Stephen Hawking's says that indeed positive energy can and does come from nothing or negative energy. To simplify this concept imagine you dig a hole in the dirt. The mound you create represents positive energy the hole it leaves is negative energy. +and - happen simultaneously. This is the big bang.
Well, the problem i see with that is that "negative energy" doesnt exist. The photon is its own anti-particle, there is no such thing as an anti-photon. You have two kinds of matter that are like the opposites of each other, matter and anti-matter, but that isnt true for energy.
Also, such a concept of the big bang would violate important conservation laws that as far as we know just cannot be violated, like the second law of thermodynamics or the law of conservation of energy.
@kurtilein3 I do not claim to be a physicist or have any formal education on the discipline. I simply stated what Stephen Hawking claimed to be true in a program I seen on TV. If Stephen Hawking is misinformed I suggest you take it up with him. I am sure he would be impressed to know that you have proven him wrong.
I agree that something coming from nothing is absurd. The concept I question is how anyone could be sure that matter and energy always or didn't exist with any real certainty. Believers say that matter and energy were created from a force we aren't capable of understanding, and atheists say that matter and energy always existed. In either case, something has existed forever (a creator or matter and energy). I don't understand certainty on either side when both views are inherently uncertain.
I think our universe was originally zero matter-energy (not a singularity). This is the inflationary big bang model and I accept it as violating no known laws of physics. Victor Stenger is its busiest proponent though it is quite popular with physicists. In short, we started with zero matter-energy; today, the amount of matter-energy still equals approximately zero. It's possible that a quantum fluctuation escaped into what is called a "true vacuum" (the big bang). Thanks for the good work!!
I'm not sure I agree completely. While I obviously agree with the conclusion, I don't think scientists can conclude that something cannot come from nothing. We know that ANY amount of energy can be borrowed for a time from the vacuum energy as long as the uncertainty principle is not violated. However, relativity modifies our concept of time so we cannot know the possibilities that may arise from the eventual quantisation of relativity! We just don't know!
any scientist that knows about general relativity and E=mc² and all the facts that support this theory will understand that energy cannot really be burrowed from anywhere for any amount of time because that would be a violation of E=mc² and general relativity. and for proving such a violation, you would get the nobel prize. and that one comes with more than a million dollars and lots of fame.
so if you think its possible: prove it, and be rich and famous.
Borrowing energy from nowhere is precisely what is allowed by quantum physics. The time for which it can be borrowed is constrained by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. This is scientific fact. It is not a breach of E=mc², it is an example of relativity at work. Vacuum energy, E, is converted to something, mass m.
and anything that is beyond what is observable and provable just isnt science.
so this is all in the realm of speculation. but if you want to speculate that something could somehow come from nothing, temporarily or not, you need to understand that the universe you are speculating about has to necessarily be one in which E=mc² and general relativity are NOT CORRECT. so this speculation is somehow quite meaningless for our universe where relativity is considered to be valid.
Agreed. This is speculation but it's speculation driven by an understanding of current physics. Quite like my speculation that abiogenesis consisted of the formation of replicating molecules despite no evidence as yet.
For anyone who says you can't get something from nothing please read the following!
Something can come from nothing! It's called: Energy-time uncertainty relation!!!!!
A failure of energy conservaion may be tolerated for a short time provided that the energy deficit multiplied by the time interval is less then the Planck constant divided by 4π, which is about 3.3x10⁻¹⁶ eV s.
on a large scale, you are wrong, because effects like this are explained by mathematical quantisation of the laws that we already know (like general relativity).
so you cant get something (like a planet, or a beam of light) from nothing. and nothing in itself is a logical impossibility, so you can say: there has never been nothing. there has always been something. and the amount of energy and matter that always has been is equal to the amount of energy and matter today ;)
I didn't say you can get large things like planets from nothing. I am just saying that you can get electron positron pairs from nothing! I'm sorry I thought I had made that clear!
I'm not saying you can relate this to the big bang or planet creation, I am just making the point that your statement is wrong!
I'm not sure on what evidence you have to base your claim that there has never been nothing???
in order to get an electron and a positron, you need an extremely highly energetic photon. the kind of photons that you had after the big bang. or the kind of photons that you get in highly energetic X-rays, for example in nuclear explosions. photons are pure energy, and energy cannot be considered nothing.
if an electron and a positron meet and annihilate, the resulting photon carries a tremendous amount of energy. E=mc². energy = matter. it isnt nothing.
every scientist that does research in the field of quantum mechanics also has in-depth knowledge of general relativity, and knows what E=mc² means, and how much fame you would get if you manage to demonstrate any violation of this law. you would get a nobel price, and a few million dollars. and you would get published in ``nature´´.
they measure experimental results with incredible precision, and so far NO VIOLATION OF E=mc² HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED. it all adds up to zero in the end.
you really need to make a distinction here, and draw a line.
``But on much shorter timescales energy accounting may be relaxed provided the accounts are settled in the long run!´´ this is completely correct. it ALWAYS settles in the long run, and in this case, the long run would be far below the millisecond-scale.
in the end, a violation of E=mc² is impossible. we can be very sure that matter and energy always existed and will always exist, as long as there is no violation of E=mc²
There is nothing there for the pairs to come from and yet they appear. So for an instant matter is created, of cause the deficit is made good again. Even so for that extreamly short time they were there.
It's like your bank letting you go into the red by £50. You don't have the money in your acount but as long as you pay it back in time you still have £50.
andylocksina: matter and energy are interchangeable, they are two parts of the same coin.
creating matter out of energy is not really unusual. and its NOT creating something out of nothing. i mean, heat radiation can kill you. X-rays can kill you. you can get skin cancer. all because of... nothing?
energy + mass = matter.
so what is there for the matter to come from? E = mc². take energy, divide it by the speed of light squared, there you have it, matter.
im not sure, maybe its just difficult to communicate something like this in the comments.
i guess if you would read just a little bit about general relativity you would probarbly learn more than you could from my comments. youtube needs a better commenting system.
no, to be precise, the conclusion is: we should assume that matter and energy have always existed and will always exist, until we have reasons to believe otherwise. good reasons. very good reasons, because it would require a violation of the universal laws of nature as we observe them.
``Physical energy and matter are both corporeal; these could not have just come about instantaneously.´´ yes, those cannot be destroyed or created, we know they exist, so unless a violation of E=mc² can be demonstrated we should conclude that matter and energy are eternal. they never just came about or were created or anything, matter and energy always existed.
i dont know how to continue this discussion, you dont seem know about what im talking about.
matter can be transferred into energy, energy can be transferred into matter, we know how that works, scientists do it all the time. and this system of matter/energy is eternal.
i feel like talking against a wall. when i talk about matter/energy, i talk about all massive particles + all photons + their current properties.
No, I do know,it's your's and the scientific evidence and their understanding. Sure,there is some truth there. Still again,matter could not just all of a sudden existed.
Being finite is our dilemma. Its' metaphysical what I am alluding to; there is a higher realm that science can never prove. However, when one considers this, a lot of deeper questions on our nature & being will be answered & revealed.
``Still again,matter could not just all of a sudden existed. ´´
but the metaphysical supernatural stuff you believe in.... that existed forever?
that is the logical trap that you just stepped in. your metaphysical whatever can exist forever, but matter/energy cannot? why?
maybe your metaphysical whatever just doesnt exist, and matter/energy are eternal, you are obviously familiar with the concept of eternity, you apply it to your metaphysical entity.
I think the concept of divine creation completely takes in the complexity of the universe. That explains, to me, how everything works perfectly. The vast heavens have a beauty and a grace that cannot just be random. And all of it fits perfectly, conscious beings interact in a system that is without flaw. To me, it would take more faith to believe in that than it does to believe in God. Only a Creator can make something from nothing. God didn't start the Big Bang, he WAS and IS the Big Bang.
Ya!! something from nothing, thats A good one. Chicken and egg, There's another good one, But that's usually used for Evolution. I think that's it. Classic stuff. Check out M-theory or string theory here on youtube, And, Ohh, Ohh, If you make another vid. I would like you to quote some lines from any of Arnold Swarzeneggar's Movies. Please, I know im being stupid, But I would like you to say "Damm it Cohagen!! Give the people air!!".
i don't like religion.. it blurs your mind from reality, if you put your god in 1st before logical sense, your really in trouble, just look at all of the good stuff religion did.. crusades, jihad, overbeliveing, fanatiscm and so on!
