Great explanation. but for the utemost begin of universe. The existence of a whatever dot that expanded is as much fantasy that god could be. The point is more, some people refuse for personal reason the possibility of the existence of god.
This is an invitation to everyone or anyone to see an artist theory on the physics of light and time!
This theory is based on two postulates
1. Is that the quantum wave particle function Ψ represents the forward passage of time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π itself
2. Is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w- function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
A clear and comprehensive breakdown. Well done. I am not sure who this fellow you refer to is but I can tell from the less than flattering photos you chose that you harbour a great deal of contempt for him, and considering the subject matter I can imagine it is well deserved. I cannot tolerate unthinking individuals; it is unhealthy to respect a persons opinion so clearly absurd as a creationists.
If you don't believe in god then live your life! Stop trying to prove that your not accountable to a creator. If your so sure of yourself, then why do you have to spend so much time trying to prove yourself right?
@wavsunlimited It's pretty obvious he's commenting on creationist videos. Are you not aware that the folks who brought us the lovely John Birch Society have since the early 90s been waging a very dishonest war against secularism (among other things)? Having failed to find any scientific evidence they instead push ahead trying to change school curriculums and lying all over the place that science is coming over to their way of thinking. A polite rebuttal like this video is the least to expect.
@wavsunlimited You are right! I could not agree more but as long as those that do believe in a magician creator are able to sway politics, I will probably feel the need to defend myself. I do wish the religious could climb off their high horse. (that has been enjoyed and exploited for so long.) If only they could keep to themselves also. If they are so sure they are right why must they build cathedrals that their earthly representative would have surely burned down.
@pumpstations Religion on a high horse? ... First off i dont believ ein catholocism and a church does not make you closer to god in anyway. Church should be the people not the building. Christianity is on the defense. from being removed from all government and schools and being banned from everywhere. Just watch and wait.... itl happen. Bibles will even be banned from bookstores eventually i know it
@wavsunlimited Chill Brother, I and many I know Don't personally care to see bibles removed from bookstores. That is the job of the free market. If they are selling . . . Let someone sell.
I totally agree also with a church being a building for people to gather in, even a nice building at that, but you can't look at the Vatican or many other cathedrals without thinking (would Jesus himself be apart of this?) As far as the government. Religion was not intended to be part of the package.
@wavsunlimited The siege mentality you expressed is never healthy, besides the fact that it's not true. You claim Christianity is on the defense while as always some churches are growing and others shrinking, and they are all discussing how or whether their dogma will change. Same as always. It's religious zealotry that turns people away from religion. Fire and brimstone talk may motivate believers but it certainly does not attract people.
@wavsunlimited Funny how the majority feels it must be on the defense against the minority when all the minority wants is equal rights & to be able to live their lives without being harassed or oppressed.
Religion has no place in government. Your ideal world is what the dark ages were. I don't see any aplogists saying that people in those days faced any "opression at the hands of athiests" as you claim is happening today. The middle east is an example of your ideal world, so why don't you move there? You'll be in good company.
1. “The most essential requirement is, however, that irrespective of frequency the wave or wave-train should continue for a certain interval of time, which I have estimated to be not less then one-twelfth or probably 0.08484 of a second..."
2. "...and which is taken in passing to and returning from the region diametrically opposite the pole over the earth’s surface with a mean velocity of about four hundred and seventy-one thousand two hundred and forty kilometers per second.” (ART OF TRANSMITTING ELECTRICAL ENERGY THROUGH THE NATURAL MEDIUMS, Nikola Tesla, USA Patent No. 787,412. Application May 16, 1900, patented April 18, 1905.)
So much design in the universe. Our minds are incredible. Was that too an accident? If there is no God, than we are all just worthless clumps of molecules! In atheism, there are No morals! Who do we answer to? Hitler? He liked killing folks. Who sets the standards for morality? If I rape someone, who are You to condemn me? After all we are just clumps of worthless molecules, right?
@rjdrjd22000 the universe doesn't follow your opinions, you will need logical thinking to understand it, and yes people have been killed, raped and whatever without "justice", that's another silly harmful human concept.
@rjdrjd22000 You poor fellow - you sound so mixed up, I don't know where to start in order to set you straight. We are not worthless, as you seem to believe - we have only one life, as far as anyone has proven to date and we had better try to have to best life possible. We all have what's called a conscience and I am guided by mine as far as morals go and I dare say I live a far purer and beneficial life both to myself and regarding those who interact with me than a LOT of Christians do. THINK!
@rjdrjd22000 Our minds are the product of star dust under the pressures nature over billions of years, we are the way for the universe to know itself. We are the most valuable, known, comodity that has ever existed. We answer to our own collective consciousness called society. If you have no inate morality you are a psychopath, you are sick: you should either be medicated and institutionalised or put to death.
ABIOGENISIS = all life came from Rocks......it is the Foundation of "Evolution"....so.... if you believe this....your pet rock or space rocks will come to life and spawn millions of species.....Think...."Magic God Rocks"???...
Do The Math...Unlike People It Does Not Lie....
50,000,000,000,000 cells in a human.....3,500,000,000 years for "Magic Rock" to evolve to a human......."Magic Rockers"....It Is Time For A New Theory....
This is a very interesting POV. And I agree for the most part! But honestly, I CANNOT for the life of me see why people MUST believe that there is a creator! How about, the Universe is, in a sense, the creator? As in, it perhaps created itself or that is has always existed! And through evolution and time and the big bang, everything we know about our universe came to be. Why MUST there have been a creator when most things about our universe prove otherwise? I just don't see it.
@HardTranceMage19 The believe that there must be a creator because their brains cannot comprehend any other idea. In other words, they're just too stupid to understand why there doesn't need to be a god.
@HardTranceMage19 In my life experience, I have extracted from many, many creationists that their belief in a divine god, which they commonly perceive to be the key to their immortality, results from their fear of death.
These folks 'need' that aspect in their lives to alleviate it. Many of them probably wouldn't be able to accept the notion of certain death, even if their beliefs were proved not to be true.
