@StrykeEvil I think its like what sal said. You would go up ,get to the end, and then appear at the bottom. In other words there is no way to escape it. Assuming everything I just said is true (which it may not be) you could go fast enough to see yourself from where you started ur journey .
My question is this. Lets say theoretically you could travel faster then the expansion of the universe and you started from roughly the center of the universe and went "up". What would happen when you reached the edge of space its self?
One thing I don't get is, since everything is expanding and say two galaxies are close to each other, how will they be moving further from each other? Aren't they moving in the same direction?
@lolwut162 No. Try to picture yourself a baloon, draw some dots onto this baloon, the dots will be the galaxies, and the baloon will be the universe, now blow some air into the baloon and take notice of how the distance between the dots is increasing while the baloon is expanding. This way galaxies can go away from eachother faster then the speed of light.
If the Universe is expanding extremely fast,says that the theory was right, then why is the earth still the same distance from the sun? if everything is expanding, then why is my body's cells still stay the same? this is the only flaw in this theory.
@ijamesza016 Everything is expanding. The solar system (and your body) are way too small for the expansion to be noticeable. The expansion is only measured across millions of light years. The distance from the earth to the sun is roughly 2 trillion times too small for any expansion to be measured.
If you measure the galaxies in the universe you will see that they are all moving away from each other. That's how it's known that the universe is expanding.
@vicksoma so the galaxies is expanding but not the star, why is that? it make no sense that the whole galaxies is moving away from each other but have no effect on solar-system =/
@ijamesza016 The solar system is expanding, it's just way way too small to measure. That's why it's not noticeable. It's like your fingernails. Your fingernails are always growing, but if you look at them they don't seem to be moving at all. But if you measure them for a couple of weeks you will see that they were growing the whole time.
For the solar system, you would have to measure it for several billion years just to see the expansion of space between the planets and the sun.
@ijamesza016 Because it is all about perspective. We can't measure how our solar system is expanding, because we are getting expanding too. You could measure it if you were some all mighty being that could defy properties of physics and wouldn't expand along with the universe.
I can't get my head around whats proposed in this vid
1) if I have a two dimensional thing and bend it it necessarily becomes three dimensional.
2) neither can I understand that time is a dimension.Time is just a measurement the same way as a metre is. It would be stupid to say that metre is a dimension when we know that it is a measurement of length, likewise a degree kelvin is not a dimension just a measurement of temperature.I can accept that the passage of time can vary depending on position
@johntimbrell >if I have a two dimensional thing and bend it it necessarily becomes three dimensional.< The shape becomes 3D, but the surface still only exists in 2D. Inside&outside of the sphere (3D) are not part of the surface/2D-verse. They occupy an additional dimension inaccessible to "2D beings". I'm a layperson, but I like to picture our 3D space (+time) having an edge to an additional, higher dimension we can't access in a similar fashion. We are stuck on 3D surface bent around xD shape.
Thought experiment- if I had an arm that could span the entire universe, I could reach out into one end of the universe and my hand would pop out on the other side touching me in the back.
So space and time have no boundaries so it could produce more space and time almost instantaniously? Which could be the driving force of the expansion of the universe and is what scientists call today dark energy and dark matter?? Or space and time is already infinitely ahead and galaxies are trying to catch up to it??
Its like standing on the inside of a balloon looking into the space/time of the universe at the past expansion of our universe while standing from our pov on a planet resting on the membrane of expanding space/time looking in. There are no edges just the expanding membrane and us looking in. I think or at least thats what I get from this video. Greetings from Scotland.
@DehXable M theory does explain what may have happened before the BB just like bubbles two membranes touched and created an expandint third -i.e. our universe.
why are you guys debating this,if you believe in god fine, if you dont, thats your choice, but cant you appreciate the amazing knowledge Sal is giving us without the debate
I'd like to think myself pretty good at maths and science, and I understand quite a few complex things, but as soon as my brain hears/tries to contemplate a fourth spatial dimension it instantly goes NOPE, NOT GONNA HAPPEN. It's really frustrating D:
@midgeamoo I know the exact feeling, especially when you take into consideration that string theory is based on the existence of 11 dimensions, then your mind just goes what the .... so and so, which is a shame since i would like to at least understand it before i disagree with it.
I have to say this still slightly confuses me. I mean, I logically 'get' that if you go upwards you'll eventually come from the bottom; but the act of visualizing HOW this happens is what I don't comprehend. It's like if you had an arrow moving across a screen; as it passes the edge of the screen to the right it would then come from the left, but the question is HOW and WHAT happens to it in the interim? It can't just be magically teleported... I've always found 4+ dimensions frustrating.
This part doesn't make sense I think the universe might be infinite and always has been. The Big Bang doesn't make much sense. It assumes everything came from nothing and spheres have edges in a way, they are finite spaces. I'm pretty sure something has to be infinite.
The idea of a static universe has been disproved, due to simple, but not immediately obvious logic. If you look at the Universe, you would notice that the stars are moving away from one another. If you pressed fast forward, they would move further and further away from one another. If you pressed rewind, they would come towards each other, and keep coming, and condensing, and so on until you have a tiny dot. If you press play again, what happens? Expansion.
@hedonism13 I've heard this before and it might be true but that's assuming consistency. What if at one point the universe was not expanding. Just because it's growing now doesn't mean it has been from a tiny point.
Well, (and I'm not being rude, I tried to phrase this non-rudely), almost every single physicist, save for a handful of "scientists" waging a war against innovation, would disagree with you. Unless you have a degree or something (which I certainly don't), I'm going to go with the status quo.
This video has a slight error, the present evidence does not support the "ball" model of the universe. The universe seems to be open, this was first found in 1988.
I was speaking generally and neutrally. As far as for u being god, well we have better evidence then u have to offer bro so ur outclassed."here are lots of things that no-one can disprove, yet this does not tempt us to believe them."
like i said, no loss in believing in God but there is a benifit if God really exists..
@montenegrin2010 this video blew my mind. i can picture us in 500 years flying in a space ship to the edge of space only to find ourselves at the opposite side of the universe lol.
An explosion presupposes there is space for the universe to grow within... This means that there is something outside of the universe, which makes no sense because of the prefix 'uni'
@TheJunkieBox Do you think the outside is time and that what the universe is expanding into? I've rattled this in my brain but that's what I think is happening.