Although I´m in favour of your opinions, I must correct you on some points regarding the origin of the universe. According to physicist Alan Guth, this is what happend: During planck era (time zero until 10^-47s) there was only false vacuum. The quantum mechanics tells us that particles can occur spontaneously and completely random. Guth believes that many of this particles appeared and dissappeared during planck era, but eventually one particle formed an electron wich grew very rapidly in...
...vaccum inflation due to a drop from false vaccum to true vacuum. It probably increased its density a billion billion trillion times in a fraction of a second, wich in turn led to the singularity - the state where Einsteins theory breaks down because it violates the laws of thermodynamics. Not until after the singularity, Big Bang occured and the quantumgravity force breaks into quantum mechanics and gravity. The reason why the first particles occured in the first place (see last comment) is..
...that false vacuum simply is a very unstable state. It´s like a snowball on the edge of a hill - you only need a small force to get it rolling down into a more stable state, and while doing that, dramatically increasing in size (read density). Cosmologist Edward Tryon expresses it best: "I suppose our universe is just one of those things that happens from time to time." So, as for the 'something out of nothing' argument - it can be true depending on how you define 'nothing'. But as ...
...most people think of it, it is utterly wrong. I hope I cleared up some confusions. Keep the good work up kurtilein! The future is Bright. Love from Sweden
oabrahamsson: that sounds really interesting, but it also sounds quite esoterical to me.
you need to either prove that ALL unifying theories that can possibly constructed from the facts we have gathered so far lead to those conclusions, or you need to make useful predictions about reality using your theoretical framework (and it has to qualify as an scientific theory).
what you describe sounds hypothetical to me, i cant think of any facts that support those ideas.
I admit that this is an hypothesis, although not taken out of the blue. This is, as far as I know, the most probable explanation we have. See Alan Guth and Andrei Linde on wiki. But as you say, we don´t have the theoretical framework worked out. Maybe the new particle acceleretor at CERN will give us some more facts to test against the inflation theory.
But hey - I´m not a cosmologist/cosmogonist so I´ve only read their work and made my own mind up. Perhaps it is better to shut ones mouth before we know enough... :D
But you are not right, however, that there aren´t any facts that supports this; read the articles about quantum field theory and false vacuum on wiki. Anyway, thanks for commenting.
yes, one of CERNs most important goals is to test predictions and hypothesis derived from unifying theories.
as i understand it, there is a variety of unifying theories that all work very well with the facts we have today, but they produce different results. finding a unifying theory is a purely mathematical thing, and the problem is underdefined, so there are many different results while only one of them can be true. new facts are required, and the scientists are out to get them :)
god is pure energy, man read the bible! and dont hide yourself behind inelectuall playings! man you bring the best evidence for gods existence by your self, and you even dont get it!
I cannot prove if God exists. I cannot prove Allah exists. I cannot prove Xenu exists. I cannot prove aliens exist. I don't believe or disbelieve them, therefore. I believe in peace, love, and truth, among others. I am still imperfect, but its a pretty strong belief.
I can prove blood transfusions are beneficial, not sinful. It is sad you are a Jehovah's Witness and believe in this. This was our original debate, remember?
And by the way, since you brought up the issue of intellectual dishonesty, consider your statements at the outset where you accuse anyone who disagrees with you (i.e. "religious people") of being "indoctrinated" and "silly." That's an ad hominem attack, not an actual argument. In point of fact, that's what is intellectually dishonest and insulting.
With that in mind, how do you expect to be taken seriously by your opponents? If you won't respect my beliefs, then I won't respect yours.
CPofV, you don't have to respect the person's ideas, stance, or thoughts during a debate, in the sense that you are using the word respect. As long as the boundaries of debate are respected, that is what counts.
CPofVirginia: ``If you won't respect my beliefs, then I won't respect yours.´´
thats fine with me, i dont want to hold any beliefs, i prefer KNOWLEDGE.
i wont respect your beliefs if they are faithbased and if you cannot back them up with evidence. then ill just call your beliefs stupid. you can do the same if you find irrational beliefs in my worldview.
You yourself do indeed have a belief system that is "faith-based." You're just not willing to admit it. Like all closed-minded atheists, you don't want to have the burden of actually having to defend a systematic worldview. Of course, coming from a nation which mindlessly accepted Nazism, this shouldn't surprise me. Europeans, by and large, only question authority when it suits them.
In as much as you criticize theists for being "indoctrinated," you fail to recognize your own secularist, Eurotrash upbringing. You don't think you were indoctrinated? You're not an independent thinker, so get over it. And by the way, you reap what you sow. Secular Europe is now dying out and being taken over by the Islamist horde from the East. Enjoy living under Sharia law...
You don't use faith--you use credulity, namely the fact that you believe that this universe came into existence ex nihilo. Your arguments on that point do not suffice and are laughable at best. Logic is not on your side. Reason and evidence? Give me a break. Reason and evidence do not suggest that matter came into existence out of nothing. Everything that is--everything that exists in this realm--must be rooted in something that has the power of being within itself.
We know that our physics work when there is space-time. We can track it down to the singularity and then our physics stop working because there is no space-time for it to work on. Which part of this statement is not true?
abc123jan: that statement is more or less correct.
but if you claim that this applies to all of physics, you are wrong. you need to prove it case by case, you need to give evidence. E=mc² always applies, why should that one go down?
your claim that some time there was nothing is faithbased and nonscientific.
ABC, you cannot prove there was nothing before there was something. At least there is a formula to prove that that is impossible. You are trying to say that formula doesn't apply before the big bang because there was no time. But you don't know. You are arguing from belief.
You are taking ideas you heard about and don't understand very well and drawing incorrect conclusions from them. I don't know that it's possible to prove to you that you're wrong. Have you even attempted to understand what actual physicists have written on the subject?
Okay. Why do I get a thumb down? What is wrong with my advice? You disagree with K's point: no scientists (including atheists) believe that "something came from nothing." So don't believe Kurt and don't believe me. Perfect. You shouldn't just believe us. Why not just run your thoughts past a few physicists? What's wrong with that suggestion? I'm convinced you don't understand what physicists are saying.
What you people cant get through your head is that in order for energy and matter to exist, there MUST exist Space-Time; its the ground that matter/energy walks on. With physics, you can track space-time down to that one condensed point in time, but then physics break down, and it is the fact that physics break down that tells us that there was a time when space-time didnt exist, therefore energy and matter didnt exist, therefore... nothingness.
abc123jan: you are making a claim without presenting evidence.
e=mc² is backed up with the fact that it applies to every experiment we do, so the default position is to say that this law cannot be violated, and ask for EVIDENCE if someone like you just claims a violation.
and nothingness is a logical impossibility! there cannot be nothing, its just logically impossible. this disproves your claim. try something else. you are out of science :P
You still dont get it. You see, you cannot prove what was before the big bang since all physics break down. And I cannot either. But I have something you dont, I have the fact that "PHYSICS BREAKS DOWN" as proof that there is space-time at that point. That there is my proof.
"nothingness is a logical impossibility!"
You are still thinking after the big bang and not when physics break down.
You still dont get it. You see, you cannot prove what was before the big bang since all physics break down. And I cannot either. But I have something you dont, I have the fact that "PHYSICS BREAKS DOWN" as proof that there -ISNT- space-time at that point. That there is my proof.
"nothingness is a logical impossibility!"
You are still thinking after the big bang and not when physics break down.
Your own commentary backs it up. Saying that there wasn't "space-time" is not the same as saying there was "nothing." That our imaginations and vocabulary are currently not up to the task of explanation, does not make magic a reasonable explanation.
You think there was energy in one condensed point and you are right, but that condensed point is .0000000000000001 seconds after the big bang, its part of the explosion/expansion itself. We cannot go beyond this because our logic and physics crumbles before we can get to it. Its works like a grenade. An outside source is needed to start the expansion of the gases from the grenade.
you claim that an outside source is required, but you fail to provide evidence to back up your claim. at the moment, we can only talk about what happened after the big bang, and can get quite close to the point. we would know more if we had more evidence, but you cannot claim that it just worked this way or another without giving evidence, intellectual honesty requires that issue to be left open.