@Acosmicist That sounds very likely, actually! From what I've perceived when talking to creationists it seems that that is the most likely case of why they believe in a creator. What I want to know is, why fear death? Death is inevitable anyway! So there's no need to fear it. By fearing it, people are working against themselves by living in fear all the time instead of enjoying their lives while they have it!
And what is it exactly, oh arrogant genius, you would call this intelligence system that has all this energy, ability to evolve and clear connection to "all that is?" God is a cheap a word. The damn thing IS the creator. You are a being, in this universe, that is aware of the awareness of being aware. Think... So what exactly is the "you" part? Does matter create awareness or does awareness create matter? My question is "How don't YOU see THIS?!" Jesus! And I don't mean God.
I WOULD have taken you seriously had you not insulted me directly within the first sentence. What I call it is energy. You can give it whatever title you please, but it does not change what it is. What I'm against is fairy tale beliefs in a loving God. Let's cut the crap here, if God were the creator of the universe why are humans his favorite creation? Why does he have humanistic characteristics? The reason "he" does is because humans give everything human characteristics.
@HardTranceMage19 i agree with all these ideas but believe something i can't define or ever understand made it all possible. you say as much, "the Universe is, in a sense, the creator? As in, it perhaps created itself or that is has always existed!" purely as an axiom of creation, there must exist a creator..
@bishoptutuspants I understand where you're coming from, but my intention was, why must there be a god. That's what I meant by creator. And even then, we don't know for sure if there is or isn't a creator. One can believe what they want, but the fact remains so.
@HardTranceMage19 completely agree, we can only ever believe in some sort of creator, conscious or otherwise, or conversely believe the opposite. it is not a matter of knowing. long as the response to such convictions is a positive one, it makes absolutely no difference either way.
@rjdrjd22000 that's why it's a bullshit, because "create" is an action that happens through time, so you cannot create something if you need it first to do so, means it can't happen, like God existance.
@rjdrjd22000 What you obviously don't understand is that the Bible is only a collection of creation myths, the same as all the other ones and certainly, not to be taken seriously. There is no magic fruit tyhat grows anywhere on earth that makes you smart if you take a bite of it, snakes don't speak, as yet, although, some day, who knows what they will evolve into? No world-wide flood neither and we all didn't come from one family a few thousand years ago - the human genome proves this.
@rjdrjd22000 aye but doesnt give any evidence or anything like that to tell us how that can be ... where as science backs up its information with facts
Thats the main difference between religion and science
Besides you talking like you know everything , like whats outside the universe , okay explain to me soething , before the big bang the scienctist belive that it was the result of Matter and anti-matter explosion , now , where does the matter and antimatter come from , if you can't explain then dont take the risk in not believing in God
your logic dienes the existence of "free will" for millions of years life existed on this plant void of "free will", then at some point it came into existence.
If there is no "free will" than you'd be right. But since "free will" is observed to exist, your argument is wrong. Logically one can draw a Venn Digram representing "free will" and in such a digram religions and beliefs in gods can be drawn. end of argument.
i have nothing against atheists some people think that i am an atheist too but i still believe in god only thing is that the bible hasnt been told the right way and obviously some of the stories in it are probably not true and by saying this its not blasphemy believing in god doesnt mean we should fear him or believe blindly in everything written in the bible for all stories in the bible there is probably a good meaning.dont just go all PROVE IT comment if you have a good reply for me
Electrons can cross the space between orbits because the orbits are probabilistic. An electron from the inner-most orbit of an atom could be 2 metres away, it's just very unlikely.
Creationists have enough trouble figuring out time-scales beyond 100's or 1000's of years, never mind millions, billions or even differentiated time (due to gravity).
I look forward to watching the next one once it loads.
@twopieye You're just upset because my logic has proven what you spent your life studying to be wrong. Also, in your previous post you say that the observer isn't moving. In relation to what? I thought that it was proven that we are on a constantly rotating sphere hurling through space in a solar system that is itself being hurled around the galaxy and subject to the influence of gravity pulling mass together. Your assumption is simplistic.
I am afraid your chemistry teacher has done you a terrible disservice. You absolutely cannot think of electron orbitals as those circular orbits you have drawn. When an electron makes a quantum transition between atomic orbitals it is making transitions between angular momentum and radial quantum numbers. This has nothing to do with the electron crossing a distance instantaneously. This is one of the many reasons teachers need to stop showing that circular orbital diagram. it's just wrong
You will NEVER understand what is outside of the Universe, so please dont bother explaining it. Lets stay inside the Universe and explane what goes on here FRIST. THAN, if our knind is still around, we should ponder the outer whatever is or isnt out there..
Time therefor is a constant and only our perception of it changes. Take for example traveling faster than the speed of light. If you look back at the earth you wouldn't see it. If you stop and look back, you will see the past because you have been traveling faster than the light reflecting off the earth. This DOES NOT mean that you traveled backward in time, only that what you are seeing has already happened. Gravity also doesn't affect time for similar reasons.
Your idea of changing time "relativity" is also false. Sorry Einstein. Time as we perceive it is based entirely on the speed at which our neurons can interpret it. Which is in turn affected by the rate of the chemical reactions that must take place. This means that humans don't make good clocks. Further, since every way that we can measure time can be influenced, there is no reliable way to measure time in all circumstances.
@twopieye A clock based on nuclear decay, while extremely consistent, cannot be proved to be absolutely consistent and accurate. I know that it has been determined by the scientific community that the speed of radioactive decay is independant of all outside forces. But when they claim that by moving one up a few feet and find a deviation in the clock's time from a stationary one and blame it on a difference in actual time vs. the workings of the clock is ridiculous.
@twopieye do you see how saying that time is bending instead of the clocks are inaccurate and obviously are affected my changes in gravity is looney? I can't believe that we actually have people who can fall for these blatant errors in logic.
@dlstb Let me ask you two questions and make a point of clarification.