@andyct1982 I have my own theories, but Einstein proved that time isn't linear. I don't think that the universe started as a physical system. I have my own theories, but they're kind of religious and I'd rather not bring that into the conversation :P
@TheJunkieBox I hope I didn't offend you. I was just spouting what was in my mind. I'm not religious by any means. I too have my own theories and I just ask questions to find out what is in other peoples minds. I'm not psychic so I have to ask questions to find out what others think. I thank you for your reply and wish you in the best of luck in your quest to understand your existence. As for me, I'll always ask question to learn what I can before this body ceases to function.
This reminds of 3rd Planet by Modest Mouse: The universe is shaped exactly like the earth if you go straight long enough you'll end up where you were...
@odaymustdie exactly that doesn't make any sense. These scientist will say that all the matter in the universe was condensed into a very tiny space, thats impossible. Keep thinking man.
Couldn't the outside of the 3-dim sphere be considered time and that is what the universe is expanding into? If you were to remove yourself from the surface you're just removing yourself from he universe at that time?
@andyct1982 No because when people talk about the '4th Dimension' being 'Time' it's actually kind of a cop out, what he's trying to make you visualise is a 4th Dimension of measuring space, so if you want to include time, we're talking about a 5th Dimension here. (a 4th dimension of measure space. 1D=length, 2D=length x width, 3D= length x width x Depth, 4D= length x width x depth x *the next one we don't have a name for* )
@andyct1982 It's a very hard thing to explain, because as Humans, we literally aren't able to perceive the Higher Spatial Dimensions (after 3D). I think of them as like an overlay layer. Or Arthur C. Clarke has a good description in his "Time Odyssey" books, in which the mysterious spheres are like fingers pressed through the surface of the Pond we live in.
I can't really link you to anything that explains it better - but try to imagine more than 3 dimensions in space (skip Time as one)
@Destro7000 I see what you mean by thinking of higher dimensions that way and it seems like an interesting idea but it is still just another claim that I can't accept without a better proof to convince me. I see no reason to look at space any other way from what I've learned without seeing something to convince me that another dimension like you are referring to is there. Although I am familiar string theory. Would you be referring to String theory or something of that nature?
@andyct1982 Nah, I don't personally believe in String Theory. I'm sorry I couldn't link you to anything, but it's not a new idea that some scientists believe in Higher Dimensions. ....of course as with all theories, they're just theories until you apply findings to them. But it's always neat to discuss all things that are possible but not definite.
But if you call Time a '4th dimension' (which has always been innacurate to me) you must make sure you know Time is not a spatial dimension.
@Destro7000 It should be called a hypothesis before a theory. I certainly don't think of time as a spatial dimension. But Time is a part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change such as the motions of objects. So for me time is a way of measuring the duration an object exist at that spot or at all. Time for me allows things to continually exist and change.
@andyct1982 I dunno, which sounds more serious? :D Theory or hypothesis? I'd certainly pick the least serious one for what I am saying. It's just fun, really.
And yes, true I see what you're saying. Time can be a nice detail for explaining motion and change. Like, this object is this high, this long and this deep, and it's been here for this long. I like that.
@Destro7000 A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon and for a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.
@Destro7000 A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.
@Destro7000 I don't want to be misunderstood. I was just explaining my understanding of the difference between a theory and hypothesis. But you already know all this and that's good. So we see some things eye to eye. That's the beginning of a consensus. That's the goal!
@andyct1982 yeah when I was saying "It's just fun, really" I wasn't trying to sound like a mindless moron - just saying when the speculative bits of Science (as yet) beyond are understanding are fun to have Theories....(or write Hypothesis) about. :)
There is an outside of the universe. There is also a God.
God created the universe from nothingness.
God is so cool becuase the universe is just one of his many creations.
God is also very big, the universe is tiny compared to his, God can also comeinto his universe and live inside of it. kinda like how we build houses to live in them, God can do that with the universe.
GOD IS AWESOME.
The Bible also mentions the expansion of the universe, in the book of Job.
@RespectMyHate Do you have any empirical evidence of this that can be verified scientifically? It sounds interesting, but I don't see how any of this can justified by a book written by people in the Iron age through classical antiquity. Is it possible to understand natural phenomena and not invoke a supernatural entity into the equation that never called for one to begin with?
@andyct1982 When you study nature with an open mind, it crys out the need for a supernatural creator. DNA, protein synthesis, all of science is supernatural, the way atoms are arranged, and if you take out 1 proton and nutron you have a completely different element, there is too much order and design, a creator is necessary.
As for the Bible did you know the older a document is the more reliable it becomes? there are Biblical archeologist who are confirming the Bible to be correct every day.
@RespectMyHate When I see nature, I see nature. I don't see a supernatural creator for anything because I don't try to add something that didn't need it in the first place. If you look up chemical bonds you'll see why atoms and molecules are arranged the way they are. You don't have to add more to complicate the matter. It's like saying 1+2+god=3. Take out god and you still get 3. I've studied nature by going to classes that were given by professors at colleges. As for the bible...
@RespectMyHate ...Please cite your sources on this archeologist. I reject the bible on many parts mainly Genesis. My professors have already convinced me that our ancestors left Africa 70,000 years ago and all modern day humans share a common ancestors. Look up Most Recent Common Ancestor as well as Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam. Science convinces me of human origins not the bible. I need strong evidence to convince me to change what I think. So far no religion has done so.
@RespectMyHate So I checked out the FAQ's, this is what I found. Why hasn't Noah's ark been on the evening news? Satan is attempting to cover-up these discoveries, but in God's time the world will learn of them. Really, It wouldn't have anything to do with the lack of empirical evidence that every respecting scientific institution in the world requires to be actually be considered trustworthy? This is another answers in genesis scam to confuse people what don't have a clue on what science is.
@RespectMyHate By that logic, how can there be a God if there was "Nothing." And if God came from nothing, or was always here, then the same logical rules can apply to the universe. If not, then you're just appealing to magic by applying some logic here, but not over there. You're a hack. Please don't spam Khan's videos with this nonsense.