You are the ignorant. Dont you know that E=mc2 only works after the big bang. E=mc2 states that energy cannot be created "PASSED" what ALREADY HAS BEEN CREATED! E=mc2 only works when energy or the space time continuem has ALREADY been created! Material energy has never ALWAYS existed. You cant even prove it scientifically. All physics stop before the big bang, so how can you use physics to even prove what you are assuming?
there are no contradictions between scientific models of the universe and E=mc². the big bang theory does in no way violate e=mc², you claim that this law did not apply during the big bang, but you dont have evidence.
you claim that it is possible that matter/energy didnt exist at one point in time, but your claim has to be completely rejected unless you provide evidence.
dyakki: its one of those arguments that causes people to not realize the stupidity of their religious dogma. its a misconception that reinforces religious beliefs, so it needs to go, we need to replace it with real science.
Well, what I am saying is, I am a man a faith. It strikes me as odd that someone can reduce something complex like religion -- faith, any faith, down to some simple statement as this. You can't do that with science. I wouldn't try to do it with faith. The idea that "something can come from nothing" true or false, has no bearing on what I believe. That's what I meant. Why is this evne the argument?
dyakki: with science and reason alone, you cannot disprove god, but you can almost entirely seperate the religious dogma from reality and expose it as mythology. if the ignorance about science is replaced with knowledge about science, the faith will have to step back until you end up with a deist/pantheist/atheist/bright, or a very moderate believer.
Read: "Religious dogma you do not agree with." And I think the statement that a person who does not believe in go is somehow more "intelligent" than an "deist/pantheist/atheist/bright/whatever" is a VERY dangerous statement. Sir, simply because I believe in God, does not mean science is suddenly meaningless to me. I do not know which people you refer to, but the great many believers would probably share my sentiment, and would refute your statement with utmost vigor.
When people say god created, decided, produced,brought about etc etc the universe all that involves the concepts of change and mutablility yet theist also claim god is immutable and timeless. The argument fails.
Even though you articulate you position w/ some coherence and your limited ability to understand creation does not preclude the facts.That G-d created order out of chaos ! There is too much order in the universe to dismiss it and pretend that G-d had nothing to do w/ creation.Most scientist are now having a hard time ignoring this order factor on a Macro and micro cosmic level.I believe a scientist worst fear is that if science progresses far enough that they will prove that G-d does exist!!!
No scientist is having a hard time understanding the order - or shall I say no scientist looks at the order and concludes, "that must be he will of a supreme being".
Oh and please, spell the word GOD. Do you really think such an omnipotent being really cares if you spell our 3 character representation of his name. Pleaaase.
Wow you use the word omnipotent- reading the bible again ? What do they call a person that reads the bible from cover to cover ? An atheist Wow thats lame even for me lol
zappaelcrappa: you are a great example on how childhood indoctrination into religion causes people to completely misunderstand and reject science.
maybe you are too deluded to learn anything, but we will inform others about the logical and moral problems of religion, and many more will leave christianity.
Any Christians that leave because of any info you put forth were never real Christians anyway.Also childhood indoctrination: Order out of chaos is not greasy kid stuff! Even if you have no intelligent comment to add lets debate th facts!!
Order out of chaos is nothing special. It is observed all the time. Snowflakes. Crystals. Sunflower heads. All of these orderly structures can be explained without reaching to god for answers. All you're doing is salting god on top of legitimate science. That is something no intellectually honest person wold do; let alone a scientist.
You are right, though; it's not kid's stuff. It's the kind of crap that convinces ignorant high-school students of their previously indoctrinated beliefs.
"Order out of chaos nothing special" My point was to show the glorious fingerprint of the creator, to me thats pretty special,but thank you for the comment :}
Good video, I despise the whole "everything from nothing" arguement. I really hope some theist actually listens to this rebuttle instead of ignoring every word.
Du sprichst immer zu von Energie und Materie aber woher kommt diese Energie und woher diese Materie? Die war schon immer da? Ich dachte nichts kann nicht einfach zu was werden. Materie kann nicht erschaffen werden und nicht zerstört werden. Wenn sie nicht erschaffen werden kann warum ist sie dann da?
Das eintige was hier widersprüchlich ist bist du ^^
Good video, but I've got to pick some nits. 1) even with all of our seemingly vast knowledge, we're only at the tip of the iceberg. i.e. If only we knew how little we know! 2) Our "physical laws" are based on observation, but we haven't observed all that much. Just because we haven't seen it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen, or that its happening might be beyond our understanding. i.e. Newton was not equipped to discover relativity. 3) Don't try to disprove existence of god(s), you won't win.
nominalvelocity: its also possible that you spontaneously transform yourself into a lizard-man. but why should i believe it?
we clearly have knowledge, our knowledge clearly has gaps, but dont claim to know that the scientists know less than they think they know. provide evidence.
i wont try to disprove gods, but ill prove that religion is dangerous and ridiculous and that there are no rational reasons to believe ;)
I'm on your side, with the religion opinion. Anyway, sure, Monkeys could fly out of my ass in 20 seconds, but the trend says that's an extremely unlikely possibility. However, I have 27 years of statistics to back that up. I'm just saying, with ultra-high energy particles, other dimensions, singularities, and other conditions which may have existed at the big bang, we don't have enough understanding to say with reliability what did happen, or why. Physics could have been strange, for instance.
Do take into account that there is no condition, no scientific theory, no imagined circumstance, etc., that would allow the law of Conservation of Mass-Energy to be violated. It is also applicable to the moment of--and 'before'--the expansion of the big bang singularity.
And how many times prior to this discussion has a similar statement been said about any number of things we today take for granted, by any number of the greatest scientific minds of the period?
Name one--just one--'scientific mind of the period' who has successfully disproved any of the conservation laws.
To convey the utter absurdity of this: the law of conservation of energy can be derived mere fact that the laws of physics and the physical constants are /constant. (i.e. Newtonian mechanics always works where applicable; proton mass; etc,).
You might as well be suggesting some day that our understanding of arithmetic may be so refined as to require: '2 plus 2 does not equal 4'.
2+2 will always equal 4, because it is a logical construct. It would be very convenient, if the universe came with detailed history, from which we could logically infer its nature in whole. Even now, cosmologists argue the presence of dark matter, a substance antithetical to anything we experience, and apparently experience it only through accelerating expansion of the universe. I think the assumption that physical laws are universal, especially under strange conditions, is a poor assumption.
Then what assumption would you put in its place? That the laws are worthless and are not invariant to some prescribed phenomena? Where would that get us exactly?
I think you have it all wrong - they are not assumed to work in exotic places such as singularities with infinite density. At least not in their current form. This in no way precludes us from modifying and someday testing theories that would allow us to know what conservations are broken in these environments...
I didn't say the physical laws were universal; I said they were constant (though as far as we can observe they ARE universal). From this, using Noether's Theorem, we can show that the law of conservation of energy follows from this symmetry. To undermine the conservation laws you would have to show pretty much every physical law and constant to be not just an inaccurate model of reality, but an incorrect one. The laws and constants would have to wildly (and observably) vary.
How are you so sure we are only at the tip of our knowledge about the universe? I would assert we know a hell of a lot - the details are fuzzy at present, but time will clarify them. I would be (pleasantly) suprised if it turned out current thinking was acually WAY out.
The biggest joke about christians trying to question the theory of the big bang is, that a belgien catholic priest (Georges LeMaitre, check Wikipedia) invented the big bang theory to keep some christian motives of "creation" in the picture of the universe that modern science was drawing. Those christians are questioning a theory that is at heart a christian concept. Modern cosmology is far beyond that, check out the work of Andrej Linde.
The big problem is that the extremely religious either distrust science altogether or use "creation science" to argue against REAL science.
If I point out that uranium-lead dating and similar techniques show that the earth is millions, not thousands, of years old, typical creationist answers are "It's not an accurate calculation," "You aren't a scientist(yet)," or "Maybe God just created old uranium."
Of course I'm still pretending to be a Christian, so I get funny looks just bringing it up.
rootstring: the best way to fight creationism is to attack the weakest points in their belief-system, the few ideas that hold it all together. and when their faith in jesus and the bible goes away, its much easier to teach them about evolution ;) of course evolution in itself is powerful against faith when someone really understands it.
If something cannot come from nothing, then where did the concept of god come from? I can think of nothing which supports the concept of god, unless god, like MOS, is a fictional character.
