You already can't deny the beauty... and you have the privilege, the HONOR, I would say the DUTY and OBLIGATION.... To know as much as you can, to appreciate to the fullest, the magic that is OUR world and universe.
I can't tell you how many times I've sent this video to someone who tells me that science sucks the 'magic' or 'poetry' out of life. I was rather shocked to notice that a recent episode of 'Breaking Bad' featured this Whitman piece. I know that the producers are trying to appeal to a wide audience, but I found the context in which they used it disturbing. Maybe they were smoking meth' when they added it? :/
The part in the beginning of the text is similar to a passage from a Richard Feynman interview from 1981. The interview is also worth watching: v=ZbFM3rn4ldo, or directly at bbc (search for "the pleasure of finding things out)
But we're so UGLY if we're ONLY made of atoms! We're only TRULY beautiful and our lives are only TRULY meaningful when we're sprinkled with fairy dust.
The kind where you love something only because you found it beautiful.
Then the kind that you find beautiful only because you love it.
We begin by finding pretty the many little lights in the sky, and admiring them for it.
Then we learn more of the stars; of their awesome nature, their fantastic inspiration for imagination. And we find a much deeper beauty that we see and feel only because we've grown to know and love them.
there is a video, I'm not sure if it's on youtube, called Science Saved My Soul. The narrator is promoting atheism, but regardless of your faith it is worth watching if you want to be inspired by the border were beauty meets science.
He's named philhellenes. And the video has over 400,000 views right now. So it seems I'm not the only one, who finds it worth watching! And it's true, it's close to this video in a sense for beauty of science.
Words fail to describe the wonder that I hold for this wondrous universe, so I shall express it in a way, though trite and often overused, but still somewhat expressive of my feelings.
Maybe a new trend is that "science makes everything so pointless by pointing out that the universe is going to end. What's it all good for then? What's the use of anything?"
it's simply an amazing and complicated world/universe we are a part of. some point to the complexity of the galaxies as proof of god. i say it discredits him.
We live in a society that most people think that the universe is the way it is, because of magic. It is no surprise that explaining how the universe works to someone like that, that the "magic" is gone. Simply because in reality there is no need for magic. Once someone understand this Science becomes a magnifying glass of beauty.
One thing I was wondering; I thought the "Big Crunch" theory had fallen by the wayside leaving only current data indicating the the universe will expand to an eventual heat death, i.e., all thermodynamic energy will eventually cease. Perhaps my information is out of date or misremembered.
@SpookyFan Yep, current empirical evidence indicates the universe's expansion is accelerating, meaning the universe will likely expand forever. However, since we don't even know what's causing the acceleration, who's to say if it will continue, or if it won't reverse? Until we know what the mysterious 'dark energy' is, the Big Crunch is still on the table.
I just looked outside my window, I can't even see the stars. Likely due to pollution. I'm so glad that tools like the internet allow people to post videos like this.
I'm pretty sure my interest would fade in the science of the universe if my only perspective was from this dull urban area, where a sign of all this beauty is nowhere in sight.
But this is a video that adds a little more insight, one that can help me imagine the cosmos as it really is. Keep it up the good work!
1 Black holes do not swallow up everything and give back nothing, energy is returned via kinetic energy, and there are other possible but controversial means of energy transfer
2 The Andromeda Galaxy is not necessarily twice the size of ours
3 It wasn't astronomers, it was physicists that discovered Black holes ect, astronomers we're just used to confirm the data
@EebstertheGreat Some scientists actually have observed a sort of "hawking radiation" in a model made in their labs of silicon glass to observe photons...but it is far from a definitive test.
1. No, you are wrong. Actually, I was just reading that in September some astronomers claimed to have observed it directly. But even if they didn't it is not a controversial idea.
2. According to NASA the Milky Way's diameter is 100,000 light years and its thickness is 1000 light years. It doesn't give the error, though, so I don't know how precise that is.
3. You said physicists "discovered" black holes, but in fact they did not. Astronomers did.
@EebstertheGreat "No, you are wrong. Actually, I was just reading that in September some astronomers claimed to have observed it directly. But even if they didn't it is not a controversial idea"
It is not proven, and it is not excepted by an overwhelming majority of scientists, thus it is controversial
"so I don't know how precise that is." nobody does it's just a guess, until we have more data ;-)
You said physicists "discovered" black holes, but in fact they did not. Astronomers did.
Indeed, I was wrong physicists did not discover Black holes, but astronomers haven't discovered them either, you cannot via visual confirmation directly confirm the existence of something that doesn't emit or reflect light, (ie look there is nothing their) so they have yet to be discovered, although their existence is not controversial, as their existence has been confirmed via indirect observations
@jimmydoolittle22 I have a friend, he still denies the existence of black hole's
And when I say it has been proven mathematically and by indirect observation
he says, but we're is the empirical evidence ?
And he is quite right
What have we confirmed ?, something in space causes gravitational lensing, and there should be a black hole there, this is confirmation of the probable accuracy of the models, but we still haven't poked one with a stick yet
@UneCritique who cares about your friend. Do *YOU* deny the existence of black holes? You understand you don't have to poke them with a fucking stick to know they exist right? Please tell me you aren't as stupid as your friend.
@jimmydoolittle22 Personally I believe there is enough evidence with the available data to support the theory of their existence, although I reserve the right to change my believes if new data supersedes or contradicts the old data ;-)
"Please tell me you aren't as stupid as your friend." I'm far more stupid than my friend, he is quite literally a genius ;-)
@UneCritique Your friend is not right; the empirical evidence is in the gravitational lensing and the calculations proving it couldn't be anything else. I know it's intuitive that 'seeing is believing' but there's no reason to think that detecting light with your eyes and drawing conclusions from it with your brain is more reliable than detecting light with a camera and drawing conclusions from it with your computer.
@Hooya2 "Your friend is not right; the empirical evidence is in the gravitational lensing"
Although we don't know what gravity is or how it works, and the recent addition of dark matter to make the computer models work, reminds us how little we actually know
"calculations proving" a mathematical proof, is not necessarily a real world proof
"proving it couldn't be anything else"
You don't prove negatives ;-) and absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence
@UneCritique Stars could also be giant space chickens too, using holograms to cloak themselves. And while you're complaining that we don't fully understand gravity, what about light? We don't understand electromagnetism better. So why can we use the word 'discover' when talking about things we've seen but not with things that we've derived the existence of through gravity?
