So the first stars burned out in 3 million years and the next stars didn't form for another 500 million years? So for 497 million years the universe was dark?
At 1:06 the narrator says the universe expended a whole lot faster then the speed of light. This means the maximumspeed of any phenomenon decreased over time to what it is now(speed of light). Is it still decreasing? if not, how can you be sure? Or do physicians just don't count the boundary of the universe to be a part of the universe?
@inqubeko The speed of light as measured -- or as could be measure -- by any observer anywhere or anywhen has never changed. Various clever measurements and experiments have been done to examine the possibility that the speed of light may vary over time. And although the debate is not over, so far the results point to an amazingly constant speed of light.
@inqubeko the universe is not an expansion of matter into space that is waiting ti be filled up , its the actual expansion of space itself , space can travel faster than light because light is moving through space..
@sidewaysfcs0718 I believe that's the expansion of space and time rather than the matter. The ejection of those quarks would have "looked" more like an explosion from a single point, but they are moving into three dimensional space that expanded everywhere at the same time (and is still expanding).
i mean , at the big bang ...there wasnt even empty space .....all of space and matter was 1 point , then space expanded letting matter get apart cus it was crowded....
and its not tehnically an explosion ...but bang just sounds better
Actually you are correct and I have no idea why people are giving your comment a thumbs down. The big bang wasn't an "explosion", but an expansion of space itself due to repulsive gravity caused by an Inflaton field.
You may be right or you may be wrong... we don't really know yet, infation theory explains a few things, but its a looong shot since its based on a phisics we cannot check even exists.
1. While there was some lithium created, it is rarely mentioned by ANY documentary on the topic, so I tend to forgive the oversight. Though, this particular fact is important for study of brown dwarfs.
I do agree that there really isn't a good reason for not making the distinction in 2 & 3 though.
Is it just me, or do these characters have a heave R.A.H. influence? I've been through about two and a half hours of these vids and I'm starting to get serious Heinlein flashbacks whenever they pop up.
"Space soomed faster than thought" And how fast can thought travel? lol rediculous.
"Good thing too because gravity was about to squeeze that baby universe". If there was no time how can something be "about to" do anything? Oh dear another bad mistake.
"For gravity to do 'its work'?" Gravity does not have a will, and does not have work to do.
One false statement after another in this video. What are we teaching our kids?!
The lambda-cold-dark-model of the universe includes the inflation phase wherein the universe grew from about a planck length in dimension to perhaps billions of light years across. And it did this in maybe 10^-32 seconds. Thought is actually pretty slow by comparison. Without inflation, gravity would have prevented the universe as we know it today. And yes gravity can do what gravity does without thinking about it.
@cassiopeiaproject And thought can always go faster. You give me 10^-32 i can think of something faster. I am not talking about the speed at which neurons fire, but the fact that the human mind can concieve of the infinite, whereas the universe can only ever consist of the finite. Proof if ever one needed it, that the soul is not merely the product of the brain.
@cassiopeiaproject My comments we directed towards a lax WAY of explaining the universe, as if it were a living entity. As far as science is concerned, it should not adopt pantheistic language. Describing the universe as "having work to do" and being able to stand toe-to-toe with the infinite capacity of the human soul, and using the term time, where no time existed. Poor use of language which buddists, gaia lovers and tibetan yogi's capitalise on.
@havock89 The Big Bang theory is just as plausible as the Creation story. Neither can really be verified, it's all dependent on faith. Scientists can try and recreate all the conditions of the Big Bang, but they will never be able to recreate the Big Bang itself to prove that's how the universe started. Besides, who's to say that when God said, "Let there be light..." he didn't cause the Big Bang. Science is mostly interested in the how, not the who or the why.
@Nomoreidsleft Where does this statement come from? My comments were to do with the scientific information being portrayed in an abyssmal manner, not the teleological causation of the universe.