Great points and wonderful video. In my locale many people would not go to a book to read on this subject. They would never care to read about Einstein or science. They barely read their bibles. My question to them would be then, who created their god? They don't care if they can't answer it. They have rudimentary reasoning. God said it and that settles it.
shariasux: actually most times they say that god simply always existed and will always exist, and therefore doesnt need a creator.
its the same argument that scientists use to explain matter/energy. but we have solid evidence that matter and energy do exist, and there is no evidence that gods exist, so its irrational to believe that a god created matter/energy.
Your arguments are as always unanswerable. The problem I find in discussions with believers is that people who believe in God and the arrival of man from space and similar rubbish don't have logical minds and didn't choose to study science or maths and so are wide open to irrational beliefs. I hope these debates mark a change. Surely eventually things must change! Thank you for posting. Made my day.
nestorrfortuna; there definitively is progress, the amount of non-religious people on our planet is rising, and there already are countries with 80% non-religious people.
you are just making a claim, could you please back up your claim with some evidence? at the moment it looks as if your statement might simply be wrong.
yes i am making a claim, and it is a humble opinion from a simple guy. the best evidence i can present is your videos...after such an overwhelming amount of information bucked up with reason behind some people still believe they were made from dust rather than monkey.etc
nobody in the history of mankind had been able to come back from "the afterlife" nevertheless religion is the comfort some people to hold, so impossible claims keep feeding their life.
i just see people with stoneage believe having spaceage weapons. i have no "faith" in us evolving from mythical believes and turning into rational thinking.
i believe we will keep killing each other because the little voice inside our head say we should instead of understanding we are all the same dna with nanovariations.
do you really see jewish people marring radical islamists? of better yet do you see the sons of islamofashits (sorry about the lapsus) living in armony with the sons of jewish people?
nestorrfortuna: overall progress is still possible, one day 80% of all humans will be non-religious. however, there are always some that will be left behind. some people still live in forests, why not, if they are happy with it. but that doesnt keep us from progressing. 200 years ago 90% of the people were racist. there still are racists, but i think you can understand the difference, it will be the same with religion.
in fact i think the atrocities made in the name of god were carried out by a small powerfull few. is not a democracy were you count votes, in religion it does not respond to mayorities. the silly lot is dominated by the small few
Aside from religion, Lets say cause and effect. I wonder what caused this sudden expansion. We know from science that the universe is still expanding, What exactly is the makeup of the areas that the universe has not expanded out to yet? How far can it go? Ifinity? One question just leads to others for me. I guess thats why i like shows on quantum physics so much.
we know for sure that it happened, we have evidence for it ;) unfortunately we dont know what caused it. and when it comes to expansion... the velocity at which the universe is expanding is going up, the expansion is accelerating, and we dont have a clue why that is.
but thats all cosmology, it has (almost) nothing to do with quantum mechanics ;)
saukko31: sometimes, when scientists have a clear problem that requires a lot of work, they give it a name. the fact that the expansion accelerates is called dark energy because the scientific community wants a word for the problem.
so, its definitively caused by dark energy, we just dont have a clue about what dark energy is. but under this title, the problem can be outlined more clearly and effectively. its something like a working title.
Stephen Hawking's says that indeed positive energy can and does come from nothing or negative energy. To simplify this concept imagine you dig a hole in the dirt. The mound you create represents positive energy the hole it leaves is negative energy. +and - happen simultaneously. This is the big bang.
scotttebben 6 months ago
@scotttebben
Well, the problem i see with that is that "negative energy" doesnt exist. The photon is its own anti-particle, there is no such thing as an anti-photon. You have two kinds of matter that are like the opposites of each other, matter and anti-matter, but that isnt true for energy.
Also, such a concept of the big bang would violate important conservation laws that as far as we know just cannot be violated, like the second law of thermodynamics or the law of conservation of energy.
kurtilein3 6 months ago
@kurtilein3 I do not claim to be a physicist or have any formal education on the discipline. I simply stated what Stephen Hawking claimed to be true in a program I seen on TV. If Stephen Hawking is misinformed I suggest you take it up with him. I am sure he would be impressed to know that you have proven him wrong.
scotttebben 6 months ago
I agree that something coming from nothing is absurd. The concept I question is how anyone could be sure that matter and energy always or didn't exist with any real certainty. Believers say that matter and energy were created from a force we aren't capable of understanding, and atheists say that matter and energy always existed. In either case, something has existed forever (a creator or matter and energy). I don't understand certainty on either side when both views are inherently uncertain.
maxhand07 7 months ago
Please consider this:
The Universe can be created from nothing without god and not violate the laws of conservation of energy. Here is the short answer:
0-0=0 (energy at start of universe)
1-1=0 (quantum event starts universe; Positive mass balanced by - gravity)
2-2=0
etc
Em-Eg=0 (present energy of universe Em=mass and motion; Eg=negative gravity)
Yes, gravity is negative energy. See booksofscience website for more.
booksofscience 1 year ago
I think our universe was originally zero matter-energy (not a singularity). This is the inflationary big bang model and I accept it as violating no known laws of physics. Victor Stenger is its busiest proponent though it is quite popular with physicists. In short, we started with zero matter-energy; today, the amount of matter-energy still equals approximately zero. It's possible that a quantum fluctuation escaped into what is called a "true vacuum" (the big bang). Thanks for the good work!!
cliffwalkinfool 1 year ago
I'm not sure I agree completely. While I obviously agree with the conclusion, I don't think scientists can conclude that something cannot come from nothing. We know that ANY amount of energy can be borrowed for a time from the vacuum energy as long as the uncertainty principle is not violated. However, relativity modifies our concept of time so we cannot know the possibilities that may arise from the eventual quantisation of relativity! We just don't know!
simonpjhall 2 years ago
any scientist that knows about general relativity and E=mc² and all the facts that support this theory will understand that energy cannot really be burrowed from anywhere for any amount of time because that would be a violation of E=mc² and general relativity. and for proving such a violation, you would get the nobel prize. and that one comes with more than a million dollars and lots of fame.
so if you think its possible: prove it, and be rich and famous.
kurtilein3 2 years ago
Borrowing energy from nowhere is precisely what is allowed by quantum physics. The time for which it can be borrowed is constrained by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. This is scientific fact. It is not a breach of E=mc², it is an example of relativity at work. Vacuum energy, E, is converted to something, mass m.
simonpjhall 2 years ago
.... continued
and anything that is beyond what is observable and provable just isnt science.
so this is all in the realm of speculation. but if you want to speculate that something could somehow come from nothing, temporarily or not, you need to understand that the universe you are speculating about has to necessarily be one in which E=mc² and general relativity are NOT CORRECT. so this speculation is somehow quite meaningless for our universe where relativity is considered to be valid.
kurtilein3 2 years ago
Agreed. This is speculation but it's speculation driven by an understanding of current physics. Quite like my speculation that abiogenesis consisted of the formation of replicating molecules despite no evidence as yet.
simonpjhall 2 years ago
For anyone who says you can't get something from nothing please read the following!
Something can come from nothing! It's called: Energy-time uncertainty relation!!!!!
A failure of energy conservaion may be tolerated for a short time provided that the energy deficit multiplied by the time interval is less then the Planck constant divided by 4π, which is about 3.3x10⁻¹⁶ eV s.
Andylocksigma 3 years ago
andylocksigma:
on a large scale, you are wrong, because effects like this are explained by mathematical quantisation of the laws that we already know (like general relativity).
so you cant get something (like a planet, or a beam of light) from nothing. and nothing in itself is a logical impossibility, so you can say: there has never been nothing. there has always been something. and the amount of energy and matter that always has been is equal to the amount of energy and matter today ;)
kurtilein3 3 years ago
I didn't say you can get large things like planets from nothing. I am just saying that you can get electron positron pairs from nothing! I'm sorry I thought I had made that clear!
I'm not saying you can relate this to the big bang or planet creation, I am just making the point that your statement is wrong!
I'm not sure on what evidence you have to base your claim that there has never been nothing???