Q1: how much relativity have you actually studied in school? I want to know at what level to pitch my responses.
Q2: Do I understand your position correctly - that all of the variations in time which have confirmed relativity can be attributed to inaccuracies in clock time or the perception of the observer?
@twopieye Why should my studying relativity be affected by where I studied it? The difference between a college education and actual learning is that one costs thousands of dollars a year and the other only requires a library card. Your insinuation that one must have a degree in physics to understand just how wrong relativity is telling. You can pitch your responses at whatever level you feel best suits you. I can read and if you throw in some big words, I do have books that cover that too.
@dlstb woh. Sorry for cutting in mid conversation here, but you think relativity is wrong?
Buddy, I hate to burst your bubble, but were talking about a subject being poured over by the kind of people who spent most of their lives mastering the mathematics and notions behind the theory, at the expense of health, fun, sex... you're not going to find something these guys missed. If you want to disprove something, have a crack at string theory, it's suitably insane enough to warrant it.
relativity IS wrong. it's alot like how a Newtonian view of the universe is wrong, but the calculations remain useful.
Actually, I think that notion kind of renders the argument pointless doesn't it? Even if you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that relativity doesn't reflect reality (which has already happened), it still doesn't change the fact that relativistic formulas accurately reflect what we see in the real world. No denying that.
@oEQjet Until we send a person screaming off into space at faster than light speeds we won't know that relativity is actually reflected in reality. What I am saying is that these people are using clocks at different altitudes and therefore under varying degrees of gravity, as the proof of relativity. The problem is that these clocks are obviously affected by gravity. To say that space time is bending and the clock is actually remaining in perfect time is laughable. How can we continue this way?
@dlstb whats that crazy man? You say the korporations have hijacked our space time continuum? SWEET JESUS. Someone alert Al Gore! NOBODY VIOLATES THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, NOT NOBODY.
If you are going to quote the Cowardly Lion, at least finish the phrase.
The facts support me though. When a man is about to lose his funding and he has it in his ability to falsify stuff and have people believe him, he'll do it. Its all about the money. Gore finally figured out his ownership of CCX wasn't panning out and dumped it a few months ago.
@oEQjet It is my personal belief that science is being hijacked by people trying to make money instead of trying to learn. When a scientists livelyhood rests on his ability to make new discoveries we see obvious breeches in the scientific method. This is the exact thing that is going on with what was global warming and what is climate change. It is obvious that the climate has changed and will continue to change. It is ignorance that makes someone think the earth was perfect in 1875.
@distb And the clarification: no one says that clocks are not affected by gravity. In fact the general theory of relativity states that time is contracted in stronger gravitational fields. Also, time is dilated/contracted not bent. this is a minor point but I would like to try to be precise with our language.
@twopieye You obviously have bought this fallacy hook, line, and sinker. To suppose that we have a clock so accurate that the only reason it gains or loses time has to be that time itself is dilating is a farce. I don't believe in Einsteins relativity as most people think of it. You don't actually slow time the faster that you go, but, it you are speeding away from a clock at near the speed of light, your perception of time would change because the clocks hands would appear to not move.
I haven't "bought a fallacy". I have spent a number of years studying physics and the evidence.
Within your idea, can you explain why unstable particles which travel near the speed of light have a dilated lifetime which agrees exactly with the predictions of special relativity? The observer isn't moving in this case and therefore their "perception of time" shouldn't be changed. Also, are you going to answer my other question?
@twopieye maybe your chemistry buddies are wrong, and there are some things that affect radioactive nuclear decay. You have bought a fallacy. You've been taught by your professors instead of using your own brain to think things through. Its alot like how they usually teach Keynesian economics and usually leave out Hayek's ideas. The professors and your colleagues have picked what they want to believe and promote only that.
@twopieye If you stopped moving however, and were still looking at the clock, you would see that the hands of the clock are moving like they should. Further, if you sped toward the clock, you would see the hands spin faster as you are intercepting the clocks reflection sooner and sooner. In reality, both you and the clock were always on the same "time", you never slowed time or sped it up. It was all in how you perceived your surroundings.
@twopieye I am also aware of another method that is supposed to prove relativity and the bending of space time around large gravity wells by sheer virtue that we can see a star when it should be behind the sun. This leads to its own problems. Who ever said that the star doesn't send out light in all vectors and that the ray of light that we see and accept as the star isn't just another ray that has become bent by the gravitational force towards the observer?
@twopieye What most people accept is that the ray they see is the same one they always see coming from this star and that it has actually bent around the sun, first moving away from slightly then towards it slightly. This does not dit reality or the other theories concerning gravity, the wave-particle nature of light, or a number of others. Why is it that we consider all of Einstein's work so untouchable that it cannot be questioned. If it doesn't follow common sense, its usually wrong.
I don't think that you actually have a grasp of the ideas of infinite or universe. I base this on your video which says that the ENTIRE universe was a singularity before the big bang. If the universe is truly infinite and the products of the big bang really are the galaxies that we see, then wouldn't it make sense that there are more "universes" farther out, going through their own cycles of expansion a contraction? To say that ALL matter in the universe came from a single big bang is false.
@diagoras54 very good vid. nice house and car too. lol. but, how can something be added to eternity? anything that is in eternity is eternal, no? i don't see how you can be added to eternity without being eternal.
@diagoras54 This actually goes into, if I'm wrong shove a boot up my ass, physics. More specifically, M Theory. I'm not an expert on it at, I only know that they talk on this subject. But if Dr. Michio Kaku says it's a possibility, It's good enough for me.
I like saying that without an established definition for this word, and given that the means to fulfill a definition for "god" can be so specific as to only refer one's own definition, this word is actually a foreign word in any language. In order to pursue any meaningful conversation involving that word at all, the definition being used must be made clear whenever it is used.
Because there is currently no objective means to render a singular definition, the word is meaningless to science.