@Pr0x1mo God was always there because God is eternal. the universe isn't eternal this has been proven, the universe would have burned out a long time ago. So the eternal God created the universe. God is the only uncaused cause.
@RespectMyHate No, its not simple logic, its actually philistine contradictory logic. First you say that God is eternal, then you jump to that the universe is not proven to be eternal... ok... Read what you just wrote, has God been proven, NO. You're appealing to magic, meaning you're just making up whimsical rules for your mythological deity's power on the fly. I can pretty much say what you just said but replacing the word god with the universe, and by your logic, you would have to accept.
@RespectMyHate It hasn't been proven that the universe is not eternal. It has not been proven that God even exists, let alone whether he/she/it is eternal. Don't you think it would possible to have a much more reasonable discussion if we could all just agree not to pretend to know things we don't know?
@RespectMyHate "I know it." Yes, you and several other billion people with mutually incompatible claims. When you say such things, you demonstrate yourself to be a person who cannot be reasoned with. Are you aware of the staggering number of people in this world who have ideas that oppose your own and who also claim that they "know" their own beliefs to be true? I think a little humility would go a long way towards helping us all to develop greater understanding and empathy for one another.
@Zeuts85 No, right now there are billions of people who silence their own conscious to believe a popular lie. What do you think that small voice in your head is that tells you to do right? what do you think that voice is that tells you not to masturbate? or why do you even feel bad when you do wrong like lie? even though your the only one who knows you lied?
There is a God my friend who is trying to keep us from doing whats wrong.
@RespectMyHate Morality may differ from religion to religion. Check out Sharia Law and see if your morals are anything like that. Look up Hammurabi's Code of Babylonian times. You'll realize that morals change with time. What you consider morally just now may not be in the future. What was morally just in the past would be considered barbaric by your standards today. I wasn't always an atheist. It took time and a lot of convincing from science to realize that I was being lied to by religion.
@RespectMyHate Suppose I told you that there were purely neurological and/or mechanistic explanations for why humans possess moral intuitions. If you were to accept this as true, would it change your mind in any way?
If not, what would be required to change your mind? And note: I'm not trying to claim that there is no God. I'm simply skeptical that the existence of "morality" in humans is sufficient evidence for a God. In fact, I fail to see a logical correlation between the two.
@Zeuts85 ill try to make this easy,by using ur logic, there is no evidence that God exists And there is no evidence that God doesnt exist.this situation is simliar to the half filled -half empty glass situation. Its now all upto u what u believe in. If God really does exist then atleast all the religious people will have His mercy, But if God doesnt exist then they lost nothing either. so its better for us to believe in God if u wanna reap the beneifits ,no?
@nightmare4eVerr1 Which God? Thor? Yahweh? Since when has belief ever been a choice? When you "choose" to believe something, that's actually self-delusion. If there is no evidence to support a claim, then the natural default position is to grant the claim no credence. What if I told you that I'm God, and that if you don't believe in me you will go to hell? I think you'd want some evidence. There are lots of things that no-one can disprove, yet this does not tempt us to believe them.
@nightmare4eVerr1 Like I know WHAT? That what you wrote is a cynical way to look at the belief in "God." That, my good nightmare, is called opinion and I deduced that opinion from what you wrote.
P.S. There is no "god," so there can be no personal advisor to an imaginary entity,
alrightie, then plz explain y prophets after prophets from completly different eras , cultures all were conveying the same message and revelations from the One God
Are you joking? There have been tens of thousands of religions (most have probably been forgotten by now), but even of those we know there are huge variances between them. Just look at the differences between Hinduism and Christianity. I WILL grant you that Judaism, Islam and Christianity all have similarities, but that is only because they're based on the same book - the old testament. (well, Christianity more on the NT but it's still just a revision of the same)
@nightmare4eVerr1 It amazing how you thought the statement ''if there was a god, would that kind of jaded belief in him or her (kids say NO to sexism, lol) make him/her happy" a baseless statement yet the belief in god not, it's as baseless as believing in flying elephants, you stupid fool.
Also what are the chances that we're the only "advanced" civilization in the ..ENTIRE.. "known" universe? It is mathematically (probabilistically) unsound.
If there are other life-forms, would they be carbon-based like us? Even if other universes don't exist, there would be no way for other life forms to make contact with us within our own universe. It is simply too vast. The only feasible way, would be speed-of-light space travel.
And lastly: everyone should check Nikola Tesla out. :)
(Not my idea): Perhaps there exists a blackhole in another universe, and our universe is connected to it through a "whitehole", whereby the matter sucked in from the other universe (by its blackhole), became expelled into our universe (through the whitehole), which we perceive as the big bang.
How does an infinitesimally small point have infinite mass/energy?
Was the big bang, THE big bang? i.e. are there other universes?
If there are other universes, which one is the originator of mass/ energy and the fundamental forces of nature (gravity, EM, weak, strong)?
Or perhaps if there are other universes, that have expanded from other big-bangs, do they have their own fundamental forces, and mass-like, energy-like things?
I understand the analogy that everything in our universe is expanding away from each other (like points on a surface of an inflating balloon), but what about at the first instance of time? If we work backwards in time (shrinking space), we'd come to the conclusion the the universe began at a single point. Now if the universe began as a point, how did it expand into a surface?
If this theory were actually true, then wouldn't it also be true that everything inside this space is expanding as well. Perhaps 10 years ago, i was the size of a pea in relation to my current self in this point in time. And if that is true, then space isn't actually expanding from our relative perception because light always goes the same speed relative to the observer. Space is infinity large and infinitely small.
@TreachMarkets But the center is not part of our 3 dimensional space. In the sphere analogy, the universe consists of only the surface of the sphere, not the volume of the sphere. And the center of a sphere is not on it's surface. By analogy, the center of the universe is not in the universe.
I still believe something happens in whatever passes for an Afterlife.
I had a near-death experience and, NO, I wasn't having a dang nightmare. People don't do something as logically organized as dreaming has to be when their heart is in fibrillation. Just lying there quivering, according to the doctor.
But he believed we have no soul. Maybe HE doesn't, maybe that's what you need in order to survive as a doctor, but I don't agree.
Besides, I saw someone I didn't know, but one of the medics did.