I think your reasoning is based around irrational bias in favor of our senses.
@Hooya2 Those sneaky giant invisible space chickens, with their holographic cloaks, I knew they were up-to no good ;-)
"So why can we use the word 'discover' when talking about things we've seen but not with things that we've derived the existence of through gravity?"
Evidence, when we start poking something with a stick, we have a ton of empirical, verifiable and most important, falsifiable data, computer models can be incredibly accurate, they can also be incredibly inaccurate
When you have limited sources of data, and when the data is derived from other unverified theoretical models, it can all go a bit invisible space chicken-ish
"I think your reasoning is based around irrational bias in favor of our senses"
I think my reasoning is based upon, the founding principles of scientific methodology, is it repeatable, falsifiable ect ect ;-)
@UneCritique But all of the evidence indicating black holes--the orbits of objects around them, gravitational lensing, and physical models of gravity--is empirical, verifiable, and falsifiable, at least as much as the light from stars. The model of gravitation is not unverified, and we always have limited sources of data. In short, none of these arguments is a real distinction.
You talk about 'poking something with a stick', but earlier you implied visual confirmation was sufficient?
@Hooya2 The model of gravity may well be inaccurate, we are currently checking to see whether gravity is a universal constant, as a theory it appears quite accurate on a very local solar system level, But inaccuracies in the wider solar system and galactic and universal levels are noticeable, one can still draw conclusions from possibly inaccurate data, but to say these are definitively true theories, and then claim discoveries from them, is stretching it a bit wouldn't you say ?
"You talk about 'poking something with a stick', but earlier you implied visual confirmation was sufficient?"
My apologies if I implied one source of data was sufficient, poking something with a stick brings lots of data, poking something with a stick and having visual confirmation brings more data and one can never have enough data, and one is always greedy for more ;-)
@UneCritique Of course, I don't think discoveries in science are 'definitely true', but it's irrational to claim black holes don't exist with the evidence we have for them. We have discovered several, and it's very unlikely any evidence will overturn that ruling.
One source of data IS sufficient, if that data is reliable. The only data we have about most of our universe is from light, but you're not going to start doubting that scientists have discovered the Andromeda galaxy, are you?
@UneCritique I think compelling evidence overwhelms all known objections, so I definitely think the evidence for dark matter and black holes is overwhelming. It's not irrational to be skeptical of their existence--it's never irrational to be skeptical--but it is irrational to deny them.
There is no equally plausible alternative theory to dark matter; the last option became untenable in 2006 when gravitational lensing proved it wrong. If I'm wrong, named this 'theory'.
@Hooya2 "I think compelling evidence overwhelms all known objections"
No compelling means this looks like the best explanation with the evidence available, overwhelming means, the evidence is overwhelming
"it's never irrational to be skeptical--but it is irrational to deny them"
Scepticism is non-belief, ie show me overwhelming evidence, if the evidence is compelling but not overwhelming, one would still be justified in maintaining a non-belief stands
@Hooya2 "the last option became untenable in 2006 when gravitational lensing proved it wrong"
Modified Newtonian dynamics(MOND) by Mordecai Milgrom ?
Which is now which TeVeS and or MOG or STV gravity or f(R) gravity, or Anastopoulos, gravitational backreaction in cosmological spacetime, Hossenfelde, Bi-Metric Theory with Exchange Symmetry, or quantum gravity, the list is far too long to fit in here ;-), how many alternative theories to dark matter did you want to see ?
@UneCritique MOND, TeVeS, STV, and MOG collapsed in 2006, because none of them could account for lensing observations (Google "A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter"). These are your good-but-wrong answers.
Now for your bullshit. Bi-metric theory and gravitational backreaction are attempts to explain the ORIGIN of dark matter. Anastopoulos and Hossenfelde(r) are scientists, and neither F(R) nor and quantum gravity attempt to replace dark matter.
@Hooya2 "MOND, TeVeS, collapsed in 2006" this is correct- ish, the collapse wasn't total and a number of spin-off modified gravity theories appeared, which you would have known, if you had any depth of knowledge in this subject
"Now for your bullshit. Bi-metric theory and gravitational backreaction are attempts to explain the ORIGIN of dark matter"
Bi-metric theory, double metric tensor in space-time, ie feed back loop in gravity, rather than dark matter
Gravitational backreaction see spin-off of quantum gravity "F(R) nor and quantum gravity attempt to replace dark matter"
A spin-off of quantum gravity is multi-dimensional forces from outside the visible universe have gravitational effects meaning that dark matter is not necessary as a explanation,
I can continue but "bullshit" this conversation ends here, thank you for the chat
@UneCritique While Googling some of your text, I stumbled across something weird... did you rip this entire discussion off Wikipedia? I found their 'dark matter:alternative theories' section, and they present the theories in the same order and terms that you did. They even cite the same scientists you named as their sources, although they didn't misspell Hossenfelder's name.
@UneCritique Wow, you admit that half the theories you put forward as viable weren't, but then have the balls to act like I'm the one with no knowledge on the subject? And if there are so many spin-offs, name one. Also, if you have such a 'depth' of knowledge, then you knew your theories were rejected years ago and still put them forward as viable, rather than their spin-offs, so you should apologize for trying to trick me as well.
@UneCritique Skepticism is not non-belief, it's doubt. Saying I'm skeptical of x isn't the same as saying I don't believe in X; rather, it's the same as saying my opinion of x will change if new conflicting evidence emerges.
I don't see how you can say that someone who sees compelling evidence is still justified in rejecting it. If you see evidence supporting a proposition, isn't it rational to accept that position, at least tentatively?
@UneCritique Inaccuracies in gravity in the universal levels have been accounted for with dark matter, and since dark matter has started to make successful predictions (gravitational lensing around the Bullet Cluster is a prime example), I'd say it's pretty much settled.
And are you going to assert that the model of electromagnetism, unlike gravity, is definitely true? If not, then by your own reasoning we can't claim discoveries just from seeing something either, can we?
