Stephen Hawking's Universe - EP2: The Big Bang (3/ 5)

[szaroki]

I don't see how science is in opposition to belief in Creator - God, sure he wasn't an angry man from the sky, probably more like mad scientist who just set up an experiment. boom! and there was light!

[mtlhcdom]

Could there be, other than science or religion, another way to explain all this?

[Stillillgal]

@mtlhcdom mechanistic view

[bigpurple100]

why are we so close minded about believing everything must have a beginning, perhaps somethings don't need a beginning because that is the nature of it's state. time does not need to have a beginning because time cannot end.

think about when time can end, ull say after the universe collapses on itself. I'd say itl bounce back aftr the callaps and time continues, now my point is it seems like it cannot end, so it's eternal.

some things are eternal and it's god.

[TheIxtlan]

Allah most merciful created the universe. Praise be to Allah.

[ryahul]

@TheIxtlan And mohammed created allah. Praise be to mohammed

[GluttonForSex]

@TheIxtlan Allah was created by humans, my friend. Not the other way around.

[TheMaximusmacro]

@TheIxtlan you are so wrong my primitive friend

[Zharath]

@Kasparov9 I won't pretend to know what caused the big bang, simply because that question is, at the moment, beyond the reach of scientific knowledge. Point is, there is nothing that can tell us what there was or wasn't before the big bang. There is nothing whatsoever on which one can base any argument for whatever one believes to have happend then. Whatever kind of explanation you may prefer, it will always be completely arbitrary.

Talking about 'before the big bang' is therefore meaningless.

[blackacidlizzard]

@Zharath

The verification(ist?) theory of truth is garbage.

[tarzandekat]

It's the radiation frequency of God

Just kidding , haha (;

[thegogard]

Nothing explodes in to space and time :) Thats big bang. What was before? What was nothing?

I think answer is far more strange that we all think...

[Konfliktzone]

The whole fusion model of stars is one big failure..

[8994puneeth]

which idiot believes that god created all of these

[Ilsidahur]

@8994puneeth A fuck load I`m afraid )-:

[navyjot]

@8994puneeth

wat is idiotic thing abt beleve in god

[youhan1234567]

@8994puneeth you will meet all that didnt in hell :)

[CarlosMarti123]

@8994puneeth Why are you so keen to introduce the topic of religion into a video about science? How about you shut your hole and focus on the subject of the video?

[stevebenbob]

@8994puneeth I don't believe in God,but in order for something to be created it is resonable to accept that it must have some form of 'creator'. Things don't just appear from nowhere.

[deadbabyfromspace]

@8994puneeth the two that disliked it XD

[FreedomEquality83]

God existed before the Big Bang

[timster112]

@FreedomEquality83 and god invented scientific way of thinking to?

[sbergman27]

@timster112 According to the christians' fictional story of genesis, their very jealous "god" did everything he could to *prevent* humans from discovering a rational way of thinking. Afraid of losing control of us, I'd guess. When you think about it, the whole thing has a Mary Shelly feel to it. From the perspective of the christians' small and arrogant "god", we must seem like Frankenstein's creature. Gotta love it!

[ryahul]

@FreedomEquality83 God and fear came into existence at the same time and in the same place. In human mind

[TAz69x]

LOL, who disliked this?  VFX?

[briantheman890]

"wilkonson was 28 years old when the opportunity presented itsself"

the child was 10 years old when the priest presented himself

[stuperstar15770]

where did the materials that caused the big bang come from? they had to come from somewhere right? 

[plutone220696]

the hydrogen sustains the fusion reaction. hydrogen doesn't have any neutrons, so how did the helium get its neutrons from?

also, why are we composed of matter? at the big bang, the content of antimatter and matter was equal, so why didn't all the matter and antimatter just completely destroy each other? why was there more matter than antimatter so that we could be formed by matter?

[obren2obren]

@plutone220696 Maybe we are created from matter AND antimatter. Maybe this is what we call body and soul.

[rddaos]

This is good information to know

[rddaos]

hmm... didn't know the explosion of a star created heavy elements

[rddaos]

if iron is the last element created through fusion, where do the heavier elements come from, e.g. uranium?

[icarusearthbound]

@rddaos iron is the last element created in a star before it dies. If it goes nova it will produce heavier elements durring the event and these are scattered off into universe and over long periods of time will condense (along with other matter) to form the celestial bodies we are used to :)

[queenofspades84]

man i luv the music !

[XmegaPresident]

This reminds me exactly of Carl Sagan's Cosmos series.

[teachtruth2U]

5**********,

btw,terrorist LIAR izlam =under mind countroll by satan.

[Lunchbox94]

Zerohumans: You have yet to provide a suitable argument to sustain your opposition of the existence of dark matter.