@doncam02 when you into stuff like that you are dealing with string theory, before the 1990, there where about 5 or more different strong theories, but then someone or a group of scientist combined them all into M-theory, which i believe says that there are 11 or 21 dimensions, but you should check that number for i am not completely shure about it
@doncam02 That's just a theory, not a fact. Besides, those extra dimension in string theory where you're probably referring to are actually a lot stranger than you would imagine them to be.
Particles are one dimensional strings vibrating into higher dimensions. Our 3 familiar dimensions, containing matter and energy are therefor made up out of more than 3 dimensions. Most the extra dimensions in string theory are folded inside our universe, so it's not a 10 dimensional hyperspace.
Great video. I never realised the stuff about "outside" (in 3D) the Universe not being possible due to the 4D nature of the Universe. It would be cool (if you can do it) if you explain some further stuff using the necessary Maths. You've already got the groundwork for that in your Maths vids.
awesome!! I've heard about other models of the universe, s.a flat model,negative curvature etc..maybe you should explain a little about those in your next video..but great work indeed..hats off!
I love that you're doing videos like this. I'm an engineering student with a real passion for physics and cosmology. There is so much misinformation on the internet, (especially here on youtube) that it's always a breath of fresh air to see someone like yourself using your talents to explain what can be difficult theories to understand. Keep up the good work : )
@GODelusional Bahaha I heard him say that :p
oreosis 2 weeks ago
10:48 "the fuck the faster"
GODelusional 2 weeks ago
you could explain the 3-dimentional shape with a FINITE volume and no edge as the surface of a doughnut
ADickIHave 3 weeks ago
@StrykeEvil I think its like what sal said. You would go up ,get to the end, and then appear at the bottom. In other words there is no way to escape it. Assuming everything I just said is true (which it may not be) you could go fast enough to see yourself from where you started ur journey .
DoctorJ1337 3 weeks ago
My question is this. Lets say theoretically you could travel faster then the expansion of the universe and you started from roughly the center of the universe and went "up". What would happen when you reached the edge of space its self?
StrykeEvil 1 month ago
@StrykeEvil I would say there's no edge but more likely you're going into something similar to a blackhole.
nils4545 1 month ago
One thing I don't get is, since everything is expanding and say two galaxies are close to each other, how will they be moving further from each other? Aren't they moving in the same direction?
lolwut162 1 month ago
@lolwut162 No. Try to picture yourself a baloon, draw some dots onto this baloon, the dots will be the galaxies, and the baloon will be the universe, now blow some air into the baloon and take notice of how the distance between the dots is increasing while the baloon is expanding. This way galaxies can go away from eachother faster then the speed of light.
nils4545 1 month ago
Comment removed
lolwut162 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nils4545 Ahhh, I guess I didn't fully take in the spherical universe. Makes much more sense now, thanks!
lolwut162 1 month ago
If the Universe is expanding extremely fast,says that the theory was right, then why is the earth still the same distance from the sun? if everything is expanding, then why is my body's cells still stay the same? this is the only flaw in this theory.
ijamesza016 2 months ago
@ijamesza016 -____________-
xSeppuku 1 month ago
@ijamesza016 Everything is expanding. The solar system (and your body) are way too small for the expansion to be noticeable. The expansion is only measured across millions of light years. The distance from the earth to the sun is roughly 2 trillion times too small for any expansion to be measured.
If you measure the galaxies in the universe you will see that they are all moving away from each other. That's how it's known that the universe is expanding.
vicksoma 1 month ago
@vicksoma so the galaxies is expanding but not the star, why is that? it make no sense that the whole galaxies is moving away from each other but have no effect on solar-system =/
ijamesza016 1 month ago
@ijamesza016 The solar system is expanding, it's just way way too small to measure. That's why it's not noticeable. It's like your fingernails. Your fingernails are always growing, but if you look at them they don't seem to be moving at all. But if you measure them for a couple of weeks you will see that they were growing the whole time.
For the solar system, you would have to measure it for several billion years just to see the expansion of space between the planets and the sun.
vicksoma 1 month ago
@vicksoma ohhh thank =D
ijamesza016 1 month ago
@ijamesza016 Because it is all about perspective. We can't measure how our solar system is expanding, because we are getting expanding too. You could measure it if you were some all mighty being that could defy properties of physics and wouldn't expand along with the universe.
StrykeEvil 1 month ago
The surface of a sphere does have an edge… it's just in an additional dimension…
playgrrrr 2 months ago
@2:20 - @2:30 did you hear a cat meoing??
marinachp 2 months ago
I can't get my head around whats proposed in this vid
1) if I have a two dimensional thing and bend it it necessarily becomes three dimensional.
2) neither can I understand that time is a dimension.Time is just a measurement the same way as a metre is. It would be stupid to say that metre is a dimension when we know that it is a measurement of length, likewise a degree kelvin is not a dimension just a measurement of temperature.I can accept that the passage of time can vary depending on position
johntimbrell 2 months ago
@johntimbrell >if I have a two dimensional thing and bend it it necessarily becomes three dimensional.< The shape becomes 3D, but the surface still only exists in 2D. Inside&outside of the sphere (3D) are not part of the surface/2D-verse. They occupy an additional dimension inaccessible to "2D beings". I'm a layperson, but I like to picture our 3D space (+time) having an edge to an additional, higher dimension we can't access in a similar fashion. We are stuck on 3D surface bent around xD shape.
playgrrrr 2 months ago
Aww i clicked this video to see the series introduction :(
iFistedFlipper113 2 months ago in playlist More videos from khanacademy
Is there something that Sal doesn't know?? Amazing! :D
BargainParty 4 months ago
Comment removed
shobhan126 4 months ago
Golliwogg says: "This is fascinating, but the ultimate question remains that posed by Heidegger - why is there anything at all rather than nothing?"
GolliwoggMusic 4 months ago
Thought experiment- if I had an arm that could span the entire universe, I could reach out into one end of the universe and my hand would pop out on the other side touching me in the back.