@Hooya2 "I'd say it's pretty much settled" not quite yet, the theory that there is dark matter, is unproven, which goes back to what I said about unproven theoretical models built upon other unproven theoretical models, you are more than welcome to believe without evidence that there is dark matter, but I hope you understand my scepticism as I have seen a number of not so popular but equally plausible alternative theories
I think the poem was speaking as an artist's vision.... science and art are two separate paths.. one observers. the other creates. Neither is a wrong perspective, and they can work well together.
each dot isn't always a single star...but can also be a cluster of stars...think the Khan Academy really put it into perspective with their recent videos =)
But what do you mean by "we can see 250,000 stars but no more."?
We estimate ~250,000,000,000 stars in the milky way. Surely when we look up at that, we are seeing not seeing it's entirety, but we must see far more than a mere 250k stars.
@L00NGB00W I got the impression he meant 'distinct, countable stars'. Obviously, since we can see the Milky Way and Andromeda, we're actually able to see billions of stars with the naked eye, but they look like patches or smears of light.
I can remember trying to explain this to my deeply religious friend. It ended in a pen fight. He didn't get what I was talking about. I think he felt bad for me even as I felt bad for him. We both still saw the beauty in the universe but in different ways.
As an artist I envy the access to a world of beauty the scientist possesses that I do not. Often I can only appreciate a given subject from a restricted perspective, and while I have the advantage of being able to claim something from a subjective or metaphorical position, there are in fact several layers of truth that are lost on me.
And even we, who imagine we grasp the grandeur of the cosmos, are truly unlearn'd in what the totality might actually be. When galaxies we thought we had ken'd, of a hundred billion or three are now thought to hold as many as a trillion small red sparks in addition to their grander bretheren. Learn. Learn all you can. But, be humble. For all you might learn by yourself does become a tinier and tinier footnote in the majestic sweep of knowledge that accumulates, day by day. The more you know...
I was always interested in everything that can be considered science and technology. When others played with their toys I was taking mine "carefully" apart to know their inner workings (and most of them worked again after putting them together ;-) ).
But just in the last years did I realize, how different I see the world to many other people. I take things apart with my mind. If something does not work, I can make a "mental" x-ray, and look for the broken parts. /cntd
But that not only includes devices and machines, but also things in nature. I can look at a tree and visualize the roots in the earth, the veins in the stem, the different parts of wood. I can look at a stone and imagine how it has formed under huge pressure and temperatures, look at a crystal and "see" its lattice. The sight of a rainbow makes me think of the refraction in the millions of water dropplets. Nothing of all my knowledge makes anything less interesting!
@ C0nc0rdance @4:02 you say up to 300 billion. I saw a news report, not that that makes it true, that said the privously etimate number of stars is too small and that it might be as many ax 300 sextillion. I'm not an astronomer but thought that you might want to know, I think its pretty cool. good vid.
@TheEVILutionist Absolutely. In fact I'd say knowing how thy work, etc, adds to their beauty; as if being able to "grok" what you're looking at enables you to see it's deeper beauty, and not just the surface.
I agree that Whitman was wrong - however I notice that he was contrasting the dry tables and figures to the pictures - this video gave us pictures. I still remember the impact of going and hearing John Ebdon narrate the story of the stars and my mother who was sitting next to me becoming agitated when he talked about the future expansion of the sun - then saying it was 5 Billion years in the future. That had images and science - just like this video.
Every time I walk out to stargaze I make a mental travel to the little points of light and imagine (thanks to all the "boring" astronomers) how they would look. Imagining the whirl of the galaxy, the spin of the planets, the life and death of stars.
Personally I think the supernova-remnants are some of the most beautiful works of art ever. They signify the dearth of a star but at the same time creates the foundation of a new generation.
When I look at the stars, I'm marvelled by the incredible amount of information we are able to extract from their spectra. Infering the presence of planets, with their mass estimates, from an unresolvable point of light.
These kind of videos blow my mind....I can't even wrap my mind around such massive scales! And then I'm supposed to be impressed by a burning bush after this? lol!
It's a shame the human brain is simply incapable of fully grasping the universe. I wonder if we'll ever be able to. We just aren't built to understand extremely small and extremely large entities.
I can't think of any evolutionary pressures that would lead to something like that. With the world we live in, we have no survival need to comprehend very small or very large things.
@xxxFaustusxxx I respectfully disagree. There may be a time when the benefits of quantum physics or cosmology aid in the survival of the human species. Our planet is doomed... that much we know. By asking the big questions and studying these difficult sciences etc we are slowly but surely improving our chances of branching out and occupying, perhaps, another planet.
@xxxFaustusxxx "It's a shame the human brain is simply incapable of fully grasping the universe. I wonder if we'll ever be able to. We just aren't built to understand extremely small and extremely large entities."
I find that demeaning. Several of us can understand what we know now. It's really not about what we can grasp... It's about how much time do we have to grasp things. Small or big, numbers are not the issue here... Understanding is what we're good at. I wouldn't bet against humans.
Not sure how that's demeaning. The human brain is simply incapable of fully grasping extremely large or small things. That's why we always have to scale things and make comparison to things we do understand.
"Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition" Isaac Asimov
Dawkins explores similar themes in "Unweaving the Rainbow." I think it's important to challenge the primitivists and regressives who want to convince the world that knowledge has no value and that learning robs you of the ability to enjoy life. I believe the truth is the exact opposite. They indignantly ask us, "How dare you educate us? We preferred to see magic wherever we looked, whether it was really there or not!" And I indignantly reply, "How dare you NOT educate yourselves?"
@gatorboymike They don't understand that learning leads to more new questions. The enjoyment of curiosity continues. They are just too lazy in the head to do the work.
@TekLok Just a thought, but maybe they do understand that learning will lead to more questions and they simply don't want to question forever. They would rather say, "poof, there it is." If this is so, I think this makes them all the more intellectually lazy.
Seeing the star - sun size comparisons NEVER fails to blow my mind! Thats just truly amazing. Burning bushes pale to the insignificant when compared to these wonders we are able to see and contemplate thanks to the wonders science and technology!!! :)
haha your videos are awesome!
smart and funny at the same time :)
dragoshmosne 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from C0nc0rdance
Thank you
Platemaster 3 months ago
Science makes it magical!