"Dark Matter" is simply the term used to describe the unknown mass inside galaxies providing gravitational attraction holding the galaxy together.

Simply because we cannot see something, does not mean it does not exist.The electromagnetic spectrum is not the only means of observation.The study is never ending, a unified TOE will take much time.

We are not finished yet!

[tonyzmglm]

What holds galaxies toguether are supermassive blackholes. Black matter is expected to be the  jellatinous dark matter that fill the empty dark spaces in space where galaxies cannot move in; for example we see galaxies moving in space but they never move inside that empty space they always remain in clusters of galaxies floating toguether ...why??? The answer was black matter it is not in the galaxies but arround them, they keep the galaxies in clusters leaving empty spaces in the heavens...

[tonyzmglm]

dark matter can also be found in galactic halos excuse me m bad but actually what holds galaxies toguether are super massive black holes

[greycloud24]

it is difficult to measure the volume of dark matter, however it is not so difficult to calculate its mass. we can observe dark matter by watching the effect of gravitational lensing from matter that cannot be seen (where there is no known black hole to exist and where a black hole cannot be detected). dark matter is indeed observable fact. zerohumans is simply in denial of reality.

[ZeroHumans]

the idea that dark matter and dark energy are wrong is very unpopular, that's about it. They couldn't explain the accelerating expansion of the universe (despite the fact that gravity pushes matter together) and the expansion violates the conservation of energy. they also noticed stars at the middle and edge of a spiral galaxy rotate just as fast as stars near the very center when the stars further away from the galactic center should rotate more slowly. So they made up dark matter.

[ZeroHumans]

They assume that some sort of "dark" matter is boosting the total gravity of the galaxy, giving the stars extra rotational speed. But there are experiments which show that dark energy and dark matter are illusions created by the curvature of spacetime (the bending of space and time caused by extremely massive objects, like galaxies..which would not require any dark matter) That explains your "gravitational lensing"

[ZeroHumans]

The experiments used data from 15 well-studied galaxies. Among this data was each galaxy's "rotation curve" to plot the rotational speed of the stars in the galaxy as a function of their distance from the galaxy's center. These curves were successfully fit to curves produced using this space-time curvature model. Since the 15 galaxies were claimed to be dominated by dark matter, fitting their rotation curves using this gravity model proves the dark matter priests wrong.

[goldensleeves]

QUOTE: "dark matter priests wrong"

haha. So, are you mad at scientists? What do YOU propose "dark matter" is?

You keep saying "THEY" assume this and that. I think it's more productive if you don't separate yourself from the people you disagree with by criticism and neglect but, instead, contribute to the solution if you have something better to offer.

BTW, I'm not trying to sound disrespectful. I'm honestly curious what you would propose is a better solution. Thanks in advance.

[greycloud24]

from what i understand.

there is no real "bang point" as space and time are coming from this "bang point". it is not a place such as an x,y,z axis. rather it is a point from which time and space radiate from. it would be impossable to calculate its exact point, as it was really an x,y,z, time, axis.

[ZeroHumans]

There's no axis at all, since the "big bang" never happened. just because hawking says it or they make up some stupid math calculation doesn't mean it's true. There's stars older than the supposed beginning of the universe, they have to invent "dark matter" which they can't measure to make the math work. The universe is both expanding and contracting and didn't spontaneously start from a hot point of "nothing". Ludicrous.

[greycloud24]

which stars are older than the supposed beginning of the universe? and if you think that dark matter is not observable phenomina i suggest you youtube for the words dark matter and hubble telescope. dark matter is observable by the reaction of light to its gravity. please stop spreading your doubts across an uneducated community, you are the blind leading the blind.

[ZeroHumans]

"dark matter" is by definition hypothetical matter. You just stated, they can't measure such a thing directly, and then they extrapolate "dark matter" for the whole universe. They're using that argument to fill in the missing mass for their big bang theory which is already a weak theory.

[greycloud24]

i see that you have not searched for the youtube video that shows how we detect dark matter and shows it using the hubble telescope. dark matter is indeed observable, you just haven't managed to open your eyes.

[ZeroHumans]

"open my eyes"..to invisible particles? Of course there are hydrogen atoms between galaxies, hydrogen's the most abundant element & there are other elements, so if you sent a probe you'd find some particles & dead stars. But you decided an immense amount of mass of invisible "matter" is wandering around the universe like a drunken sailor..neutrinos have mass & there are "dark galaxies" or whatever other excuse..even tho you can't identify it you claim you can calculate mass of the whole universe

[greycloud24]

once again you have not looked for the video. here it is watch?v=EJtJ7Q0cV34 dark matter is observable phenomena and you simply refuse to observe. so maybe the particles cannot be directly seen, i suppose you don't beleive in electromagnetic fields either but you still trust your computer to be accurate. people like you are funny.