@conman300 True, but I reserve judgement on anything outside the universe, because we simply know nothing about it. We could assume there were many Earth-like planets before we found any because the laws of nature are the same everywhere in the universe. However, until we know something about what's beyond the universe, the multiverse theory is just a probabilistic model, and it's equally likely that the universe is repeatedly destroyed and reincarnated with new physical laws.
@conman300 the universe is the term for all things. Just because what you comprehend as the universe is limited, doesn't make it so. And if it did, what would you call the thing that holds all of the universes?
The mere fact that you are using microsoft windows to edit your videos is proof enough to me that you do not have the brain capacity to even begin to comprehend God.
The mere fact that you are using microsoft windows to edit your videos is proof enough to me that you do not have the brain capacity to even begin to comprehend God.
The mere fact that you are using microsoft windows to edit your videos is proof enough to me that you do not have the brain capacity to even begin to comprehend God.
Therefore you, as you just said all humans are, are limited in experience to understand the existence of God and you are creating theories against the existence of God.
@wjgpiano92 OVERALL (entire universe) entropy increases, however LOCAL order can increase to an incredible extent allowing formation of such complex structures as entire galaxies. Do us all a favor: Be sure you understand whether a principle you're about to cite ACTUALLY supports the contention you are about to make before opening your yap next time OK?
Möbius Strip Cannot exist in the 2D only in the 3D+ and above, just like the klein bottle and the tesserac,that can not exist in our 3D only in the 4D + and above
objects can loop themselfs without intersecting themselfs in the 4D, thas why we "cant" see or "imaging" the real Tesserac in this 3D that we live in we can only see their shadows
makes you go mad and want to break into the other higher Dementions dosent it?
once humans understand that we will never be able to comprehend where or how anything came into existence due to the simple fact that we are incapable of comprehending....its like explaining calculus to a dog...the dog is simply incapable of comprehending....that is the simple fact of our dilema...humans simply cant comprehend it...and once we realise that simple fact, our earth will be a much more peaceful place to live!!!!!
@1989Boop What's your basis for this claim? Where's your evidence that anything is unknowable? For that matter, how can we know something is unknowable if it's unknowable? We haven't yet reached the limits of our technology, and we've never come across something that we couldn't at least deduce a hypothesis for. It's like saying that we can never understand the cure cancer because we haven't yet found it; if we haven't found it, we can't know whether we can ever understand it.
time is a perception (you can feel observed but no one is there observing you), to measure life span. how many TIMES the sun arise after we complete an orbit. only for math purposes. time/space is a theory if you see the moon and trace a line north to south are 2 points. if the moon disappears the point 1 and 2 just merge in continuity. is like put a stone in a pond, the stone mass displace the water if you submerge the stone you will see point 1 and 2 merging in continuity.
You know what, I just found out how to make a time machine. I think so... cause if a black hole has singlurity or what ever and if you go in you will/might see no progression in time, doesnt that mean if you. Nvm I just frogot. My head hurts now.
Let me point out the simple flaw in the question, what happened before the big bang.
First of all we must understand what time is. Time is an abstract concept formed by man to describe why things do not remain static. For time to exist something must be changing, be it the swing on a pendulem or the vibration in an atom.
The BB marks the creation of the universe, which is everything. If we extrapolate time to before the BB then we find that nothing exists to change, hense NO TIME, NO BEFORE!
No, there is no time, there is only spacetime. We divide this into the separate concepts of space and time to keep things simple, but time is intricately connected to space. Thus, it's not that time began when space started expanding, but that they're the same thing. We have no way of knowing whether there is such a thing as "absolute time", or that which exists separately from spacetime, and therefore outside the universe. Just because what we recognize as time is finite does not mean all is.
Yes time is a dimension of a 4 dimensional spacetime, of which we experience only 3 dimesions fully and travel along the fourth, time. We cannot directly measure time we can only measure changes experienced in the other 3 dimensions. If there is nothing in the other 3 dimensions to measure then time cannot be measured. So if time could not be measured before the big bang then quantum therory suggests that it had no value and could only exist as a quantum probability, so "before" has no meaning
"Before" has no meaning to us, because we live within spacetime and don't recognize anything else. That's not to say that there is no time which is distinct from spacetime beyond our universe, or even permeating our universe. There could very well be time which is distinct from the fabric of space, and to which "before" the Big Bang is perfectly logical. Because the "time" in spacetime is tied to space, experiencing it is relative to space as well, which need not be so for absolute time.
Is it not possible that we confuse ourselves by labelling this "absolute time" as time at all. As absolute time would have to have to be governed by different laws to spacetime and therefore be a distinctly different concept. If absolute time had no direction then the concept of cause and effect has no meaning and the same would be true of before and after.
Thankyou for your patience diagoras. It has been many years since I sudied physics and I'm sure scientific progress has left me behind.
Who said anything about direction? The only thing that need be different is that time wouldn't be connected to space; it marches inexorably forward, for eternity, regardless of our position in, or velocity through, space. That's the point: just because time is connected to space in our universe doesn't mean that's necessarily so for anything else.
The direction of spacetime is linked to the directin in which entropy increaces yes? since entropy is a spacial concept then it would be an unfounded assumtion that absolute time should also have a direction if it is not connected to space. Or am I just visualising it wrong?
The only other way I can think of to visualise time is that of an observer outside of spacetime, unfortunately that concept raises more questions than it answers.
Entropy is the means by which we see the arrow of time, but it's not the cause of time having a direction; it's a result of it. Imagine a universe which has no structures, only shifting clouds of gas. We would see the passage of time by the movement of gas, but would the universe be any more or less ordered? Events would still occur, and cause-and-effect would still be in place, as one gas particle striking another would send it off to hit other particles.
The reason entropy is so significant in our universe is that the expansion of the universe is related to the increase in disorder, which certainly wouldn't be so in an infinite, constant expanse. A Big Bang could easily occur within such a space without creating anything, so long as the net result is zero, much like a particle and its paired anti-particle spontaneously generating out of nothing. Thus, our spacetime would be found within a larger expanse possessing time unrelated to space.