You already can't deny the beauty... and you have the privilege, the HONOR, I would say the DUTY and OBLIGATION.... To know as much as you can, to appreciate to the fullest, the magic that is OUR world and universe.
happysplodie 4 months ago
I can't tell you how many times I've sent this video to someone who tells me that science sucks the 'magic' or 'poetry' out of life. I was rather shocked to notice that a recent episode of 'Breaking Bad' featured this Whitman piece. I know that the producers are trying to appeal to a wide audience, but I found the context in which they used it disturbing. Maybe they were smoking meth' when they added it? :/
wasdom01 4 months ago
Thank you, Isaac.
You are greatly missed.
MrFungus420 5 months ago
The part in the beginning of the text is similar to a passage from a Richard Feynman interview from 1981. The interview is also worth watching: v=ZbFM3rn4ldo, or directly at bbc (search for "the pleasure of finding things out)
thargor2k 7 months ago
man these words are beautiful. thank you very much for making this video.
lilhomang 10 months ago
The universe: my favorite topic in anything.
viicISrotcib 11 months ago
What an amazing video and what an amazing world/galaxy/universe we live in.
shawncar77 1 year ago
A(￣ω￣)Zy~~~7☆God is all space.
And only God live forevermore even if people seach endless space and even if all mankind die.
People,what are you watching in this real world now time?
az7stars 1 year ago
@az7stars What the hell does that emoticon mean?
Oh right, have god pop into my house and punch me in the face, breaking my nose and cause me to bleed liquid gold. THEN I'll believe.
Evnyofdeath 11 months ago
@Evnyofdeath A(￣～￣)Z.I'm eating syrup bakery.
A(￣^￣)Z.Is this punch really punch?
A(￣ω￣)Zy~~~7☆I don't want to touch other's body.
AZ(^O^)7☆I want to always touch only Nella's body.
az7stars 11 months ago
I can see a figure on the right side @5:45
SantiPanti101 1 year ago
walt whitman: Get trolled brah
kadoushe 1 year ago
But we're so UGLY if we're ONLY made of atoms! We're only TRULY beautiful and our lives are only TRULY meaningful when we're sprinkled with fairy dust.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
"To a volume of zero"
More accurately, "to a volume approaching zero," but I'm splitting hairs.
ChocoboKillerKanyo 1 year ago
As a scientist, shouldn't you be using metric measurements?
tml4873 1 year ago
"talking through his hat", haven't heard that one before. Thanks.
tml4873 1 year ago
you are quickly becoming one of my favorite channels :)
jmdnarri 1 year ago
I...fucking...hate...Walt Whitman. That might be my least favorite poem ever.
HighLowSplit 1 year ago
There are two kinds of beauty and love.
The kind where you love something only because you found it beautiful.
Then the kind that you find beautiful only because you love it.
We begin by finding pretty the many little lights in the sky, and admiring them for it.
Then we learn more of the stars; of their awesome nature, their fantastic inspiration for imagination. And we find a much deeper beauty that we see and feel only because we've grown to know and love them.
crocoshocker 1 year ago
there is a video, I'm not sure if it's on youtube, called Science Saved My Soul. The narrator is promoting atheism, but regardless of your faith it is worth watching if you want to be inspired by the border were beauty meets science.
Dracanic 1 year ago
@Dracanic
He's named philhellenes. And the video has over 400,000 views right now. So it seems I'm not the only one, who finds it worth watching! And it's true, it's close to this video in a sense for beauty of science.
superdau 1 year ago
I used the Whitman poem in a recent lecture to astronomers!
astudyofeverything 1 year ago
My dipshit friend disliked this. I apologize on his behalf.
SilentSputnik 1 year ago
@SilentSputnik LOL At least he's the only dislike.
123Atheist 1 year ago
Words fail to describe the wonder that I hold for this wondrous universe, so I shall express it in a way, though trite and often overused, but still somewhat expressive of my feelings.
<333333333333333 ^_^
DiabolicalGenius39 1 year ago
Maybe a new trend is that "science makes everything so pointless by pointing out that the universe is going to end. What's it all good for then? What's the use of anything?"
FHomeBrew 1 year ago
@FHomeBrew Thats like saying whats the point of chocolate cake, since it ends up the same way as bread and water.
intermender 1 year ago
Thank you for an awesome video!
Trilliadin 1 year ago
Great Vid. Thank you.
kclem69 1 year ago
excellent video. Thank. It shows on your ratings as well. 1000 likes, 0 dislikes. Pretty amazing.
You must be a Carl Sagan fan as well - he would like this video too, I think :)..
Korkzor 1 year ago
The videos I most enjoy on youtube are these essays and their accompanying images. Thank you so much C0nc0rdance.
AutumnCanvas 1 year ago 23
Countless Stars, countless more worlds.. indeed, soo much to see, so little time. A shame my lifespan is only a century. : (
afterhumanity333 1 year ago
Once you get into higher level physics, its mostly is nothing but conveniently constructed theory and accompanying mathematical models.
HalloFusilli 1 year ago
I love these kinds of videos. I'm so glad C0nc0rdance does them. They're so beautiful.
Mercuryvegetable 1 year ago 11
I think that there is room for both the Walt Whitman and C0nc0rdance interpretations of wonder at the universe.
bimblinghill 1 year ago
Lovely...
niriop 1 year ago
fucking inspirational.
tjd07x 1 year ago
Brilliant is the universe - and minds like those of Issac Asimov, shedding light, that we might all have moments of profound appreciation.
AncientAtheist 1 year ago
it's simply an amazing and complicated world/universe we are a part of. some point to the complexity of the galaxies as proof of god. i say it discredits him.
gunnysakk 1 year ago
C0nc0rdance. I subscribed to you for one reason: Videos of this quality.
TheNamelessCharacter 1 year ago
852 likes, 0 dislikes.
Fuck yes.
Lonereapr 1 year ago 2
Marvelous! The whole universe is expanding and contracting in an eternal pattern.
CMO999 1 year ago
Beautiful speech. :D
DaBomb1 1 year ago
We live in a society that most people think that the universe is the way it is, because of magic. It is no surprise that explaining how the universe works to someone like that, that the "magic" is gone. Simply because in reality there is no need for magic. Once someone understand this Science becomes a magnifying glass of beauty.
tekhiun 1 year ago
Science wins again <3
GronTheMighty 1 year ago
Wonderful! Sir, thanks for posting, a true gift.
Benjuthula 1 year ago
Great video.