Andylocksigma 3 years ago
well, even that is impossible.
in order to get an electron and a positron, you need an extremely highly energetic photon. the kind of photons that you had after the big bang. or the kind of photons that you get in highly energetic X-rays, for example in nuclear explosions. photons are pure energy, and energy cannot be considered nothing.
if an electron and a positron meet and annihilate, the resulting photon carries a tremendous amount of energy. E=mc². energy = matter. it isnt nothing.
kurtilein3 3 years ago
Electron-positron pair creation does take massive photon energy to create under normal time scales. This is shown in beta-decay!
But on much shorter timescales energy accounting may be relaxed provided the accounts are settled in the long run!
So pairs can be created from nothing without the need of matter or photons to be present before hand, so long as they instantly enilate each other!
Andylocksigma 3 years ago
every scientist that does research in the field of quantum mechanics also has in-depth knowledge of general relativity, and knows what E=mc² means, and how much fame you would get if you manage to demonstrate any violation of this law. you would get a nobel price, and a few million dollars. and you would get published in ``nature´´.
they measure experimental results with incredible precision, and so far NO VIOLATION OF E=mc² HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED. it all adds up to zero in the end.
kurtilein3 3 years ago
you really need to make a distinction here, and draw a line.
``But on much shorter timescales energy accounting may be relaxed provided the accounts are settled in the long run!´´ this is completely correct. it ALWAYS settles in the long run, and in this case, the long run would be far below the millisecond-scale.
in the end, a violation of E=mc² is impossible. we can be very sure that matter and energy always existed and will always exist, as long as there is no violation of E=mc²
kurtilein3 3 years ago
There is nothing there for the pairs to come from and yet they appear. So for an instant matter is created, of cause the deficit is made good again. Even so for that extreamly short time they were there.
It's like your bank letting you go into the red by £50. You don't have the money in your acount but as long as you pay it back in time you still have £50.
Andylocksigma 3 years ago
andylocksina: matter and energy are interchangeable, they are two parts of the same coin.
creating matter out of energy is not really unusual. and its NOT creating something out of nothing. i mean, heat radiation can kill you. X-rays can kill you. you can get skin cancer. all because of... nothing?
energy + mass = matter.
so what is there for the matter to come from? E = mc². take energy, divide it by the speed of light squared, there you have it, matter.
kurtilein3 3 years ago
Obviously we both have the correct facts but we interpret them differently.
Its been very nice debating with you. Keep up the good work with the videos.
Andy
Andylocksigma 3 years ago
im not sure, maybe its just difficult to communicate something like this in the comments.
i guess if you would read just a little bit about general relativity you would probarbly learn more than you could from my comments. youtube needs a better commenting system.
kurtilein3 3 years ago
Somewhat good post. You claim ""nothing" is illogical".Good.Further,"energy always existed".Right again.
So,this just happened to be around?
Sorry,there's too much beyond our limited minds to fully grasp & understand.
kub73158 4 years ago
no, to be precise, the conclusion is: we should assume that matter and energy have always existed and will always exist, until we have reasons to believe otherwise. good reasons. very good reasons, because it would require a violation of the universal laws of nature as we observe them.
kurtilein3 4 years ago
Thanks,correct you are on the energy aspect.There are different forms of energy,though.
Physical energy and matter are both corporeal; these could not have just come about instantaneously.
kub73158 4 years ago
``Physical energy and matter are both corporeal; these could not have just come about instantaneously.´´ yes, those cannot be destroyed or created, we know they exist, so unless a violation of E=mc² can be demonstrated we should conclude that matter and energy are eternal. they never just came about or were created or anything, matter and energy always existed.
kurtilein3 4 years ago
Only certain energies are eternal. All matter is temporary,albeit sometimes long lasting to our minds.
kub73158 4 years ago
i dont know how to continue this discussion, you dont seem know about what im talking about.
matter can be transferred into energy, energy can be transferred into matter, we know how that works, scientists do it all the time. and this system of matter/energy is eternal.
i feel like talking against a wall. when i talk about matter/energy, i talk about all massive particles + all photons + their current properties.
kurtilein3 4 years ago
No, I do know,it's your's and the scientific evidence and their understanding. Sure,there is some truth there. Still again,matter could not just all of a sudden existed.
Being finite is our dilemma. Its' metaphysical what I am alluding to; there is a higher realm that science can never prove. However, when one considers this, a lot of deeper questions on our nature & being will be answered & revealed.
kub73158 4 years ago
``Still again,matter could not just all of a sudden existed. ´´
but the metaphysical supernatural stuff you believe in.... that existed forever?
that is the logical trap that you just stepped in. your metaphysical whatever can exist forever, but matter/energy cannot? why?
maybe your metaphysical whatever just doesnt exist, and matter/energy are eternal, you are obviously familiar with the concept of eternity, you apply it to your metaphysical entity.
kurtilein3 4 years ago
kurt-you're intelligent for sure. I'll get to the real point. You and atheists are stuck in this narrow and rigid belief system that only goes so far.
Please, step out of the laboratory for a moment. In time, you will see and know eventually. There is sureness of that.
Btw-some of my ancestors were from Frankfurt and places nearby.
My last time here. All the best to you on your journey.
kub73158 4 years ago
"You and atheists are stuck in this narrow and rigid belief system that only goes so far."
oh, and "god created everything" isn't a narrow view at all. sorry, but that view doesn't even begin to take in all the complexity of the universe.
protofear 4 years ago
I think the concept of divine creation completely takes in the complexity of the universe. That explains, to me, how everything works perfectly. The vast heavens have a beauty and a grace that cannot just be random. And all of it fits perfectly, conscious beings interact in a system that is without flaw. To me, it would take more faith to believe in that than it does to believe in God. Only a Creator can make something from nothing. God didn't start the Big Bang, he WAS and IS the Big Bang.
HedgedIn 3 years ago
so, I guess you are saying that if YOU say the moon is made of cheese, then the moon is made of cheese.
I'm glad it works for you. but that doesn't mean you are correct.
protofear 3 years ago
Ya!! something from nothing, thats A good one. Chicken and egg, There's another good one, But that's usually used for Evolution. I think that's it. Classic stuff. Check out M-theory or string theory here on youtube, And, Ohh, Ohh, If you make another vid. I would like you to quote some lines from any of Arnold Swarzeneggar's Movies. Please, I know im being stupid, But I would like you to say "Damm it Cohagen!! Give the people air!!".
ApemanD 3 years ago
i don't like religion.. it blurs your mind from reality, if you put your god in 1st before logical sense, your really in trouble, just look at all of the good stuff religion did.. crusades, jihad, overbeliveing, fanatiscm and so on!
KaptajnKaffe 4 years ago
ignorant people
ServantofJesus777 4 years ago
Although I´m in favour of your opinions, I must correct you on some points regarding the origin of the universe. According to physicist Alan Guth, this is what happend: During planck era (time zero until 10^-47s) there was only false vacuum. The quantum mechanics tells us that particles can occur spontaneously and completely random. Guth believes that many of this particles appeared and dissappeared during planck era, but eventually one particle formed an electron wich grew very rapidly in...
oabrahamsson 4 years ago
...vaccum inflation due to a drop from false vaccum to true vacuum. It probably increased its density a billion billion trillion times in a fraction of a second, wich in turn led to the singularity - the state where Einsteins theory breaks down because it violates the laws of thermodynamics. Not until after the singularity, Big Bang occured and the quantumgravity force breaks into quantum mechanics and gravity. The reason why the first particles occured in the first place (see last comment) is..
oabrahamsson 4 years ago
...that false vacuum simply is a very unstable state. It´s like a snowball on the edge of a hill - you only need a small force to get it rolling down into a more stable state, and while doing that, dramatically increasing in size (read density). Cosmologist Edward Tryon expresses it best: "I suppose our universe is just one of those things that happens from time to time." So, as for the 'something out of nothing' argument - it can be true depending on how you define 'nothing'. But as ...
oabrahamsson 4 years ago
...most people think of it, it is utterly wrong. I hope I cleared up some confusions. Keep the good work up kurtilein! The future is Bright. Love from Sweden
oabrahamsson 4 years ago
oabrahamsson: that sounds really interesting, but it also sounds quite esoterical to me.
you need to either prove that ALL unifying theories that can possibly constructed from the facts we have gathered so far lead to those conclusions, or you need to make useful predictions about reality using your theoretical framework (and it has to qualify as an scientific theory).
what you describe sounds hypothetical to me, i cant think of any facts that support those ideas.