But surely entropy is how the direction of time is determined. In a system where entropy is conserved it would be impossible to disinguish time running backwards from time running forwards. It would be impossible to distinguish cause from effect. A thought just off the top of my head: if at the start of the big bang cause and effect become interchangeable, could the big bang have been both cause and effect? Probably impossible but very weird things happen when you delve into quantum mechanics.
p.s. you'll have to forgive my crazy hypotheses, I've always found the weird and counter intuitive way in which the universe works facinating, but I never could properly grasp the maths involved
It's entirely possible, and an intriguing area of philosophical introspection.
Entropy is how the direction of time is determined, but not how the arrow of time is formed. We see time pass because of entropy, but entropy is not the cause of time passing. It's like seeing cars drive on the same side of the road: they drive on the same side because of the law to which they conform, not vice versa.
I see entropy and the arrow of time to be some what of a chicken and the egg conumdrem. Quantum theory suggests that it is the act of measurement / observation that gives the universe form as untill something is observed and its wavefunction collapsed, all things exist as probabilitys. I know that quantum mechanics doesn't really work when applied to dimensionality but maybe something similar does. Sort of an anthropic principle of time. Again probably wrong but a fun bit of mental exorcise.
I admit it. I did it. In fact, i created the universe yesterday. All the memories you have of last week were created by me. All those photos of your wild spring break party back in '06? Me again. Totally. The backstreet boys? Me. Hey, there's just as much evidence for it as for biblical creation.
Your talking complete rubbish. A black hole is not also known as a singularity. A singularity is reached when the matter drawn inside it is so compressed, that the laws of physics break down. At that point it is then a singularity.
Once again nice fancy words that appear so convincing to the unsuspecting novice and makes you look like you actually know what you are talking about. In reality I think you just like the sound of your own voice.
A black hole is an example of a singularity, because within it the laws of physics break down. That's not because "matter...is so compressed", however; it's because of the extreme curvature of spacetime. Do some research before posting idiotic comments that reveal your complete lack of education, and refrain from insulting me. If you don't like my videos, don't watch them.
I'm wondering what you use to make these videos in which you have made-arranged-set up the graphics quite well. Thx for the explanation ahead of time.
If you read the bible it states that God is alpha and omega, beginning and end. God does not go by time and his concept of time is much different then ours. For God time never began and never ended. He is infinite and us as humans cannot understand that.
It makes sense for got to have no beginning or end. If God had a beginning then who created him? If someone created God then he wouldn't be God because there would be someone of a higher power.
You've just restated the position against which I was arguing without adding any new perspective or information. "God is eternal." "The Bible says the righteous will spend eternal life in heaven, so if eternity begins at a specific point and goes into the future, couldn't god begin at a specific point and go into the future?" "God is eternal." You've also presented Dawkins's position on the "watchmaker" perfectly: something complex requires something more complex to create
You've also presented Dawkins's position on the "watchmaker" perfectly: something complex requires something more complex to create it, and god is more complex than the universe, so he needs something to create him. That makes an infinite regression which doesn't actually answer any questions. You've hit the nail on the head and sealed the coffin of your own theism without realizing it.
God means you are all powerful nothing is of a higher power. So if God is all powerful nothing created him. If you say someone created god then god is not all powerful. So that means God is God nothing created him he is eternal he is everything he is power.
In the end if i say i believe in God it means that i believe in a single being of the highest power. So what are you having trouble with in my statements?
I'm having trouble getting you to understand the irony of your own statements. The most common creationist argument I've heard is that the universe is so complicated and perfect that it required something intelligent to create it. If that's the case, then something more complex was required to create that. You outlined that perfectly.
You still haven't addressed my original point though: the Bible says you'll have eternal life in heaven, so why should eternity, which begins at a definitive point, be any different for god? The Bible's position is that infinity can have a starting point, which means that god could have a starting point and still be infinite. If that's the case, then something more powerful was required to create god. I'm not saying that's my position or my understanding, it's just a possible interpretation.
3:05 dude nice house haha
Coldretter 1 day ago
I'm gonna take a wild guess here that the narrator of this video is Canadian.
lookaguru 3 weeks ago
NICE CAR!!!!!
117DieHard 1 month ago
Good point point on infinity. Infinity may only be a limitation of our way of thinking.
George0lavaillance 1 month ago
Great explanation. but for the utemost begin of universe. The existence of a whatever dot that expanded is as much fantasy that god could be. The point is more, some people refuse for personal reason the possibility of the existence of god.
George0lavaillance 1 month ago
thank God you made it so clear to me
woodworks9 1 month ago
there is no god stupid creationist
thelastpoint1 2 months ago
@thelastpoint1 I guess you would know right? None of us know. No one knows. Some people just have blind faith
wiebeReviews 1 month ago
Damn the snow build up on videos won't go all the way to the top
eljuandale 2 months ago
Interesting video!
This is an invitation to everyone or anyone to see an artist theory on the physics of light and time!
This theory is based on two postulates
1. Is that the quantum wave particle function Ψ represents the forward passage of time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π itself
2. Is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w- function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
nickharvey7 2 months ago
great video dude
CKNYoung 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge.
GaryFL1 3 months ago
A clear and comprehensive breakdown. Well done. I am not sure who this fellow you refer to is but I can tell from the less than flattering photos you chose that you harbour a great deal of contempt for him, and considering the subject matter I can imagine it is well deserved. I cannot tolerate unthinking individuals; it is unhealthy to respect a persons opinion so clearly absurd as a creationists.
AristotlEYE 3 months ago
If you don't believe in god then live your life! Stop trying to prove that your not accountable to a creator. If your so sure of yourself, then why do you have to spend so much time trying to prove yourself right?
wavsunlimited 4 months ago
@wavsunlimited It's pretty obvious he's commenting on creationist videos. Are you not aware that the folks who brought us the lovely John Birch Society have since the early 90s been waging a very dishonest war against secularism (among other things)? Having failed to find any scientific evidence they instead push ahead trying to change school curriculums and lying all over the place that science is coming over to their way of thinking. A polite rebuttal like this video is the least to expect.