One thing I was wondering; I thought the "Big Crunch" theory had fallen by the wayside leaving only current data indicating the the universe will expand to an eventual heat death, i.e., all thermodynamic energy will eventually cease. Perhaps my information is out of date or misremembered.
SpookyFan 1 year ago
@SpookyFan Yep, current empirical evidence indicates the universe's expansion is accelerating, meaning the universe will likely expand forever. However, since we don't even know what's causing the acceleration, who's to say if it will continue, or if it won't reverse? Until we know what the mysterious 'dark energy' is, the Big Crunch is still on the table.
Hooya2 1 year ago
I just looked outside my window, I can't even see the stars. Likely due to pollution. I'm so glad that tools like the internet allow people to post videos like this.
I'm pretty sure my interest would fade in the science of the universe if my only perspective was from this dull urban area, where a sign of all this beauty is nowhere in sight.
But this is a video that adds a little more insight, one that can help me imagine the cosmos as it really is. Keep it up the good work!
TheNotoriousTOM 1 year ago
@TheNotoriousTOM Keep up the good work*, :)
TheNotoriousTOM 1 year ago
Errors
1 Black holes do not swallow up everything and give back nothing, energy is returned via kinetic energy, and there are other possible but controversial means of energy transfer
2 The Andromeda Galaxy is not necessarily twice the size of ours
3 It wasn't astronomers, it was physicists that discovered Black holes ect, astronomers we're just used to confirm the data
nice vid ;-)
UneCritique 1 year ago
@UneCritique
Errors in your errors:
1. Hawking radiation is no longer controversial, though it has not actually been directly observed.
2. In terms of mass, you are correct, but in terms of diameter, Andromeda is probably twice as large as the Milky Way.
3. It was physicists who first predicted black holes, but obviously astronomers who first discovered them.
EebstertheGreat 1 year ago
@EebstertheGreat Some scientists actually have observed a sort of "hawking radiation" in a model made in their labs of silicon glass to observe photons...but it is far from a definitive test.
DaBomb1 1 year ago
@EebstertheGreat Errors in your errors of my errors, te-he
1 Hawking,'s (I always like to mispronounce his name) himself has backed-away from this theory
2 We just don't know how big our galaxy is, I've heard wildly varying estimates
3 errr that,s what I said ;-)
UneCritique 1 year ago
@UneCritique ops errors of my errors in your errors of my errors
first discovered, As nobody has actually, poked one with a stick, we do not have direct empirical evidence of their existence
UneCritique 1 year ago
@UneCritique
1. No, you are wrong. Actually, I was just reading that in September some astronomers claimed to have observed it directly. But even if they didn't it is not a controversial idea.
2. According to NASA the Milky Way's diameter is 100,000 light years and its thickness is 1000 light years. It doesn't give the error, though, so I don't know how precise that is.
3. You said physicists "discovered" black holes, but in fact they did not. Astronomers did.
EebstertheGreat 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EebstertheGreat "No, you are wrong. Actually, I was just reading that in September some astronomers claimed to have observed it directly. But even if they didn't it is not a controversial idea"
It is not proven, and it is not excepted by an overwhelming majority of scientists, thus it is controversial
"so I don't know how precise that is." nobody does it's just a guess, until we have more data ;-)
UneCritique 1 year ago
You said physicists "discovered" black holes, but in fact they did not. Astronomers did.
Indeed, I was wrong physicists did not discover Black holes, but astronomers haven't discovered them either, you cannot via visual confirmation directly confirm the existence of something that doesn't emit or reflect light, (ie look there is nothing their) so they have yet to be discovered, although their existence is not controversial, as their existence has been confirmed via indirect observations
UneCritique 1 year ago
@UneCritique If something has been confirmed then it has been discovered. Also, you don't need visual confirmation to discover something.
jimmydoolittle22 1 year ago
@jimmydoolittle22 I have a friend, he still denies the existence of black hole's
And when I say it has been proven mathematically and by indirect observation
he says, but we're is the empirical evidence ?
And he is quite right
What have we confirmed ?, something in space causes gravitational lensing, and there should be a black hole there, this is confirmation of the probable accuracy of the models, but we still haven't poked one with a stick yet
UneCritique 1 year ago
@UneCritique our technology is not advance enough to directly study it.
emancoy 1 year ago
@UneCritique who cares about your friend. Do *YOU* deny the existence of black holes? You understand you don't have to poke them with a fucking stick to know they exist right? Please tell me you aren't as stupid as your friend.
jimmydoolittle22 1 year ago
@jimmydoolittle22 Personally I believe there is enough evidence with the available data to support the theory of their existence, although I reserve the right to change my believes if new data supersedes or contradicts the old data ;-)
"Please tell me you aren't as stupid as your friend." I'm far more stupid than my friend, he is quite literally a genius ;-)
UneCritique 1 year ago
@UneCritique Your friend is not right; the empirical evidence is in the gravitational lensing and the calculations proving it couldn't be anything else. I know it's intuitive that 'seeing is believing' but there's no reason to think that detecting light with your eyes and drawing conclusions from it with your brain is more reliable than detecting light with a camera and drawing conclusions from it with your computer.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2 "Your friend is not right; the empirical evidence is in the gravitational lensing"
Although we don't know what gravity is or how it works, and the recent addition of dark matter to make the computer models work, reminds us how little we actually know
"calculations proving" a mathematical proof, is not necessarily a real world proof
"proving it couldn't be anything else"
You don't prove negatives ;-) and absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence
UneCritique 1 year ago
@UneCritique Meaning, it could be giant invisible space chickens ;-)
UneCritique 1 year ago
@UneCritique Stars could also be giant space chickens too, using holograms to cloak themselves. And while you're complaining that we don't fully understand gravity, what about light? We don't understand electromagnetism better. So why can we use the word 'discover' when talking about things we've seen but not with things that we've derived the existence of through gravity?
I think your reasoning is based around irrational bias in favor of our senses.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2 Those sneaky giant invisible space chickens, with their holographic cloaks, I knew they were up-to no good ;-)
"So why can we use the word 'discover' when talking about things we've seen but not with things that we've derived the existence of through gravity?"