kurtilein3 4 years ago
I admit that this is an hypothesis, although not taken out of the blue. This is, as far as I know, the most probable explanation we have. See Alan Guth and Andrei Linde on wiki. But as you say, we don´t have the theoretical framework worked out. Maybe the new particle acceleretor at CERN will give us some more facts to test against the inflation theory.
oabrahamsson 4 years ago
But hey - I´m not a cosmologist/cosmogonist so I´ve only read their work and made my own mind up. Perhaps it is better to shut ones mouth before we know enough... :D
But you are not right, however, that there aren´t any facts that supports this; read the articles about quantum field theory and false vacuum on wiki. Anyway, thanks for commenting.
oabrahamsson 4 years ago
yes, one of CERNs most important goals is to test predictions and hypothesis derived from unifying theories.
as i understand it, there is a variety of unifying theories that all work very well with the facts we have today, but they produce different results. finding a unifying theory is a purely mathematical thing, and the problem is underdefined, so there are many different results while only one of them can be true. new facts are required, and the scientists are out to get them :)
kurtilein3 4 years ago
hey man! E=mc² is the best prove for god!!!
god is pure energy, man read the bible! and dont hide yourself behind inelectuall playings! man you bring the best evidence for gods existence by your self, and you even dont get it!
truthoutnow 4 years ago
for the massive amount of ignorance you display, you are now blocked.
i am now convinced that a rational, useful discussion is not possible with you.
kurtilein3 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you have fucking big problems & Learn english!
mici432 4 years ago
I bet his English is better than yours.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago 2
"Learn English" ays a guy (?) from Switzerland!! Are you kidding me?! Lol
oabrahamsson 4 years ago
ABC, once again, for clarity:
I cannot prove if God exists. I cannot prove Allah exists. I cannot prove Xenu exists. I cannot prove aliens exist. I don't believe or disbelieve them, therefore. I believe in peace, love, and truth, among others. I am still imperfect, but its a pretty strong belief.
I can prove blood transfusions are beneficial, not sinful. It is sad you are a Jehovah's Witness and believe in this. This was our original debate, remember?
einspahrfamily 4 years ago
excuse me, blood was ONE of our original debates.
einspahrfamily 4 years ago
And by the way, since you brought up the issue of intellectual dishonesty, consider your statements at the outset where you accuse anyone who disagrees with you (i.e. "religious people") of being "indoctrinated" and "silly." That's an ad hominem attack, not an actual argument. In point of fact, that's what is intellectually dishonest and insulting.
With that in mind, how do you expect to be taken seriously by your opponents? If you won't respect my beliefs, then I won't respect yours.
CPofVirginia 4 years ago
CPofV, you don't have to respect the person's ideas, stance, or thoughts during a debate, in the sense that you are using the word respect. As long as the boundaries of debate are respected, that is what counts.
einspahrfamily 4 years ago
CPofVirginia: ``If you won't respect my beliefs, then I won't respect yours.´´
thats fine with me, i dont want to hold any beliefs, i prefer KNOWLEDGE.
i wont respect your beliefs if they are faithbased and if you cannot back them up with evidence. then ill just call your beliefs stupid. you can do the same if you find irrational beliefs in my worldview.
kurtilein3 4 years ago
You yourself do indeed have a belief system that is "faith-based." You're just not willing to admit it. Like all closed-minded atheists, you don't want to have the burden of actually having to defend a systematic worldview. Of course, coming from a nation which mindlessly accepted Nazism, this shouldn't surprise me. Europeans, by and large, only question authority when it suits them.
CPofVirginia 4 years ago
In as much as you criticize theists for being "indoctrinated," you fail to recognize your own secularist, Eurotrash upbringing. You don't think you were indoctrinated? You're not an independent thinker, so get over it. And by the way, you reap what you sow. Secular Europe is now dying out and being taken over by the Islamist horde from the East. Enjoy living under Sharia law...
CPofVirginia 4 years ago
CPofVirginia: where do i use faith instead of reason and evidence? where did i get indoctrinated?
give me an example. otherwise your comment is just insulting and intellectually dishonest.
kurtilein3 4 years ago
You don't use faith--you use credulity, namely the fact that you believe that this universe came into existence ex nihilo. Your arguments on that point do not suffice and are laughable at best. Logic is not on your side. Reason and evidence? Give me a break. Reason and evidence do not suggest that matter came into existence out of nothing. Everything that is--everything that exists in this realm--must be rooted in something that has the power of being within itself.
CPofVirginia 4 years ago
We know that our physics work when there is space-time. We can track it down to the singularity and then our physics stop working because there is no space-time for it to work on. Which part of this statement is not true?
abc123jan 4 years ago
abc123jan: that statement is more or less correct.
but if you claim that this applies to all of physics, you are wrong. you need to prove it case by case, you need to give evidence. E=mc² always applies, why should that one go down?
your claim that some time there was nothing is faithbased and nonscientific.
kurtilein3 4 years ago
have you been able to prove e=mc2 past the singularity?
abc123jan 4 years ago
ABC, you cannot prove there was nothing before there was something. At least there is a formula to prove that that is impossible. You are trying to say that formula doesn't apply before the big bang because there was no time. But you don't know. You are arguing from belief.
einspahrfamily 4 years ago
You people still dont get it!
You NEED space-time for energy and matter to exist.
In order for you to use the equation E=mc2, you NEED to have space-time!
If you dont have space-time, you cannot use PHYSICS.
And it is exactly what happens when you go back in time past the single condensed point, PHYSICS BREAK DOWN!!!!!!
It breaks down because there is no space-time for you to USE PHYSICS!!!
abc123jan 4 years ago
"You NEED space-time for energy and matter to exist."
Assertions are not facts.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Are you sure about that?
Are you telling me that matter can exist without space-time?
abc123jan 4 years ago
abc123jan: thefalliblefiend is correct, you are making a nonscientific faithbased claim and fail to provide evidence.
kurtilein3 4 years ago
prove to me that im wrong, "scientifically".
abc123jan 4 years ago
You are taking ideas you heard about and don't understand very well and drawing incorrect conclusions from them. I don't know that it's possible to prove to you that you're wrong. Have you even attempted to understand what actual physicists have written on the subject?
Have you googled "before the big bang?"
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Okay. Why do I get a thumb down? What is wrong with my advice? You disagree with K's point: no scientists (including atheists) believe that "something came from nothing." So don't believe Kurt and don't believe me. Perfect. You shouldn't just believe us. Why not just run your thoughts past a few physicists? What's wrong with that suggestion? I'm convinced you don't understand what physicists are saying.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
abc is trying to argue that there was nothing at one time so that he can believe in God. hahaha.
einspahrfamily 4 years ago
hahaha, yeah funny huh... Even though you acknoledged the possibility if not the fact that there is a God in a different board.
abc123jan 4 years ago
I said there could or couldn't be, it is not proven, so how can I know? You take a blind stance that is false.
einspahrfamily 4 years ago
What you people cant get through your head is that in order for energy and matter to exist, there MUST exist Space-Time; its the ground that matter/energy walks on. With physics, you can track space-time down to that one condensed point in time, but then physics break down, and it is the fact that physics break down that tells us that there was a time when space-time didnt exist, therefore energy and matter didnt exist, therefore... nothingness.
Remember,in order to walk you need a ground.
abc123jan 4 years ago
abc123jan: you are making a claim without presenting evidence.
e=mc² is backed up with the fact that it applies to every experiment we do, so the default position is to say that this law cannot be violated, and ask for EVIDENCE if someone like you just claims a violation.
and nothingness is a logical impossibility! there cannot be nothing, its just logically impossible. this disproves your claim. try something else. you are out of science :P
kurtilein3 4 years ago
You still dont get it. You see, you cannot prove what was before the big bang since all physics break down. And I cannot either. But I have something you dont, I have the fact that "PHYSICS BREAKS DOWN" as proof that there is space-time at that point. That there is my proof.
"nothingness is a logical impossibility!"
You are still thinking after the big bang and not when physics break down.
abc123jan 4 years ago
You still dont get it. You see, you cannot prove what was before the big bang since all physics break down. And I cannot either. But I have something you dont, I have the fact that "PHYSICS BREAKS DOWN" as proof that there -ISNT- space-time at that point. That there is my proof.
"nothingness is a logical impossibility!"