JustinMShaw 4 months ago
@wavsunlimited You are right! I could not agree more but as long as those that do believe in a magician creator are able to sway politics, I will probably feel the need to defend myself. I do wish the religious could climb off their high horse. (that has been enjoyed and exploited for so long.) If only they could keep to themselves also. If they are so sure they are right why must they build cathedrals that their earthly representative would have surely burned down.
pumpstations 3 months ago
@pumpstations Religion on a high horse? ... First off i dont believ ein catholocism and a church does not make you closer to god in anyway. Church should be the people not the building. Christianity is on the defense. from being removed from all government and schools and being banned from everywhere. Just watch and wait.... itl happen. Bibles will even be banned from bookstores eventually i know it
wavsunlimited 3 months ago
@wavsunlimited From your mouth to god's ears! The world without religion you describe sounds like a Utopia!
fdasherv 3 months ago
@wavsunlimited Chill Brother, I and many I know Don't personally care to see bibles removed from bookstores. That is the job of the free market. If they are selling . . . Let someone sell.
I totally agree also with a church being a building for people to gather in, even a nice building at that, but you can't look at the Vatican or many other cathedrals without thinking (would Jesus himself be apart of this?) As far as the government. Religion was not intended to be part of the package.
pumpstations 3 months ago
@wavsunlimited The siege mentality you expressed is never healthy, besides the fact that it's not true. You claim Christianity is on the defense while as always some churches are growing and others shrinking, and they are all discussing how or whether their dogma will change. Same as always. It's religious zealotry that turns people away from religion. Fire and brimstone talk may motivate believers but it certainly does not attract people.
JustinMShaw 3 months ago
@wavsunlimited Funny how the majority feels it must be on the defense against the minority when all the minority wants is equal rights & to be able to live their lives without being harassed or oppressed.
Strangerinasland 3 months ago
@Strangerinasland lol
wavsunlimited 3 months ago
@wavsunlimited
Religion has no place in government. Your ideal world is what the dark ages were. I don't see any aplogists saying that people in those days faced any "opression at the hands of athiests" as you claim is happening today. The middle east is an example of your ideal world, so why don't you move there? You'll be in good company.
NUTCASE71733 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1. “The most essential requirement is, however, that irrespective of frequency the wave or wave-train should continue for a certain interval of time, which I have estimated to be not less then one-twelfth or probably 0.08484 of a second..."
klopedokle 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2. "...and which is taken in passing to and returning from the region diametrically opposite the pole over the earth’s surface with a mean velocity of about four hundred and seventy-one thousand two hundred and forty kilometers per second.” (ART OF TRANSMITTING ELECTRICAL ENERGY THROUGH THE NATURAL MEDIUMS, Nikola Tesla, USA Patent No. 787,412. Application May 16, 1900, patented April 18, 1905.)
klopedokle 4 months ago
So much design in the universe. Our minds are incredible. Was that too an accident? If there is no God, than we are all just worthless clumps of molecules! In atheism, there are No morals! Who do we answer to? Hitler? He liked killing folks. Who sets the standards for morality? If I rape someone, who are You to condemn me? After all we are just clumps of worthless molecules, right?
rjdrjd22000 5 months ago
@rjdrjd22000 the universe doesn't follow your opinions, you will need logical thinking to understand it, and yes people have been killed, raped and whatever without "justice", that's another silly harmful human concept.
cipihevent 5 months ago
@rjdrjd22000 You poor fellow - you sound so mixed up, I don't know where to start in order to set you straight. We are not worthless, as you seem to believe - we have only one life, as far as anyone has proven to date and we had better try to have to best life possible. We all have what's called a conscience and I am guided by mine as far as morals go and I dare say I live a far purer and beneficial life both to myself and regarding those who interact with me than a LOT of Christians do. THINK!
zideffil 5 months ago
@rjdrjd22000 Our minds are the product of star dust under the pressures nature over billions of years, we are the way for the universe to know itself. We are the most valuable, known, comodity that has ever existed. We answer to our own collective consciousness called society. If you have no inate morality you are a psychopath, you are sick: you should either be medicated and institutionalised or put to death.
ArchhereticK 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Religions Aside....
ABIOGENISIS = all life came from Rocks......it is the Foundation of "Evolution"....so.... if you believe this....your pet rock or space rocks will come to life and spawn millions of species.....Think...."Magic God Rocks"???...
Do The Math...Unlike People It Does Not Lie....
50,000,000,000,000 cells in a human.....3,500,000,000 years for "Magic Rock" to evolve to a human......."Magic Rockers"....It Is Time For A New Theory....
Math Has Imploded The Old One....
songforamericans 5 months ago
This is a very interesting POV. And I agree for the most part! But honestly, I CANNOT for the life of me see why people MUST believe that there is a creator! How about, the Universe is, in a sense, the creator? As in, it perhaps created itself or that is has always existed! And through evolution and time and the big bang, everything we know about our universe came to be. Why MUST there have been a creator when most things about our universe prove otherwise? I just don't see it.
HardTranceMage19 5 months ago 5
@HardTranceMage19 The believe that there must be a creator because their brains cannot comprehend any other idea. In other words, they're just too stupid to understand why there doesn't need to be a god.
Nebuli2 2 months ago
@HardTranceMage19 In my life experience, I have extracted from many, many creationists that their belief in a divine god, which they commonly perceive to be the key to their immortality, results from their fear of death.
These folks 'need' that aspect in their lives to alleviate it. Many of them probably wouldn't be able to accept the notion of certain death, even if their beliefs were proved not to be true.
Acosmicist 1 month ago
@Acosmicist That sounds very likely, actually! From what I've perceived when talking to creationists it seems that that is the most likely case of why they believe in a creator. What I want to know is, why fear death? Death is inevitable anyway! So there's no need to fear it. By fearing it, people are working against themselves by living in fear all the time instead of enjoying their lives while they have it!