Evidence, when we start poking something with a stick, we have a ton of empirical, verifiable and most important, falsifiable data, computer models can be incredibly accurate, they can also be incredibly inaccurate
UneCritique 1 year ago
When you have limited sources of data, and when the data is derived from other unverified theoretical models, it can all go a bit invisible space chicken-ish
"I think your reasoning is based around irrational bias in favor of our senses"
I think my reasoning is based upon, the founding principles of scientific methodology, is it repeatable, falsifiable ect ect ;-)
UneCritique 1 year ago
@UneCritique But all of the evidence indicating black holes--the orbits of objects around them, gravitational lensing, and physical models of gravity--is empirical, verifiable, and falsifiable, at least as much as the light from stars. The model of gravitation is not unverified, and we always have limited sources of data. In short, none of these arguments is a real distinction.
You talk about 'poking something with a stick', but earlier you implied visual confirmation was sufficient?
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2 The model of gravity may well be inaccurate, we are currently checking to see whether gravity is a universal constant, as a theory it appears quite accurate on a very local solar system level, But inaccuracies in the wider solar system and galactic and universal levels are noticeable, one can still draw conclusions from possibly inaccurate data, but to say these are definitively true theories, and then claim discoveries from them, is stretching it a bit wouldn't you say ?
UneCritique 1 year ago
@Hooya2
"You talk about 'poking something with a stick', but earlier you implied visual confirmation was sufficient?"
My apologies if I implied one source of data was sufficient, poking something with a stick brings lots of data, poking something with a stick and having visual confirmation brings more data and one can never have enough data, and one is always greedy for more ;-)
UneCritique 1 year ago
@UneCritique Of course, I don't think discoveries in science are 'definitely true', but it's irrational to claim black holes don't exist with the evidence we have for them. We have discovered several, and it's very unlikely any evidence will overturn that ruling.
One source of data IS sufficient, if that data is reliable. The only data we have about most of our universe is from light, but you're not going to start doubting that scientists have discovered the Andromeda galaxy, are you?
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2 "it's irrational to claim black holes don't exist"
No scepticism is always rational, unless the evidence is overwhelming "with the evidence we have for them"
Which is not overwhelming
Personally I believe the evidence is compelling
But It is certainly not overwhelming, and therefore it is not irrational to be sceptical of their existence
UneCritique 1 year ago
@UneCritique I think compelling evidence overwhelms all known objections, so I definitely think the evidence for dark matter and black holes is overwhelming. It's not irrational to be skeptical of their existence--it's never irrational to be skeptical--but it is irrational to deny them.
There is no equally plausible alternative theory to dark matter; the last option became untenable in 2006 when gravitational lensing proved it wrong. If I'm wrong, named this 'theory'.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2 "I think compelling evidence overwhelms all known objections"
No compelling means this looks like the best explanation with the evidence available, overwhelming means, the evidence is overwhelming
"it's never irrational to be skeptical--but it is irrational to deny them"
Scepticism is non-belief, ie show me overwhelming evidence, if the evidence is compelling but not overwhelming, one would still be justified in maintaining a non-belief stands
UneCritique 1 year ago
@Hooya2 "the last option became untenable in 2006 when gravitational lensing proved it wrong"
Modified Newtonian dynamics(MOND) by Mordecai Milgrom ?
Which is now which TeVeS and or MOG or STV gravity or f(R) gravity, or Anastopoulos, gravitational backreaction in cosmological spacetime, Hossenfelde, Bi-Metric Theory with Exchange Symmetry, or quantum gravity, the list is far too long to fit in here ;-), how many alternative theories to dark matter did you want to see ?
UneCritique 1 year ago
@UneCritique MOND, TeVeS, STV, and MOG collapsed in 2006, because none of them could account for lensing observations (Google "A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter"). These are your good-but-wrong answers.
Now for your bullshit. Bi-metric theory and gravitational backreaction are attempts to explain the ORIGIN of dark matter. Anastopoulos and Hossenfelde(r) are scientists, and neither F(R) nor and quantum gravity attempt to replace dark matter.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2 "MOND, TeVeS, collapsed in 2006" this is correct- ish, the collapse wasn't total and a number of spin-off modified gravity theories appeared, which you would have known, if you had any depth of knowledge in this subject
"Now for your bullshit. Bi-metric theory and gravitational backreaction are attempts to explain the ORIGIN of dark matter"
Bi-metric theory, double metric tensor in space-time, ie feed back loop in gravity, rather than dark matter
UneCritique 1 year ago
Gravitational backreaction see spin-off of quantum gravity "F(R) nor and quantum gravity attempt to replace dark matter"
A spin-off of quantum gravity is multi-dimensional forces from outside the visible universe have gravitational effects meaning that dark matter is not necessary as a explanation,
I can continue but "bullshit" this conversation ends here, thank you for the chat
UneCritique 1 year ago
@UneCritique While Googling some of your text, I stumbled across something weird... did you rip this entire discussion off Wikipedia? I found their 'dark matter:alternative theories' section, and they present the theories in the same order and terms that you did. They even cite the same scientists you named as their sources, although they didn't misspell Hossenfelder's name.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@UneCritique nice copy paste job. lucky for you this isn't a classroom or you'd be tossed out of school for plagiarism. super gay
playadominical 1 year ago
@playadominical Welcome to the Internet Ctrl c Ctrl v
How much time do you believe I should waste upon trolls ?
"super gay"
like him or you ? Ha, thanks for the laugh highly amusing troll, he-he
UneCritique 1 year ago
@UneCritique i just find it ridiculous when people copy paste someone else's opinion and pass it off as their own. How intellectually empty are you?
playadominical 1 year ago
@playadominical While I chuckle to myself
playadominical Recent Activity
Ctrl c Ctrl v
"i bet youve never even left your hometown. you have no class, and your family has no class for raising you"
goodbye troll
You're forgive me if I don't reply to your next rather predictable post, chuckle
UneCritique 1 year ago
@UneCritique Wow, you admit that half the theories you put forward as viable weren't, but then have the balls to act like I'm the one with no knowledge on the subject? And if there are so many spin-offs, name one. Also, if you have such a 'depth' of knowledge, then you knew your theories were rejected years ago and still put them forward as viable, rather than their spin-offs, so you should apologize for trying to trick me as well.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@UneCritique Skepticism is not non-belief, it's doubt. Saying I'm skeptical of x isn't the same as saying I don't believe in X; rather, it's the same as saying my opinion of x will change if new conflicting evidence emerges.