You are still thinking after the big bang and not when physics break down.
abc123jan 4 years ago
abc123jan, I get it.
You don't know what you're talking about.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
TheFallibleFriend, thanks for clearing that up.
"You don't know what you're talking about."
Why do you make this statement if you are not going to back it up with facts? Thats like me saying your stupid and not proving it. Get out of here.
abc123jan 4 years ago
Your own commentary backs it up. Saying that there wasn't "space-time" is not the same as saying there was "nothing." That our imaginations and vocabulary are currently not up to the task of explanation, does not make magic a reasonable explanation.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
can you prove to me what is outside of space-time? If space-time is "something", then what is the lack of space-time?
abc123jan 4 years ago
"Get out of here."
If it's all the same to you, think I'll stay til Kurt gives me das boot.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
fine you can stay.
abc123jan 4 years ago
You think there was energy in one condensed point and you are right, but that condensed point is .0000000000000001 seconds after the big bang, its part of the explosion/expansion itself. We cannot go beyond this because our logic and physics crumbles before we can get to it. Its works like a grenade. An outside source is needed to start the expansion of the gases from the grenade.
abc123jan 4 years ago
you claim that an outside source is required, but you fail to provide evidence to back up your claim. at the moment, we can only talk about what happened after the big bang, and can get quite close to the point. we would know more if we had more evidence, but you cannot claim that it just worked this way or another without giving evidence, intellectual honesty requires that issue to be left open.
kurtilein3 4 years ago
You are the ignorant. Dont you know that E=mc2 only works after the big bang. E=mc2 states that energy cannot be created "PASSED" what ALREADY HAS BEEN CREATED! E=mc2 only works when energy or the space time continuem has ALREADY been created! Material energy has never ALWAYS existed. You cant even prove it scientifically. All physics stop before the big bang, so how can you use physics to even prove what you are assuming?
abc123jan 4 years ago
there are no contradictions between scientific models of the universe and E=mc². the big bang theory does in no way violate e=mc², you claim that this law did not apply during the big bang, but you dont have evidence.
you claim that it is possible that matter/energy didnt exist at one point in time, but your claim has to be completely rejected unless you provide evidence.
kurtilein3 4 years ago
Since when has religion been about the simple argument about "something from nothing." When did that happen? It's never been about that for me.
Dyakki 4 years ago
dyakki: its one of those arguments that causes people to not realize the stupidity of their religious dogma. its a misconception that reinforces religious beliefs, so it needs to go, we need to replace it with real science.
kurtilein3 4 years ago
Well, what I am saying is, I am a man a faith. It strikes me as odd that someone can reduce something complex like religion -- faith, any faith, down to some simple statement as this. You can't do that with science. I wouldn't try to do it with faith. The idea that "something can come from nothing" true or false, has no bearing on what I believe. That's what I meant. Why is this evne the argument?
Dyakki 4 years ago
dyakki: with science and reason alone, you cannot disprove god, but you can almost entirely seperate the religious dogma from reality and expose it as mythology. if the ignorance about science is replaced with knowledge about science, the faith will have to step back until you end up with a deist/pantheist/atheist/bright, or a very moderate believer.
kurtilein3 4 years ago
Read: "Religious dogma you do not agree with." And I think the statement that a person who does not believe in go is somehow more "intelligent" than an "deist/pantheist/atheist/bright/whatever" is a VERY dangerous statement. Sir, simply because I believe in God, does not mean science is suddenly meaningless to me. I do not know which people you refer to, but the great many believers would probably share my sentiment, and would refute your statement with utmost vigor.
Dyakki 4 years ago
I should also have mentioned change involves the concept of time. Yet theist say god is timeless.
nontheistdavid 4 years ago
When people say god created, decided, produced,brought about etc etc the universe all that involves the concepts of change and mutablility yet theist also claim god is immutable and timeless. The argument fails.
nontheistdavid 4 years ago
Even though you articulate you position w/ some coherence and your limited ability to understand creation does not preclude the facts.That G-d created order out of chaos ! There is too much order in the universe to dismiss it and pretend that G-d had nothing to do w/ creation.Most scientist are now having a hard time ignoring this order factor on a Macro and micro cosmic level.I believe a scientist worst fear is that if science progresses far enough that they will prove that G-d does exist!!!
zappaelcrappa 4 years ago
No scientist is having a hard time understanding the order - or shall I say no scientist looks at the order and concludes, "that must be he will of a supreme being".
Oh and please, spell the word GOD. Do you really think such an omnipotent being really cares if you spell our 3 character representation of his name. Pleaaase.
themilitantatheist 4 years ago
Wow you use the word omnipotent- reading the bible again ? What do they call a person that reads the bible from cover to cover ? An atheist Wow thats lame even for me lol
zappaelcrappa 4 years ago
zappaelcrappa: you are a great example on how childhood indoctrination into religion causes people to completely misunderstand and reject science.
maybe you are too deluded to learn anything, but we will inform others about the logical and moral problems of religion, and many more will leave christianity.
kurtilein3 4 years ago
Any Christians that leave because of any info you put forth were never real Christians anyway.Also childhood indoctrination: Order out of chaos is not greasy kid stuff! Even if you have no intelligent comment to add lets debate th facts!!
zappaelcrappa 4 years ago
Order out of chaos is nothing special. It is observed all the time. Snowflakes. Crystals. Sunflower heads. All of these orderly structures can be explained without reaching to god for answers. All you're doing is salting god on top of legitimate science. That is something no intellectually honest person wold do; let alone a scientist.
You are right, though; it's not kid's stuff. It's the kind of crap that convinces ignorant high-school students of their previously indoctrinated beliefs.
Dashes000 4 years ago
"Order out of chaos nothing special" My point was to show the glorious fingerprint of the creator, to me thats pretty special,but thank you for the comment :}
zappaelcrappa 4 years ago
/My/ point is that one need only postulate a god to explain it if one does not understand how the laws of physics work to bring order out of chaos.
You are satisfied with seeing shapes in the clouds in favor of actually knowing how clouds work and form.
Dashes000 4 years ago
Good video, I despise the whole "everything from nothing" arguement. I really hope some theist actually listens to this rebuttle instead of ignoring every word.
Facecageworshipper 4 years ago
Langweilig ^^ spass
Du sprichst immer zu von Energie und Materie aber woher kommt diese Energie und woher diese Materie? Die war schon immer da? Ich dachte nichts kann nicht einfach zu was werden. Materie kann nicht erschaffen werden und nicht zerstört werden. Wenn sie nicht erschaffen werden kann warum ist sie dann da?
Das eintige was hier widersprüchlich ist bist du ^^
MrMudd1988 4 years ago
JA! Wienerschnitzel pickelhaube! Das boot! :D
colleen3217 4 years ago
Good video, but I've got to pick some nits. 1) even with all of our seemingly vast knowledge, we're only at the tip of the iceberg. i.e. If only we knew how little we know! 2) Our "physical laws" are based on observation, but we haven't observed all that much. Just because we haven't seen it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen, or that its happening might be beyond our understanding. i.e. Newton was not equipped to discover relativity. 3) Don't try to disprove existence of god(s), you won't win.
nominalvelocity 4 years ago
nominalvelocity: its also possible that you spontaneously transform yourself into a lizard-man. but why should i believe it?
we clearly have knowledge, our knowledge clearly has gaps, but dont claim to know that the scientists know less than they think they know. provide evidence.
i wont try to disprove gods, but ill prove that religion is dangerous and ridiculous and that there are no rational reasons to believe ;)
kurtilein3 4 years ago
I'm on your side, with the religion opinion. Anyway, sure, Monkeys could fly out of my ass in 20 seconds, but the trend says that's an extremely unlikely possibility. However, I have 27 years of statistics to back that up. I'm just saying, with ultra-high energy particles, other dimensions, singularities, and other conditions which may have existed at the big bang, we don't have enough understanding to say with reliability what did happen, or why. Physics could have been strange, for instance.
nominalvelocity 4 years ago
Do take into account that there is no condition, no scientific theory, no imagined circumstance, etc., that would allow the law of Conservation of Mass-Energy to be violated. It is also applicable to the moment of--and 'before'--the expansion of the big bang singularity.
Dashes000 4 years ago
And how many times prior to this discussion has a similar statement been said about any number of things we today take for granted, by any number of the greatest scientific minds of the period?
nominalvelocity 4 years ago
Name one--just one--'scientific mind of the period' who has successfully disproved any of the conservation laws.