[ZeroHumans]

'DARK MATTER' isn't within the visible spectrum hence the name. The matter found by hubble may be 'dark' but it ISN'T the 'Dark Matter' that they're looking for....... Dark matter can't be detected and they don't even know if it exists.. if they can see it with the hubble then it's just plain MATTER......what they found is something very large that exploded and that ring is what's left.

[tonyzmglm]

but the y actually found evidence for a big bang way before he could make a calculation for the process!! so it is true

[onycho1]

The problem with CBR being a remnant of a Big Bang then the rippled microwave light spectrum would come from the Bang point. CBR is not a remnant of the Big Bang. It is much more complex than an afterglow

[nylife]

CBR did not in fact come from the "Bang point". Rather, it was created after the Photon Epoch, 380,000 years following the Big Bang. That CBR is NOT in fact a remnant of the Big Bang is a bold statement in the face of many years of extensive research and testing. I invite you to explain any alternatives theories to its origins and existence.

[handydude6]

Cold Fusion has proven that the gravity of a star is not needed to create heavier elemnts. Not one mention of Tesla's electro magnetic theories. Not one single theory in physics to explain how a singularity can create more matter, or if it contained all matter what force could have caused the big bang

[DrZenith]

'Cold fusion' doesn't exist. Fusion takes place at millions of degrees. As for your complaints about current theories being insufficient to explain this or that aspect of the big bang you don't seem to understand that science is a work in progress. There are many, many things we don't yet know: but we're working on it....

[handydude6]

Tell over 100,000 Japanese investors that Cold Fusion doesn't exhist, and the over 10,000 start up companies that are working on Cold Fusion. Cold Fusion was buried because the international cartel of oil, gas, and nuclear investors, don't want it to exhist. I have a friend who worked at Lawrence Livermore Lab on that to prove it does not work. Not to prove it does. Lawrence Livermore Lab has spent tens of billions to prove that hydrogen can be the energy of the future in Fusion. Soooo they lied

[Azaxx100]

@DrZenith thats how hot WE think it is but it is a huge universe which miracles happen

[newlifeinc]

where did the hydrogen come from? Okay let me rephrase the question where did the materials that resulted in the big bang come from.?This universe had to of had a beginning. I'm going to go with m-theory for now, but it still brings the same question, Where did the branes come from?

[Gravitationalist]

Hydrogen, Helium and I think a couple of other element where formed in the early stages of the Big Bang. Look up Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. It's probably addressed in episode #3, Cosmic Alchemy.

As far as the origins, I think the current answer is matter/energy always existed in one form or another. The Big Bang is <b>not</b> a creation event. It's the expansion of space, time and matter/energy.

[newlifeinc]

thank you for the info. however, i do want to say that trying to prove that the big bang was not a creation event is about as easy as proving it is a creation event (not very easy). thanks again.

[TAz69x]

@Gravitationalist That was phrased well.  And my gawd, that comment is so old I wonder if you're even still alive. =3

[bjapan96]

@Gravitationalist your not typing in html retard

its called caps lock

and it wasnt helium...

it was only hydrogen....

[sbergman27]

@bjapan96 You're obviously a retard, bjapan96. But I will respond, anyway. It might spare a few people your misinformation. So far as we know, Big Bang Nucleosynthesis resulted in about 75% hydrogen and 25% helium. I can see where you might have forgotten about that. But the narrator says so, clearly. in the video. Seems like that might have prompted you to double-check before posting your idiocy.

In future, try to do proper research before posting. And do try to learn to be more polite.

[Zharath]

@Gravitationalist Perhaps it would have been better if they had used the word 'forming' instead of 'creation'. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the big bang had an intelligent cause, as the catholics in this episode would like to suggest.

[kasparov9]

@Zharath So if it wasn't intelligent what was it? The opposite of intelligent? It's intelligent which ever way you look at it, look what resulted from that moment.

[Steinbiten]

@newlifeinc

but if it had a beginning you gotta ask the next question of where the beginning came from

[bozie666]

@newlifeinc

m theory and the big bang theory are both great ideas but i believe that the elastic band theory would explain a lot but as you so put it theres got to be a begining and elastic fails to being just carries on im sure both einstien and hawkings worked it out in the end and the complexity of it is what killed them

[jmaan3]

@newlifeinc Hydrogen was made in the big bang. It was basically in the dust created by the explosion. They say the big bang was antimatter and matter combining and destroying eachother over and over but there was just like 1-1000th more matter then antimatter, among everything else in the universe hydrogen was one of those surviving matter types, blown in all directions by the big bang

[link2299]

@newlifeinc such a religious way to look at it bro. there is no beginning of time, time goes on to infinite both positive and negative. there never was a beginning, because it was always there.