I don't see how you can say that someone who sees compelling evidence is still justified in rejecting it. If you see evidence supporting a proposition, isn't it rational to accept that position, at least tentatively?
Hooya2 1 year ago
@UneCritique Inaccuracies in gravity in the universal levels have been accounted for with dark matter, and since dark matter has started to make successful predictions (gravitational lensing around the Bullet Cluster is a prime example), I'd say it's pretty much settled.
And are you going to assert that the model of electromagnetism, unlike gravity, is definitely true? If not, then by your own reasoning we can't claim discoveries just from seeing something either, can we?
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2 "I'd say it's pretty much settled" not quite yet, the theory that there is dark matter, is unproven, which goes back to what I said about unproven theoretical models built upon other unproven theoretical models, you are more than welcome to believe without evidence that there is dark matter, but I hope you understand my scepticism as I have seen a number of not so popular but equally plausible alternative theories
UneCritique 1 year ago
Walt Whitman OWNED!! Even talented poets can be douchbags.
StLennyBruce 1 year ago
A wonder. Thank you
Mithgaur 1 year ago
I think the poem was speaking as an artist's vision.... science and art are two separate paths.. one observers. the other creates. Neither is a wrong perspective, and they can work well together.
college12003 1 year ago
This is astounding. Nearly 2000 views, and so far, no thumbs-down votes.
lazyperfectionist1 1 year ago 2
Great video :)
sureup 1 year ago
of all the comedians, vloggers and musicians on youtube, it's your videos I enjoy watching the most.
seehowirock 1 year ago
I love your videos, just wanted to share.
DragoonJett 1 year ago
@TheMostFamousChannel
Well, he DOES attract more chicks...
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
each dot isn't always a single star...but can also be a cluster of stars...think the Khan Academy really put it into perspective with their recent videos =)
xchainlinkx 1 year ago
Asimov...how I regret that I did not get the chance to meet him.
Zerafinel 1 year ago
Very nice. =)
But what do you mean by "we can see 250,000 stars but no more."?
We estimate ~250,000,000,000 stars in the milky way. Surely when we look up at that, we are seeing not seeing it's entirety, but we must see far more than a mere 250k stars.
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
@L00NGB00W I got the impression he meant 'distinct, countable stars'. Obviously, since we can see the Milky Way and Andromeda, we're actually able to see billions of stars with the naked eye, but they look like patches or smears of light.
Ibis333 1 year ago
@Ibis333
You're probably right.
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
@L00NGB00W
Arrggh "Seeing not seeing.... darn word wrap. =\
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
@L00NGB00W I can not say for sure, but I assumed that he meant what we can see using the naked or perhaps a basic telescope.
The vast majority of detected stars are much too distant to be observed by such means.
I think that was what he was refering to.
TheStigma 1 year ago
this looks like a job for a photo album and a time machine; "Don't worry poet, I'll save you from complacency!!"
butchdeadlift10 1 year ago
I can remember trying to explain this to my deeply religious friend. It ended in a pen fight. He didn't get what I was talking about. I think he felt bad for me even as I felt bad for him. We both still saw the beauty in the universe but in different ways.
tammyscotland 1 year ago
Gorgeous!! Rich and beautiful.
AuntieDiluvian 1 year ago
Now i'm gonna go listen to Galaxy Song.
volbla 1 year ago
Great. Thank you!
Auntkekebaby 1 year ago
Fantastic.
elusivemel 1 year ago
it's well beyond a doubt that perception itself of beauty is manifested mathematically- thus scientifically as well. Asimov, Ghyka FTW.
pipebillys 1 year ago
Thumbs up bro.
peace, lardo.
lardo444 1 year ago
As an artist I envy the access to a world of beauty the scientist possesses that I do not. Often I can only appreciate a given subject from a restricted perspective, and while I have the advantage of being able to claim something from a subjective or metaphorical position, there are in fact several layers of truth that are lost on me.
lesbianmilk 1 year ago 3
ever check out thunderboltsproject's channel?
flippinrawks 1 year ago
Excellence.
superduperjew 1 year ago
Great stuff as always.
dominictemple 1 year ago
Thanks man for the vid and the link.
Excellent entryway to the weekend. ;)
atthetopofmyvoice 1 year ago
It seems like where playing a game were their are no winners. All the stars go out one by one and everything we ever known will be gone.
Boethius3007 1 year ago
Bravo!
bjcdrama 1 year ago
Bravo!
bjcdrama 1 year ago
And even we, who imagine we grasp the grandeur of the cosmos, are truly unlearn'd in what the totality might actually be. When galaxies we thought we had ken'd, of a hundred billion or three are now thought to hold as many as a trillion small red sparks in addition to their grander bretheren. Learn. Learn all you can. But, be humble. For all you might learn by yourself does become a tinier and tinier footnote in the majestic sweep of knowledge that accumulates, day by day. The more you know...
RyuDarragh 1 year ago
I like your poem better
AtheistCitizen 1 year ago
fantastic video, thx!!!
umsmykal 1 year ago
well done, thanks
NTROPYK 1 year ago
Who says science can't touch the soul?
Harabeck 1 year ago
Knowledge FTW!
jab0805 1 year ago 2
Those were the words...
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
Great stuff!
SwedishYouthHumanist 1 year ago
I was always interested in everything that can be considered science and technology. When others played with their toys I was taking mine "carefully" apart to know their inner workings (and most of them worked again after putting them together ;-) ).
But just in the last years did I realize, how different I see the world to many other people. I take things apart with my mind. If something does not work, I can make a "mental" x-ray, and look for the broken parts. /cntd
superdau 1 year ago
/cntd
But that not only includes devices and machines, but also things in nature. I can look at a tree and visualize the roots in the earth, the veins in the stem, the different parts of wood. I can look at a stone and imagine how it has formed under huge pressure and temperatures, look at a crystal and "see" its lattice. The sight of a rainbow makes me think of the refraction in the millions of water dropplets. Nothing of all my knowledge makes anything less interesting!
superdau 1 year ago
I... hate... you... Walt... Freakin'... Whitman!!
(I don't really hate Walt Whitman. I'll rarely pass up a chance to quote Homer!)