HigherPlanes 5 months ago
Thank you.
ijamesza016 5 months ago
this is really trippy lol
Honestyandyourself 5 months ago
when I finished the video I noticed there was blood coming out from my nose
Anduy 6 months ago
I think I hear a high pitch hum inside my head, wait a minute I'll get my hand drill to get it out...
requshei 6 months ago
So space and time have no boundaries so it could produce more space and time almost instantaniously? Which could be the driving force of the expansion of the universe and is what scientists call today dark energy and dark matter?? Or space and time is already infinitely ahead and galaxies are trying to catch up to it??
requshei 6 months ago
Can someone help me understand how things that are farther away would be moving apart at a faster rate?
Wouldn't the rate of expansion be constant? Or am I totally off base here?
bigggyd 7 months ago
Its like standing on the inside of a balloon looking into the space/time of the universe at the past expansion of our universe while standing from our pov on a planet resting on the membrane of expanding space/time looking in. There are no edges just the expanding membrane and us looking in. I think or at least thats what I get from this video. Greetings from Scotland.
seonidh 7 months ago
A small correction: The Big Bang Theory doesn't explain how the universe started, or how it was created. It explains its early development.
DehXable 7 months ago
@DehXable M theory does explain what may have happened before the BB just like bubbles two membranes touched and created an expandint third -i.e. our universe.
seonidh 7 months ago
why are you guys debating this,if you believe in god fine, if you dont, thats your choice, but cant you appreciate the amazing knowledge Sal is giving us without the debate
hahs4 8 months ago
This guy is amazing he left his old job for less just to teach and hes made hundreds of videos for nothing, he deserves an award.
MegaBEANER1000 8 months ago 45
@MegaBEANER1000 ""hes made hundreds of videos for nothing"
he gets paid for this
gothix114 3 months ago
@MegaBEANER1000 awards*
minec123 2 months ago
In a 4-d universe an object in continual motion will always return to any given point regardless of the path it may, or may not, take.
If you sit in New York's Times Square long enough you'll meet everyone you know.
EBurwell 8 months ago
I get really annoyed with stuff like this.
I'd like to think myself pretty good at maths and science, and I understand quite a few complex things, but as soon as my brain hears/tries to contemplate a fourth spatial dimension it instantly goes NOPE, NOT GONNA HAPPEN. It's really frustrating D:
midgeamoo 9 months ago
@midgeamoo I know the exact feeling, especially when you take into consideration that string theory is based on the existence of 11 dimensions, then your mind just goes what the .... so and so, which is a shame since i would like to at least understand it before i disagree with it.
advers1078 9 months ago
i would like to know about 4 dimensions in detail
ninjaturtle205 10 months ago
I have to say this still slightly confuses me. I mean, I logically 'get' that if you go upwards you'll eventually come from the bottom; but the act of visualizing HOW this happens is what I don't comprehend. It's like if you had an arrow moving across a screen; as it passes the edge of the screen to the right it would then come from the left, but the question is HOW and WHAT happens to it in the interim? It can't just be magically teleported... I've always found 4+ dimensions frustrating.
Vire70 1 year ago
This part doesn't make sense I think the universe might be infinite and always has been. The Big Bang doesn't make much sense. It assumes everything came from nothing and spheres have edges in a way, they are finite spaces. I'm pretty sure something has to be infinite.
Shaunt1 1 year ago
@Shaunt1
The idea of a static universe has been disproved, due to simple, but not immediately obvious logic. If you look at the Universe, you would notice that the stars are moving away from one another. If you pressed fast forward, they would move further and further away from one another. If you pressed rewind, they would come towards each other, and keep coming, and condensing, and so on until you have a tiny dot. If you press play again, what happens? Expansion.
hedonism13 1 year ago
@hedonism13 I've heard this before and it might be true but that's assuming consistency. What if at one point the universe was not expanding. Just because it's growing now doesn't mean it has been from a tiny point.
Shaunt1 1 year ago
@Shaunt1
Well, (and I'm not being rude, I tried to phrase this non-rudely), almost every single physicist, save for a handful of "scientists" waging a war against innovation, would disagree with you. Unless you have a degree or something (which I certainly don't), I'm going to go with the status quo.
hedonism13 1 year ago
This video has a slight error, the present evidence does not support the "ball" model of the universe. The universe seems to be open, this was first found in 1988.
Poleschs 1 year ago
we should probably build a temple for Mr.Khan and worship him. Our bible will be textbook, our practice will be solving some equations.
ElisHong 1 year ago
I was speaking generally and neutrally. As far as for u being god, well we have better evidence then u have to offer bro so ur outclassed."here are lots of things that no-one can disprove, yet this does not tempt us to believe them."
like i said, no loss in believing in God but there is a benifit if God really exists..
nightmare4eVerr1 1 year ago
first of all! i don't know nothing about the subject so forgive my question if it sounds stupid : )!
is the earth also growing apart?? meaning.... are we expanding too? =s
nanananajojojo 1 year ago
How does the idea of the imaginary being called god, relate to masturbation. Strange.
JayDee98765 1 year ago
Sal, do you actually KNOW everything about the things you talk about? Now that is mind-blowing, screw the size of the Universe....
montenegrin2010 1 year ago 29
@montenegrin2010 this video blew my mind. i can picture us in 500 years flying in a space ship to the edge of space only to find ourselves at the opposite side of the universe lol.
Peon546 1 year ago
@montenegrin2010
I believe he has several academic friends (heard in an interview I think) who help him ontop of his own research.
DudeSpectre 7 months ago
When I first learnt about this my spirit soared! And everything else I studied seemed cognitively superficial.
Considering that kids first have to grasp this, I worry that this concept is the most advanced thought humans will ever have.
(and NO, I don't consider multi-verse and string theories as equals to this!)
I do like Gareth Lisi's E8 model tho.
SSuperCuriouss 1 year ago
An explosion presupposes there is space for the universe to grow within... This means that there is something outside of the universe, which makes no sense because of the prefix 'uni'
TheJunkieBox 1 year ago
@TheJunkieBox Do you think the outside is time and that what the universe is expanding into? I've rattled this in my brain but that's what I think is happening.
andyct1982 1 year ago
@andyct1982 I have my own theories, but Einstein proved that time isn't linear. I don't think that the universe started as a physical system. I have my own theories, but they're kind of religious and I'd rather not bring that into the conversation :P
TheJunkieBox 1 year ago
@TheJunkieBox I hope I didn't offend you. I was just spouting what was in my mind. I'm not religious by any means. I too have my own theories and I just ask questions to find out what is in other peoples minds. I'm not psychic so I have to ask questions to find out what others think. I thank you for your reply and wish you in the best of luck in your quest to understand your existence. As for me, I'll always ask question to learn what I can before this body ceases to function.
andyct1982 1 year ago
Bazinga!
lucasmontec 1 year ago
This reminds of 3rd Planet by Modest Mouse: The universe is shaped exactly like the earth if you go straight long enough you'll end up where you were...