To convey the utter absurdity of this: the law of conservation of energy can be derived mere fact that the laws of physics and the physical constants are /constant. (i.e. Newtonian mechanics always works where applicable; proton mass; etc,).
You might as well be suggesting some day that our understanding of arithmetic may be so refined as to require: '2 plus 2 does not equal 4'.
Dashes000 4 years ago
2+2 will always equal 4, because it is a logical construct. It would be very convenient, if the universe came with detailed history, from which we could logically infer its nature in whole. Even now, cosmologists argue the presence of dark matter, a substance antithetical to anything we experience, and apparently experience it only through accelerating expansion of the universe. I think the assumption that physical laws are universal, especially under strange conditions, is a poor assumption.
nominalvelocity 4 years ago
Then what assumption would you put in its place? That the laws are worthless and are not invariant to some prescribed phenomena? Where would that get us exactly?
I think you have it all wrong - they are not assumed to work in exotic places such as singularities with infinite density. At least not in their current form. This in no way precludes us from modifying and someday testing theories that would allow us to know what conservations are broken in these environments...
themilitantatheist 4 years ago
I didn't say the physical laws were universal; I said they were constant (though as far as we can observe they ARE universal). From this, using Noether's Theorem, we can show that the law of conservation of energy follows from this symmetry. To undermine the conservation laws you would have to show pretty much every physical law and constant to be not just an inaccurate model of reality, but an incorrect one. The laws and constants would have to wildly (and observably) vary.
Good luck with that.
Dashes000 4 years ago
nominalvelocity says-
////"I think the assumption that physical laws are universal,especially under strange conditions,is a poor assumption." Very good comment.
lapislazuline 4 years ago
How are you so sure we are only at the tip of our knowledge about the universe? I would assert we know a hell of a lot - the details are fuzzy at present, but time will clarify them. I would be (pleasantly) suprised if it turned out current thinking was acually WAY out.
themilitantatheist 4 years ago
themilitantatheist:
"I would be (pleasantly) suprised if it turned out current thinking was acually WAY out."
I totally agree. How well we understand gravity may change, but things will never start falling up.
Dashes000 4 years ago
dashes000: your comments are really great, thanks for helping me educate the people here.
``How well we understand gravity may change, but things will never start falling up.´´ great, i might even use that as a quote.
kurtilein3 4 years ago
kurtilein3:
Back at you :-)
Dashes000 4 years ago
The biggest joke about christians trying to question the theory of the big bang is, that a belgien catholic priest (Georges LeMaitre, check Wikipedia) invented the big bang theory to keep some christian motives of "creation" in the picture of the universe that modern science was drawing. Those christians are questioning a theory that is at heart a christian concept. Modern cosmology is far beyond that, check out the work of Andrej Linde.
tmafkap 4 years ago
The big problem is that the extremely religious either distrust science altogether or use "creation science" to argue against REAL science.
If I point out that uranium-lead dating and similar techniques show that the earth is millions, not thousands, of years old, typical creationist answers are "It's not an accurate calculation," "You aren't a scientist(yet)," or "Maybe God just created old uranium."
Of course I'm still pretending to be a Christian, so I get funny looks just bringing it up.
Roostring 4 years ago
rootstring: the best way to fight creationism is to attack the weakest points in their belief-system, the few ideas that hold it all together. and when their faith in jesus and the bible goes away, its much easier to teach them about evolution ;) of course evolution in itself is powerful against faith when someone really understands it.
kurtilein3 4 years ago
Good vid!
If something cannot come from nothing, then where did the concept of god come from? I can think of nothing which supports the concept of god, unless god, like MOS, is a fictional character.
premed411 4 years ago
Great points and wonderful video. In my locale many people would not go to a book to read on this subject. They would never care to read about Einstein or science. They barely read their bibles. My question to them would be then, who created their god? They don't care if they can't answer it. They have rudimentary reasoning. God said it and that settles it.
Rhonda9 4 years ago
shariasux: actually most times they say that god simply always existed and will always exist, and therefore doesnt need a creator.
its the same argument that scientists use to explain matter/energy. but we have solid evidence that matter and energy do exist, and there is no evidence that gods exist, so its irrational to believe that a god created matter/energy.
kurtilein3 4 years ago
Religious people are fucking DUMB!! How does God magically appear one day? Its the argument that can be used against religions! 5 star video
ThinkIGiveAShit 4 years ago
Your arguments are as always unanswerable. The problem I find in discussions with believers is that people who believe in God and the arrival of man from space and similar rubbish don't have logical minds and didn't choose to study science or maths and so are wide open to irrational beliefs. I hope these debates mark a change. Surely eventually things must change! Thank you for posting. Made my day.
auchraw 4 years ago
with all due respect, i think thinkgs will not change, people like to believe in an everlasting life. it will never change.
nestorrfortuna 4 years ago
nestorrfortuna; there definitively is progress, the amount of non-religious people on our planet is rising, and there already are countries with 80% non-religious people.
you are just making a claim, could you please back up your claim with some evidence? at the moment it looks as if your statement might simply be wrong.
kurtilein3 4 years ago
yes i am making a claim, and it is a humble opinion from a simple guy. the best evidence i can present is your videos...after such an overwhelming amount of information bucked up with reason behind some people still believe they were made from dust rather than monkey.etc
nestorrfortuna 4 years ago
nobody in the history of mankind had been able to come back from "the afterlife" nevertheless religion is the comfort some people to hold, so impossible claims keep feeding their life.
nestorrfortuna 4 years ago
i just see people with stoneage believe having spaceage weapons. i have no "faith" in us evolving from mythical believes and turning into rational thinking.
i believe we will keep killing each other because the little voice inside our head say we should instead of understanding we are all the same dna with nanovariations.
nestorrfortuna 4 years ago
do you really see jewish people marring radical islamists? of better yet do you see the sons of islamofashits (sorry about the lapsus) living in armony with the sons of jewish people?
nestorrfortuna 4 years ago
do you see these things happening in the near or distant future.
i see black people marrying white people, and i still see racism, so i have hope one day we will "evolve" from those petty issues.
now i cannot see any jew marrying a shitlamist and raising children together.
i see them "ficken" but not loving, should i go on?
nestorrfortuna 4 years ago
nestorrfortuna: overall progress is still possible, one day 80% of all humans will be non-religious. however, there are always some that will be left behind. some people still live in forests, why not, if they are happy with it. but that doesnt keep us from progressing. 200 years ago 90% of the people were racist. there still are racists, but i think you can understand the difference, it will be the same with religion.
kurtilein3 4 years ago
overall progress...
yes a cannibal eating with fork and knife is doing,of course, an overall progress.
yes we used to be politheistic now we are monotheistic so it seems we are progressing.
i do think that 10% is amazingly dangerous.
nestorrfortuna 4 years ago
in fact i think the atrocities made in the name of god were carried out by a small powerfull few. is not a democracy were you count votes, in religion it does not respond to mayorities. the silly lot is dominated by the small few
nestorrfortuna 4 years ago
:)
thanks for thoughts.
-Canada
f417h 4 years ago
Aside from religion, Lets say cause and effect. I wonder what caused this sudden expansion. We know from science that the universe is still expanding, What exactly is the makeup of the areas that the universe has not expanded out to yet? How far can it go? Ifinity? One question just leads to others for me. I guess thats why i like shows on quantum physics so much.
gnwhite 4 years ago
we know for sure that it happened, we have evidence for it ;) unfortunately we dont know what caused it. and when it comes to expansion... the velocity at which the universe is expanding is going up, the expansion is accelerating, and we dont have a clue why that is.
but thats all cosmology, it has (almost) nothing to do with quantum mechanics ;)
kurtilein3 4 years ago
"the expansion is accelerating, and we dont have a clue why that is."
Dark Energy is one possibility, but there is a lot to find out about accelerating expansion.
Saukko31 4 years ago
saukko31: sometimes, when scientists have a clear problem that requires a lot of work, they give it a name. the fact that the expansion accelerates is called dark energy because the scientific community wants a word for the problem.
so, its definitively caused by dark energy, we just dont have a clue about what dark energy is. but under this title, the problem can be outlined more clearly and effectively. its something like a working title.
kurtilein3 4 years ago