Science deals with proximal causation to explain the behaviour of physical phenomenon. It has nothing to do with the reason behind creation. Science has nothing to say about religion, but religion has plenty to say about science. Thats just the way of things. How accurate it is depends on the religion.
Absolutely... because there isn't a natural explanation at the moment... then only Santa Clause could've done it. Jeez... evidence of the dumbing down of the world. Also evidence of the absolute necessity to remove religion for the protection of our species.
Silence blaspheming infidel. Everyone knows it was not your false "Santa", or should we say "Satan" that created the universe. It was the one true god, the awesome and powerful Egg Laying Easter Bunny god.
I agree with you, but we should not try to destroy the faith of creationists. Let them believe what they want and live the way that they want (within reason) as they will not be alive forever.
@petethefrogger I would agree with, except that they keep trying to tell me I have to live by their insane rules. If they're too insecure to deal with reality, that is the creationists' problem.
What a fairy tale, ask the priest that proposed it, Georges Lemaitre. All the the things you hear here are nothing but baseless hypotheticals. Pseudoscience at its worst.
So the first stars burned out in 3 million years and the next stars didn't form for another 500 million years? So for 497 million years the universe was dark?
devourerofbabies 3 weeks ago
At 1:06 the narrator says the universe expended a whole lot faster then the speed of light. This means the maximumspeed of any phenomenon decreased over time to what it is now(speed of light). Is it still decreasing? if not, how can you be sure? Or do physicians just don't count the boundary of the universe to be a part of the universe?
inqubeko 1 year ago
@inqubeko The speed of light as measured -- or as could be measure -- by any observer anywhere or anywhen has never changed. Various clever measurements and experiments have been done to examine the possibility that the speed of light may vary over time. And although the debate is not over, so far the results point to an amazingly constant speed of light.
cassiopeiaproject 1 year ago
@inqubeko the universe is not an expansion of matter into space that is waiting ti be filled up , its the actual expansion of space itself , space can travel faster than light because light is moving through space..
IvanderHaisley 4 months ago
i believe in god but for the ones who don't the big bang first was a gigantic star and then exploded and caused an perfect ultra mega super nova!
Hypersonic1445 2 years ago
For those who gave him a thumb down, he's right.
Black holes are stars, "small" yet "gigantic"
and that "star" exploded (expanded).
Vejita12 1 year ago
uhm "explosion" is missleading ..
i saw a video on inflation and it says the universe is just an expansion of space ..the big bang isnt in fact an explosion
am i correct?
sidewaysfcs0718 2 years ago
@sidewaysfcs0718 I believe that's the expansion of space and time rather than the matter. The ejection of those quarks would have "looked" more like an explosion from a single point, but they are moving into three dimensional space that expanded everywhere at the same time (and is still expanding).
xam5432 2 years ago
i know ....
sidewaysfcs0718 2 years ago
i mean , at the big bang ...there wasnt even empty space .....all of space and matter was 1 point , then space expanded letting matter get apart cus it was crowded....
and its not tehnically an explosion ...but bang just sounds better
sidewaysfcs0718 2 years ago
Actually you are correct and I have no idea why people are giving your comment a thumbs down. The big bang wasn't an "explosion", but an expansion of space itself due to repulsive gravity caused by an Inflaton field.
reprise92 2 years ago
You may be right or you may be wrong... we don't really know yet, infation theory explains a few things, but its a looong shot since its based on a phisics we cannot check even exists.
Vejita12 1 year ago
which galaxies have a black hole as its center??
yamjayamjabulba 2 years ago
@yamjayamjabulba Every galaxy.
Salien1999 2 years ago
A couple problems
1) the big bang produced 3 elements not 2
2) Elements up to iron are made in a stars fusion
3) heavier than iron elements are formed from super nova
AtheistAtLARGE 2 years ago
1. While there was some lithium created, it is rarely mentioned by ANY documentary on the topic, so I tend to forgive the oversight. Though, this particular fact is important for study of brown dwarfs.