Pr0x1mo 1 year ago
No such thing as "infinitely small" ... I think you mean "infinitesimal"
odaymustdie 1 year ago
@odaymustdie exactly that doesn't make any sense. These scientist will say that all the matter in the universe was condensed into a very tiny space, thats impossible. Keep thinking man.
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
Couldn't the outside of the 3-dim sphere be considered time and that is what the universe is expanding into? If you were to remove yourself from the surface you're just removing yourself from he universe at that time?
andyct1982 1 year ago
@andyct1982 No because when people talk about the '4th Dimension' being 'Time' it's actually kind of a cop out, what he's trying to make you visualise is a 4th Dimension of measuring space, so if you want to include time, we're talking about a 5th Dimension here. (a 4th dimension of measure space. 1D=length, 2D=length x width, 3D= length x width x Depth, 4D= length x width x depth x *the next one we don't have a name for* )
Destro7000 8 months ago
@Destro7000 Can you link me to a site that will better explain what you mean?
andyct1982 8 months ago
@andyct1982 It's a very hard thing to explain, because as Humans, we literally aren't able to perceive the Higher Spatial Dimensions (after 3D). I think of them as like an overlay layer. Or Arthur C. Clarke has a good description in his "Time Odyssey" books, in which the mysterious spheres are like fingers pressed through the surface of the Pond we live in.
I can't really link you to anything that explains it better - but try to imagine more than 3 dimensions in space (skip Time as one)
Destro7000 8 months ago
@Destro7000 I see what you mean by thinking of higher dimensions that way and it seems like an interesting idea but it is still just another claim that I can't accept without a better proof to convince me. I see no reason to look at space any other way from what I've learned without seeing something to convince me that another dimension like you are referring to is there. Although I am familiar string theory. Would you be referring to String theory or something of that nature?
andyct1982 8 months ago
@andyct1982 Nah, I don't personally believe in String Theory. I'm sorry I couldn't link you to anything, but it's not a new idea that some scientists believe in Higher Dimensions. ....of course as with all theories, they're just theories until you apply findings to them. But it's always neat to discuss all things that are possible but not definite.
But if you call Time a '4th dimension' (which has always been innacurate to me) you must make sure you know Time is not a spatial dimension.
Destro7000 8 months ago
@Destro7000 It should be called a hypothesis before a theory. I certainly don't think of time as a spatial dimension. But Time is a part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change such as the motions of objects. So for me time is a way of measuring the duration an object exist at that spot or at all. Time for me allows things to continually exist and change.
andyct1982 8 months ago
@andyct1982 I dunno, which sounds more serious? :D Theory or hypothesis? I'd certainly pick the least serious one for what I am saying. It's just fun, really.
And yes, true I see what you're saying. Time can be a nice detail for explaining motion and change. Like, this object is this high, this long and this deep, and it's been here for this long. I like that.
Destro7000 8 months ago
@Destro7000 A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon and for a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.
andyct1982 8 months ago
@Destro7000 A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.
andyct1982 8 months ago
@andyct1982 Yeah I know that, thanks xD I have had plenty of lecturers before. Not entirely sure why you need to tell me this though!
Destro7000 8 months ago
@Destro7000 I don't want to be misunderstood. I was just explaining my understanding of the difference between a theory and hypothesis. But you already know all this and that's good. So we see some things eye to eye. That's the beginning of a consensus. That's the goal!
andyct1982 8 months ago
@andyct1982 yeah when I was saying "It's just fun, really" I wasn't trying to sound like a mindless moron - just saying when the speculative bits of Science (as yet) beyond are understanding are fun to have Theories....(or write Hypothesis) about. :)
Destro7000 8 months ago
There is an outside of the universe. There is also a God.
God created the universe from nothingness.
God is so cool becuase the universe is just one of his many creations.
God is also very big, the universe is tiny compared to his, God can also comeinto his universe and live inside of it. kinda like how we build houses to live in them, God can do that with the universe.
GOD IS AWESOME.
The Bible also mentions the expansion of the universe, in the book of Job.
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate Do you have any empirical evidence of this that can be verified scientifically? It sounds interesting, but I don't see how any of this can justified by a book written by people in the Iron age through classical antiquity. Is it possible to understand natural phenomena and not invoke a supernatural entity into the equation that never called for one to begin with?
andyct1982 1 year ago
@andyct1982 When you study nature with an open mind, it crys out the need for a supernatural creator. DNA, protein synthesis, all of science is supernatural, the way atoms are arranged, and if you take out 1 proton and nutron you have a completely different element, there is too much order and design, a creator is necessary.
As for the Bible did you know the older a document is the more reliable it becomes? there are Biblical archeologist who are confirming the Bible to be correct every day.
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate When I see nature, I see nature. I don't see a supernatural creator for anything because I don't try to add something that didn't need it in the first place. If you look up chemical bonds you'll see why atoms and molecules are arranged the way they are. You don't have to add more to complicate the matter. It's like saying 1+2+god=3. Take out god and you still get 3. I've studied nature by going to classes that were given by professors at colleges. As for the bible...
andyct1982 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate ...Please cite your sources on this archeologist. I reject the bible on many parts mainly Genesis. My professors have already convinced me that our ancestors left Africa 70,000 years ago and all modern day humans share a common ancestors. Look up Most Recent Common Ancestor as well as Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam. Science convinces me of human origins not the bible. I need strong evidence to convince me to change what I think. So far no religion has done so.
andyct1982 1 year ago
@andyct1982 wwwarcdiscoverycom
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate So I checked out the FAQ's, this is what I found. Why hasn't Noah's ark been on the evening news? Satan is attempting to cover-up these discoveries, but in God's time the world will learn of them. Really, It wouldn't have anything to do with the lack of empirical evidence that every respecting scientific institution in the world requires to be actually be considered trustworthy? This is another answers in genesis scam to confuse people what don't have a clue on what science is.
andyct1982 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate By that logic, how can there be a God if there was "Nothing." And if God came from nothing, or was always here, then the same logical rules can apply to the universe. If not, then you're just appealing to magic by applying some logic here, but not over there. You're a hack. Please don't spam Khan's videos with this nonsense.