HardTranceMage19 1 month ago
And what is it exactly, oh arrogant genius, you would call this intelligence system that has all this energy, ability to evolve and clear connection to "all that is?" God is a cheap a word. The damn thing IS the creator. You are a being, in this universe, that is aware of the awareness of being aware. Think... So what exactly is the "you" part? Does matter create awareness or does awareness create matter? My question is "How don't YOU see THIS?!" Jesus! And I don't mean God.
heyblindref 1 month ago
I WOULD have taken you seriously had you not insulted me directly within the first sentence. What I call it is energy. You can give it whatever title you please, but it does not change what it is. What I'm against is fairy tale beliefs in a loving God. Let's cut the crap here, if God were the creator of the universe why are humans his favorite creation? Why does he have humanistic characteristics? The reason "he" does is because humans give everything human characteristics.
HardTranceMage19 1 month ago
@HardTranceMage19 i agree with all these ideas but believe something i can't define or ever understand made it all possible. you say as much, "the Universe is, in a sense, the creator? As in, it perhaps created itself or that is has always existed!" purely as an axiom of creation, there must exist a creator..
bishoptutuspants 1 month ago
@bishoptutuspants I understand where you're coming from, but my intention was, why must there be a god. That's what I meant by creator. And even then, we don't know for sure if there is or isn't a creator. One can believe what they want, but the fact remains so.
HardTranceMage19 1 month ago
@HardTranceMage19 completely agree, we can only ever believe in some sort of creator, conscious or otherwise, or conversely believe the opposite. it is not a matter of knowing. long as the response to such convictions is a positive one, it makes absolutely no difference either way.
bishoptutuspants 1 month ago
how dare you!! how dare you turn off the simpsons while making a video
mitra32203 5 months ago
It doesnt matter what the definition on God is but Who he is. Also the Bible clearly teaches that GOD is outside of time because he created it.
rjdrjd22000 5 months ago
@rjdrjd22000 that's why it's a bullshit, because "create" is an action that happens through time, so you cannot create something if you need it first to do so, means it can't happen, like God existance.
cipihevent 5 months ago
@rjdrjd22000 What you obviously don't understand is that the Bible is only a collection of creation myths, the same as all the other ones and certainly, not to be taken seriously. There is no magic fruit tyhat grows anywhere on earth that makes you smart if you take a bite of it, snakes don't speak, as yet, although, some day, who knows what they will evolve into? No world-wide flood neither and we all didn't come from one family a few thousand years ago - the human genome proves this.
zideffil 5 months ago
@rjdrjd22000 aye but doesnt give any evidence or anything like that to tell us how that can be ... where as science backs up its information with facts
Thats the main difference between religion and science
PhilosopherGaming 3 months ago
Nice car you got diagoras4 =)
sirPiteye 6 months ago
Besides you talking like you know everything , like whats outside the universe , okay explain to me soething , before the big bang the scienctist belive that it was the result of Matter and anti-matter explosion , now , where does the matter and antimatter come from , if you can't explain then dont take the risk in not believing in God
TVkeyse 6 months ago
Why are you not talking about islam and the God we believing is the one who created everything , he perfect and the greatest .
TVkeyse 6 months ago
amazing how simple logic can obliterate the atheist argument !....lol
romney27 7 months ago
your logic dienes the existence of "free will" for millions of years life existed on this plant void of "free will", then at some point it came into existence.
If there is no "free will" than you'd be right. But since "free will" is observed to exist, your argument is wrong. Logically one can draw a Venn Digram representing "free will" and in such a digram religions and beliefs in gods can be drawn. end of argument.
romney27 7 months ago
i have nothing against atheists some people think that i am an atheist too but i still believe in god only thing is that the bible hasnt been told the right way and obviously some of the stories in it are probably not true and by saying this its not blasphemy believing in god doesnt mean we should fear him or believe blindly in everything written in the bible for all stories in the bible there is probably a good meaning.dont just go all PROVE IT comment if you have a good reply for me
TheWolfPackGamers 7 months ago
Electrons can cross the space between orbits because the orbits are probabilistic. An electron from the inner-most orbit of an atom could be 2 metres away, it's just very unlikely.
Creationists have enough trouble figuring out time-scales beyond 100's or 1000's of years, never mind millions, billions or even differentiated time (due to gravity).
I look forward to watching the next one once it loads.
bignastydragon 7 months ago
Wow! You have a really nice house! Nice car, too!
:)
Nice video at any rate...
AlanCFA 8 months ago
nice car! God must like you....
DitchReckless 10 months ago
INSTEAD OF A NAKED FULLY GROWN MAN NAMED ADAM........
MORE LIKE ATOM.
kdpflanders1 11 months ago
It's painfully obvious to me that you don't really understand how science is done so I am not going to feed the troll.
twopieye 1 year ago
@twopieye You're just upset because my logic has proven what you spent your life studying to be wrong. Also, in your previous post you say that the observer isn't moving. In relation to what? I thought that it was proven that we are on a constantly rotating sphere hurling through space in a solar system that is itself being hurled around the galaxy and subject to the influence of gravity pulling mass together. Your assumption is simplistic.
dlstb 1 year ago
I am afraid your chemistry teacher has done you a terrible disservice. You absolutely cannot think of electron orbitals as those circular orbits you have drawn. When an electron makes a quantum transition between atomic orbitals it is making transitions between angular momentum and radial quantum numbers. This has nothing to do with the electron crossing a distance instantaneously. This is one of the many reasons teachers need to stop showing that circular orbital diagram. it's just wrong
twopieye 1 year ago
You have a nice car, lol.
dutchbb1979 1 year ago
You will NEVER understand what is outside of the Universe, so please dont bother explaining it. Lets stay inside the Universe and explane what goes on here FRIST. THAN, if our knind is still around, we should ponder the outer whatever is or isnt out there..