TheHogTieChamp 1 year ago
I would like to make a "x people think this" comment. But you can't make one when there are 0 thumbs down.
UsernameClayton 1 year ago
I will take the arcturus one. It looks spacy! :)
graphattic 1 year ago
Well Done!
TheOrganicartist 1 year ago
@ C0nc0rdance @4:02 you say up to 300 billion. I saw a news report, not that that makes it true, that said the privously etimate number of stars is too small and that it might be as many ax 300 sextillion. I'm not an astronomer but thought that you might want to know, I think its pretty cool. good vid.
savageecho 1 year ago
Bravo
noonespecia2007 1 year ago
Just because we know how these wonders of nature are formed, has never, not even for 1 second, taken away from their beauty for me.
I wish you made videos everyday C0nc0rdance...
TheEVILutionist 1 year ago
@TheEVILutionist Absolutely. In fact I'd say knowing how thy work, etc, adds to their beauty; as if being able to "grok" what you're looking at enables you to see it's deeper beauty, and not just the surface.
Direkin 1 year ago
I so love yer vids. I swear, they give me chill-bumps. hehe :-)
EV4UTube 1 year ago
Sort of reminds me of Feynman's flower idea. That his knowledge of the flower enhances the beauty of the flower.
hobbitsarecool 1 year ago
I'm sure that Asimov would have agreed with another luminary who was of the opinion that:
"...A still more glorious dawn awaits...".
Infidelerious 1 year ago
Comment removed
Infidelerious 1 year ago
I agree that Whitman was wrong - however I notice that he was contrasting the dry tables and figures to the pictures - this video gave us pictures. I still remember the impact of going and hearing John Ebdon narrate the story of the stars and my mother who was sitting next to me becoming agitated when he talked about the future expansion of the sun - then saying it was 5 Billion years in the future. That had images and science - just like this video.
johncrwarner 1 year ago
This is exactly the beauty of the universe I see.
Every time I walk out to stargaze I make a mental travel to the little points of light and imagine (thanks to all the "boring" astronomers) how they would look. Imagining the whirl of the galaxy, the spin of the planets, the life and death of stars.
Personally I think the supernova-remnants are some of the most beautiful works of art ever. They signify the dearth of a star but at the same time creates the foundation of a new generation.
jxvwp 1 year ago
Thoughts on wikileaks?
prep4md 1 year ago
Cataclysm.....Horde.....do you play WoW?
Nice video.
Whitman=PWNED!
LordSlag 1 year ago
This video reminds me a bit of two videos by philhellenes: v=r6w2M50_Xdk and v=jyjNXdEGjO4
BobSalawalatski 1 year ago
When I look at the stars, I'm marvelled by the incredible amount of information we are able to extract from their spectra. Infering the presence of planets, with their mass estimates, from an unresolvable point of light.
heloizyjhenifer 1 year ago
No.. thank you for posting these great vids.
Zoiros85 1 year ago
These kind of videos blow my mind....I can't even wrap my mind around such massive scales! And then I'm supposed to be impressed by a burning bush after this? lol!
simsi1616 1 year ago
It's a shame the human brain is simply incapable of fully grasping the universe. I wonder if we'll ever be able to. We just aren't built to understand extremely small and extremely large entities.
xxxFaustusxxx 1 year ago
@xxxFaustusxxx Well, maybe evolution will let us do that some day? That would be nice of it...
TheGoodColonel 1 year ago
@TheGoodColonel
I can't think of any evolutionary pressures that would lead to something like that. With the world we live in, we have no survival need to comprehend very small or very large things.
xxxFaustusxxx 1 year ago
@xxxFaustusxxx I can still hope, no?
TheGoodColonel 1 year ago
@xxxFaustusxxx I respectfully disagree. There may be a time when the benefits of quantum physics or cosmology aid in the survival of the human species. Our planet is doomed... that much we know. By asking the big questions and studying these difficult sciences etc we are slowly but surely improving our chances of branching out and occupying, perhaps, another planet.
JayJayAbels 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xxxFaustusxxx "It's a shame the human brain is simply incapable of fully grasping the universe. I wonder if we'll ever be able to. We just aren't built to understand extremely small and extremely large entities."
I find that demeaning. Several of us can understand what we know now. It's really not about what we can grasp... It's about how much time do we have to grasp things. Small or big, numbers are not the issue here... Understanding is what we're good at. I wouldn't bet against humans.
Meurglys33 1 year ago
@Meurglys33
Not sure how that's demeaning. The human brain is simply incapable of fully grasping extremely large or small things. That's why we always have to scale things and make comparison to things we do understand.
xxxFaustusxxx 1 year ago
"Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition" Isaac Asimov
arizonaviking 1 year ago
Dawkins explores similar themes in "Unweaving the Rainbow." I think it's important to challenge the primitivists and regressives who want to convince the world that knowledge has no value and that learning robs you of the ability to enjoy life. I believe the truth is the exact opposite. They indignantly ask us, "How dare you educate us? We preferred to see magic wherever we looked, whether it was really there or not!" And I indignantly reply, "How dare you NOT educate yourselves?"
gatorboymike 1 year ago
@gatorboymike They don't understand that learning leads to more new questions. The enjoyment of curiosity continues. They are just too lazy in the head to do the work.
TekLok 1 year ago
@TekLok Just a thought, but maybe they do understand that learning will lead to more questions and they simply don't want to question forever. They would rather say, "poof, there it is." If this is so, I think this makes them all the more intellectually lazy.
savageecho 1 year ago
Great video! Really enjoyed it.
Reminds me a bit of this Feynman video: watch?v=zSZNsIFID28
evain05 1 year ago
Damn good video man. Hats off
ProportionalResponse 1 year ago
Thank you C0nc0rdance...beautiful thoughts to share from one of the most distinguished visionaries. Peace be with.
MasterOhSo 1 year ago 16
Thank you, your videos inspire.
WestwindCA 1 year ago 8
its funny at 3:19 you can see jesus on the sun...hahahaha
crankycactus 1 year ago
Great Vid!!! I enjoyed that immensely.
Seeing the star - sun size comparisons NEVER fails to blow my mind! Thats just truly amazing. Burning bushes pale to the insignificant when compared to these wonders we are able to see and contemplate thanks to the wonders science and technology!!! :)
Thanks concordance :)
jeebersjumpincryst 1 year ago