Pr0x1mo 1 year ago
@Pr0x1mo God was always there because God is eternal. the universe isn't eternal this has been proven, the universe would have burned out a long time ago. So the eternal God created the universe. God is the only uncaused cause.
Its simple logic. don't complicate it.
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate No, its not simple logic, its actually philistine contradictory logic. First you say that God is eternal, then you jump to that the universe is not proven to be eternal... ok... Read what you just wrote, has God been proven, NO. You're appealing to magic, meaning you're just making up whimsical rules for your mythological deity's power on the fly. I can pretty much say what you just said but replacing the word god with the universe, and by your logic, you would have to accept.
Pr0x1mo 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate It hasn't been proven that the universe is not eternal. It has not been proven that God even exists, let alone whether he/she/it is eternal. Don't you think it would possible to have a much more reasonable discussion if we could all just agree not to pretend to know things we don't know?
Zeuts85 1 year ago
@Zeuts85 I do know that God exists. I know it.
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate "I know it." Yes, you and several other billion people with mutually incompatible claims. When you say such things, you demonstrate yourself to be a person who cannot be reasoned with. Are you aware of the staggering number of people in this world who have ideas that oppose your own and who also claim that they "know" their own beliefs to be true? I think a little humility would go a long way towards helping us all to develop greater understanding and empathy for one another.
Zeuts85 1 year ago
@Zeuts85 No, right now there are billions of people who silence their own conscious to believe a popular lie. What do you think that small voice in your head is that tells you to do right? what do you think that voice is that tells you not to masturbate? or why do you even feel bad when you do wrong like lie? even though your the only one who knows you lied?
There is a God my friend who is trying to keep us from doing whats wrong.
Morality is proof of a Mighty loving God.
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate Morality may differ from religion to religion. Check out Sharia Law and see if your morals are anything like that. Look up Hammurabi's Code of Babylonian times. You'll realize that morals change with time. What you consider morally just now may not be in the future. What was morally just in the past would be considered barbaric by your standards today. I wasn't always an atheist. It took time and a lot of convincing from science to realize that I was being lied to by religion.
andyct1982 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate Suppose I told you that there were purely neurological and/or mechanistic explanations for why humans possess moral intuitions. If you were to accept this as true, would it change your mind in any way?
If not, what would be required to change your mind? And note: I'm not trying to claim that there is no God. I'm simply skeptical that the existence of "morality" in humans is sufficient evidence for a God. In fact, I fail to see a logical correlation between the two.
Zeuts85 1 year ago
@Zeuts85 ill try to make this easy,by using ur logic, there is no evidence that God exists And there is no evidence that God doesnt exist.this situation is simliar to the half filled -half empty glass situation. Its now all upto u what u believe in. If God really does exist then atleast all the religious people will have His mercy, But if God doesnt exist then they lost nothing either. so its better for us to believe in God if u wanna reap the beneifits ,no?
nightmare4eVerr1 1 year ago
@nightmare4eVerr1 Which God? Thor? Yahweh? Since when has belief ever been a choice? When you "choose" to believe something, that's actually self-delusion. If there is no evidence to support a claim, then the natural default position is to grant the claim no credence. What if I told you that I'm God, and that if you don't believe in me you will go to hell? I think you'd want some evidence. There are lots of things that no-one can disprove, yet this does not tempt us to believe them.
Zeuts85 1 year ago
@nightmare4eVerr1 If there were a God, would that kind of jaded "belief" in him make him happy?
jlsr1000 1 year ago
@jlsr1000
Like you know?
Are u the personal advisor to God?
nightmare4eVerr1 1 year ago
@nightmare4eVerr1 Like I know WHAT? That what you wrote is a cynical way to look at the belief in "God." That, my good nightmare, is called opinion and I deduced that opinion from what you wrote.
P.S. There is no "god," so there can be no personal advisor to an imaginary entity,
jlsr1000 1 year ago
@jlsr1000
alrightie, then plz explain y prophets after prophets from completly different eras , cultures all were conveying the same message and revelations from the One God
nightmare4eVerr1 1 year ago
@nightmare4eVerr1
Are you joking? There have been tens of thousands of religions (most have probably been forgotten by now), but even of those we know there are huge variances between them. Just look at the differences between Hinduism and Christianity. I WILL grant you that Judaism, Islam and Christianity all have similarities, but that is only because they're based on the same book - the old testament. (well, Christianity more on the NT but it's still just a revision of the same)
Vire70 1 year ago
@nightmare4eVerr1 It amazing how you thought the statement ''if there was a god, would that kind of jaded belief in him or her (kids say NO to sexism, lol) make him/her happy" a baseless statement yet the belief in god not, it's as baseless as believing in flying elephants, you stupid fool.
advers1078 9 months ago
i recommend /watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
also, look up BOOMErang experiment
the result is "our universe is flat (10% inaccuracy)"
ChuckVanDamme 1 year ago
what are the 4 dimensions?
up-down, left-right, in-out, then what?
Kastralis 1 year ago
Comment removed
wesselbindt 1 year ago
@Kastralis
My previous comment was rubbish, look up carl sagan 4th dimension instead.
wesselbindt 1 year ago
@Kastralis Like he said, a lot of people see the four dimensions as this:
Length
Height
Depth
Time
SyphonBlitz 1 year ago
@Kastralis time
ShaheemA13 1 year ago
Also what are the chances that we're the only "advanced" civilization in the ..ENTIRE.. "known" universe? It is mathematically (probabilistically) unsound.
If there are other life-forms, would they be carbon-based like us? Even if other universes don't exist, there would be no way for other life forms to make contact with us within our own universe. It is simply too vast. The only feasible way, would be speed-of-light space travel.