I do agree that there really isn't a good reason for not making the distinction in 2 & 3 though.
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
Is it just me, or do these characters have a heave R.A.H. influence? I've been through about two and a half hours of these vids and I'm starting to get serious Heinlein flashbacks whenever they pop up.
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
"Space soomed faster than thought" And how fast can thought travel? lol rediculous.
"Good thing too because gravity was about to squeeze that baby universe". If there was no time how can something be "about to" do anything? Oh dear another bad mistake.
"For gravity to do 'its work'?" Gravity does not have a will, and does not have work to do.
One false statement after another in this video. What are we teaching our kids?!
havock89 3 years ago
The lambda-cold-dark-model of the universe includes the inflation phase wherein the universe grew from about a planck length in dimension to perhaps billions of light years across. And it did this in maybe 10^-32 seconds. Thought is actually pretty slow by comparison. Without inflation, gravity would have prevented the universe as we know it today. And yes gravity can do what gravity does without thinking about it.
cassiopeiaproject 2 years ago
@cassiopeiaproject And thought can always go faster. You give me 10^-32 i can think of something faster. I am not talking about the speed at which neurons fire, but the fact that the human mind can concieve of the infinite, whereas the universe can only ever consist of the finite. Proof if ever one needed it, that the soul is not merely the product of the brain.
havock89 1 year ago
@cassiopeiaproject My comments we directed towards a lax WAY of explaining the universe, as if it were a living entity. As far as science is concerned, it should not adopt pantheistic language. Describing the universe as "having work to do" and being able to stand toe-to-toe with the infinite capacity of the human soul, and using the term time, where no time existed. Poor use of language which buddists, gaia lovers and tibetan yogi's capitalise on.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 The Big Bang theory is just as plausible as the Creation story. Neither can really be verified, it's all dependent on faith. Scientists can try and recreate all the conditions of the Big Bang, but they will never be able to recreate the Big Bang itself to prove that's how the universe started. Besides, who's to say that when God said, "Let there be light..." he didn't cause the Big Bang. Science is mostly interested in the how, not the who or the why.
Nomoreidsleft 1 year ago
@Nomoreidsleft Where does this statement come from? My comments were to do with the scientific information being portrayed in an abyssmal manner, not the teleological causation of the universe.
Science deals with proximal causation to explain the behaviour of physical phenomenon. It has nothing to do with the reason behind creation. Science has nothing to say about religion, but religion has plenty to say about science. Thats just the way of things. How accurate it is depends on the religion.
havock89 1 year ago
@Nomoreidsleft Who did God say 'Let there be light' to, exactly? Who was listening, and how would they have known what he was talking about?
gamesbok 9 months ago
lol, is funny how it's said that before the explosion it had not energy!!! if no energy was there no such thing could fuse it
C'mon
lberettal 3 years ago
Comment removed
Theologica37 3 years ago
Absolutely... because there isn't a natural explanation at the moment... then only Santa Clause could've done it. Jeez... evidence of the dumbing down of the world. Also evidence of the absolute necessity to remove religion for the protection of our species.
Exmech2 3 years ago 4
Silence blaspheming infidel. Everyone knows it was not your false "Santa", or should we say "Satan" that created the universe. It was the one true god, the awesome and powerful Egg Laying Easter Bunny god.
shameoncanada 3 years ago
@Exmech2
I agree with you, but we should not try to destroy the faith of creationists. Let them believe what they want and live the way that they want (within reason) as they will not be alive forever.
petethefrogger 2 weeks ago
@petethefrogger I would agree with, except that they keep trying to tell me I have to live by their insane rules. If they're too insecure to deal with reality, that is the creationists' problem.
Exmech2 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Theologica37 3 years ago
What a fairy tale, ask the priest that proposed it, Georges Lemaitre. All the the things you hear here are nothing but baseless hypotheticals. Pseudoscience at its worst.
SuperFinGuy 3 years ago
MUY IMAGINATIVO
adrian100105 3 years ago