is my conjecture from a psychological and sociological perspective that the groups that become involved in certain specialised fields often tend to come from certain backgrounds and show certain personality traits, it is my conjecture that the wrong personality types are entering these fields of science and that we're awaiting a radical change in the very personnel rather than a new observation.
gratex 4 years ago
But if science really was done that way, how could it come up with accurate predictions? You can't get a theory into the scientific community unless there is evidence that can be verified by anyone. Do you think that scientists sit around and vote on what theory they want to believe in and then look for evidence that fits it? The scientific method is the way we get around these human biases, with double blind experiments.
theinquisitor 4 years ago
All I'm saying is that there's a hierarchy involved, and those at the top are the authority. Consider that the centuries between Newton and Einstein were so vast because of the hierarchy itself, those who claim to be the defenders of the scientific method are often defending their own positions within the community.
gratex 4 years ago
But it's not like that. What are you basing that on? Scientists who have been working on theories for decades will admit they are wrong if the evidence shows them to be. All scientific theories are falsifiable. Where do you get this idea that there is this dogmatism? The scientific method was designed to avoid these kinds of problems, and that's why it works. Have you researched it? Look up scientific method on wikipedia.
theinquisitor 4 years ago
Well I certainly agree that it's not about taking sides. Sorry if I seem condescending, it's just that I thought you were rubbishing the scientific method, which is what I thought was funny.
You did mention religion, you said phyisicists are making stuff up like the founders of religion did. What is it about the big bang theory that you think doesn't agree with the observations? Dark energy and matter haven't been described properly yet, they're just placeholders for the effects we see.
theinquisitor 4 years ago
It's an idea, that the model of the universe was almost perfect until dark matter came along, then we find out that the matter we'd based our model of the universe on was only 5% of the matter in the universe and that we knew nothing about the other 95% except that it has a gravitational effect!
gratex 4 years ago
This should have completely demolished our known models of the universe, of course, and brought everything into question, but all physicists these days have managed to do is to squeeze it into the old model and say that it "somehow" answers every problem that's arisen from our model of the universe and how observation disagrees with it.
gratex 4 years ago
Well the dark matter could be something as simple as large amounts of interstellar dust or something. It could also be some kind of uncharged elementary particle that doesn't interact with normal matter. The fact that we don't know what it is doesn't mean it isn't there. I don't understand what your problem is with this observation. Scientists don't claim to know much more than that. What claims are being made that you think are unreasonable?
theinquisitor 4 years ago
Thank you so much Inquisitor, for the link to Prof Muller!
marekennedy11 4 years ago
is not hard for me to belive that the universe came from nothing, im just saying, what if..., because any way the teory misses something between the "nothing" and the super dense mass that cooled off and expanded and exploted... im not saying this is none sense i do belive this... as he said: "speculations"
edgarinv 4 years ago
Well I'm sure there is more we don't know than we do know, but invoking a god just seems arbitrary to me. It's clearly an anthropomorphism, god was made in our image. It's our human arrogance that makes us assume that since we create things with intention, that the universe and life must have been created with intention. It's not impossible, but I don't see any reason to suppose it, especially since it's an idea from a time when we knew far less.
theinquisitor 4 years ago
think about this, what if... god created out of nowhere a tinny little small marble of energy...
edgarinv 4 years ago
Okay, but then what created god? Did god just come from nothing? If you're finding it hard to believe that a mindless universe could come from nothing, why isn't it harder to believe that god could come from nothing?
theinquisitor 4 years ago
I think the idea is that God is "outside of time", as one interview between Richard Dawkins and some other guy (sorry) suggested. So God never began, he always existed because infinity have have no beginning. The theory of everything, on the other hand, is the equivalent of a circle which must explain its own existance. Where do circles begin? Impossibility! Infinite existance is the only option.
DoctorFist 4 years ago