And lastly: everyone should check Nikola Tesla out. :)
-PEACE
doubleja 1 year ago
@doubleja hyperspace :)
firemage928 1 year ago
(Not my idea): Perhaps there exists a blackhole in another universe, and our universe is connected to it through a "whitehole", whereby the matter sucked in from the other universe (by its blackhole), became expelled into our universe (through the whitehole), which we perceive as the big bang.
doubleja 1 year ago
How does an infinitesimally small point have infinite mass/energy?
Was the big bang, THE big bang? i.e. are there other universes?
If there are other universes, which one is the originator of mass/ energy and the fundamental forces of nature (gravity, EM, weak, strong)?
Or perhaps if there are other universes, that have expanded from other big-bangs, do they have their own fundamental forces, and mass-like, energy-like things?
doubleja 1 year ago
I understand the analogy that everything in our universe is expanding away from each other (like points on a surface of an inflating balloon), but what about at the first instance of time? If we work backwards in time (shrinking space), we'd come to the conclusion the the universe began at a single point. Now if the universe began as a point, how did it expand into a surface?
doubleja 1 year ago
If this theory were actually true, then wouldn't it also be true that everything inside this space is expanding as well. Perhaps 10 years ago, i was the size of a pea in relation to my current self in this point in time. And if that is true, then space isn't actually expanding from our relative perception because light always goes the same speed relative to the observer. Space is infinity large and infinitely small.
McdonaldSpecial 1 year ago
Awesome. However, if it's a sphere and it's expanding there must be a central point, otherwise it's not a sphere.
TreachMarkets 1 year ago
@TreachMarkets But the center is not part of our 3 dimensional space. In the sphere analogy, the universe consists of only the surface of the sphere, not the volume of the sphere. And the center of a sphere is not on it's surface. By analogy, the center of the universe is not in the universe.
armpitpuncher 1 year ago
What play list is this going to fall in?
iHapTiC 1 year ago
Sal is it because that f(x,y) actually presents the "surface" of our 3d and f(x,y,z) represents a 4d surface (sometimes 3d for triple integration?)?
If so, what does 0 dimension look like? Is f(x) represent 0 dimensional surface?
Taowhr 1 year ago
Very interesting theories. It's quite difficult to theorize on unobservable happenings.
Good job
Anytime99 1 year ago
wat about law of entropy?
jiffy973 1 year ago
I still believe something happens in whatever passes for an Afterlife.
I had a near-death experience and, NO, I wasn't having a dang nightmare. People don't do something as logically organized as dreaming has to be when their heart is in fibrillation. Just lying there quivering, according to the doctor.
But he believed we have no soul. Maybe HE doesn't, maybe that's what you need in order to survive as a doctor, but I don't agree.
Besides, I saw someone I didn't know, but one of the medics did.
vickiormindyb 1 year ago
wouldnt it look like a worm
asseeninYOURDREAMS 1 year ago
what bout the conservation of energy
dionstrezlecki 1 year ago
Comment removed
dionstrezlecki 1 year ago
isnt there 10 dimensions?
sort of like the movie cube and cube 2
(hype-cupe)
doncam02 1 year ago
@doncam02
11 or 13 depending on what theory you buy into.
Boscotrips 1 year ago
@doncam02 when you into stuff like that you are dealing with string theory, before the 1990, there where about 5 or more different strong theories, but then someone or a group of scientist combined them all into M-theory, which i believe says that there are 11 or 21 dimensions, but you should check that number for i am not completely shure about it
13thtrece 1 year ago
@doncam02 That's just a theory, not a fact. Besides, those extra dimension in string theory where you're probably referring to are actually a lot stranger than you would imagine them to be.
Particles are one dimensional strings vibrating into higher dimensions. Our 3 familiar dimensions, containing matter and energy are therefor made up out of more than 3 dimensions. Most the extra dimensions in string theory are folded inside our universe, so it's not a 10 dimensional hyperspace.
noxure 1 year ago
ah yeah i posted that before he explained himself lol
oldmcgroin 1 year ago
A sphere is 2d?
oldmcgroin 1 year ago
@oldmcgroin It's surface is.
Ikus13 1 year ago
@oldmcgroin only the surface of it is
ch00bz0rzz 1 year ago
I would like to know what you think about the austrian school of economics. If You already have a video about that, let me know. Thank you :)
dakshinamurti 1 year ago
Prepare for a Creationist raid !
30LayersOfKevlar 1 year ago
Great video. I never realised the stuff about "outside" (in 3D) the Universe not being possible due to the 4D nature of the Universe. It would be cool (if you can do it) if you explain some further stuff using the necessary Maths. You've already got the groundwork for that in your Maths vids.
Goldbergfan91 1 year ago
I'd rather use the term boundary instead of edge...which has a mathematically defined term in topology...sorry to be a math nerd ;o)
wonderpope 1 year ago
awesome!! I've heard about other models of the universe, s.a flat model,negative curvature etc..maybe you should explain a little about those in your next video..but great work indeed..hats off!
miraj0072004 1 year ago
I love that you're doing videos like this. I'm an engineering student with a real passion for physics and cosmology. There is so much misinformation on the internet, (especially here on youtube) that it's always a breath of fresh air to see someone like yourself using your talents to explain what can be difficult theories to understand. Keep up the good work : )
baudiirocz 1 year ago 3
Luv ya Sal
Silhouette93 1 year ago
mind = blown
DSlayerzS 1 year ago
thanks, you already really made this idea a lot more clear to me!
ultimatebas 1 year ago
Sal you are the best! Thanks! This will be very helpful to my son.
lmcdowall 1 year ago
I shall find this very interesting, I wonder how many Creationists will comment here now.
I WILL LOVE THIS ANYWAY!
Emeal4Dinner 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Emeal4Dinner The big bang theory was thought up by a catholic priest, Georges Lemaître. He also taught physics - talk about ironic.
lmcdowall 1 year ago
@lmcdowall there is no irony - the catholic church hasnt had a prob w/ science since decartes... it's the protestants who r the creationists
mephatboi 1 year ago
@mephatboi
lol, sarcasm right? O_o
Thymonico 1 year ago
@mephatboi Touche! Guess I reached too far for that joke.
lmcdowall 1 year ago
A nice little presentation..
daras07 1 year ago
Nice work Khan!
eljpayne 1 year ago