SeXyEmoBoyy1 1 year ago
Time therefor is a constant and only our perception of it changes. Take for example traveling faster than the speed of light. If you look back at the earth you wouldn't see it. If you stop and look back, you will see the past because you have been traveling faster than the light reflecting off the earth. This DOES NOT mean that you traveled backward in time, only that what you are seeing has already happened. Gravity also doesn't affect time for similar reasons.
dlstb 1 year ago
Your idea of changing time "relativity" is also false. Sorry Einstein. Time as we perceive it is based entirely on the speed at which our neurons can interpret it. Which is in turn affected by the rate of the chemical reactions that must take place. This means that humans don't make good clocks. Further, since every way that we can measure time can be influenced, there is no reliable way to measure time in all circumstances.
dlstb 1 year ago
@dlstb Atomic clocks at fixed velocity.
twopieye 1 year ago
@twopieye A clock based on nuclear decay, while extremely consistent, cannot be proved to be absolutely consistent and accurate. I know that it has been determined by the scientific community that the speed of radioactive decay is independant of all outside forces. But when they claim that by moving one up a few feet and find a deviation in the clock's time from a stationary one and blame it on a difference in actual time vs. the workings of the clock is ridiculous.
dlstb 1 year ago
@twopieye do you see how saying that time is bending instead of the clocks are inaccurate and obviously are affected my changes in gravity is looney? I can't believe that we actually have people who can fall for these blatant errors in logic.
dlstb 1 year ago
@dlstb Let me ask you two questions and make a point of clarification.
Q1: how much relativity have you actually studied in school? I want to know at what level to pitch my responses.
Q2: Do I understand your position correctly - that all of the variations in time which have confirmed relativity can be attributed to inaccuracies in clock time or the perception of the observer?
twopieye 1 year ago
@twopieye Why should my studying relativity be affected by where I studied it? The difference between a college education and actual learning is that one costs thousands of dollars a year and the other only requires a library card. Your insinuation that one must have a degree in physics to understand just how wrong relativity is telling. You can pitch your responses at whatever level you feel best suits you. I can read and if you throw in some big words, I do have books that cover that too.
dlstb 1 year ago
@dlstb woh. Sorry for cutting in mid conversation here, but you think relativity is wrong?
Buddy, I hate to burst your bubble, but were talking about a subject being poured over by the kind of people who spent most of their lives mastering the mathematics and notions behind the theory, at the expense of health, fun, sex... you're not going to find something these guys missed. If you want to disprove something, have a crack at string theory, it's suitably insane enough to warrant it.
oEQjet 1 year ago
@distb OH I wanted to say one last thing.
relativity IS wrong. it's alot like how a Newtonian view of the universe is wrong, but the calculations remain useful.
Actually, I think that notion kind of renders the argument pointless doesn't it? Even if you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that relativity doesn't reflect reality (which has already happened), it still doesn't change the fact that relativistic formulas accurately reflect what we see in the real world. No denying that.
oEQjet 1 year ago
@oEQjet Until we send a person screaming off into space at faster than light speeds we won't know that relativity is actually reflected in reality. What I am saying is that these people are using clocks at different altitudes and therefore under varying degrees of gravity, as the proof of relativity. The problem is that these clocks are obviously affected by gravity. To say that space time is bending and the clock is actually remaining in perfect time is laughable. How can we continue this way?
dlstb 1 year ago
@dlstb whats that crazy man? You say the korporations have hijacked our space time continuum? SWEET JESUS. Someone alert Al Gore! NOBODY VIOLATES THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, NOT NOBODY.
oEQjet 1 year ago
@oEQjet Not nobody! Not no how!
If you are going to quote the Cowardly Lion, at least finish the phrase.
The facts support me though. When a man is about to lose his funding and he has it in his ability to falsify stuff and have people believe him, he'll do it. Its all about the money. Gore finally figured out his ownership of CCX wasn't panning out and dumped it a few months ago.
dlstb 1 year ago
@dlstb One man, on the edge. Driven to his limits by academic corruption, finds something everyone missed, and realizes everything we know....
IS WRONG.
Now he's taking it all the way, he's going all out, he's not taking names. Brad pit stars in next years blockbuster
Relativistic Nightmare
a production by M. Night. Shamalamalan.
oEQjet 1 year ago
@oEQjet I like your humor. LOL!
dlstb 1 year ago
@oEQjet It is my personal belief that science is being hijacked by people trying to make money instead of trying to learn. When a scientists livelyhood rests on his ability to make new discoveries we see obvious breeches in the scientific method. This is the exact thing that is going on with what was global warming and what is climate change. It is obvious that the climate has changed and will continue to change. It is ignorance that makes someone think the earth was perfect in 1875.
dlstb 1 year ago
@distb And the clarification: no one says that clocks are not affected by gravity. In fact the general theory of relativity states that time is contracted in stronger gravitational fields. Also, time is dilated/contracted not bent. this is a minor point but I would like to try to be precise with our language.
twopieye 1 year ago
@twopieye *i meant time is dilated in stronger fields.
twopieye 1 year ago
@twopieye You obviously have bought this fallacy hook, line, and sinker. To suppose that we have a clock so accurate that the only reason it gains or loses time has to be that time itself is dilating is a farce. I don't believe in Einsteins relativity as most people think of it. You don't actually slow time the faster that you go, but, it you are speeding away from a clock at near the speed of light, your perception of time would change because the clocks hands would appear to not move.
dlstb 1 year ago
@dlstb
I haven't "bought a fallacy". I have spent a number of years studying physics and the evidence.
Within your idea, can you explain why unstable particles which travel near the speed of light have a dilated lifetime which agrees exactly with the predictions of special relativity? The observer isn't moving in this case and therefore their "perception of time" shouldn't be changed. Also, are you going to answer my other question?
twopieye 1 year ago
@twopieye maybe your chemistry buddies are wrong, and there are some things that affect radioactive nuclear decay. You have bought a fallacy. You've been taught by your professors instead of using your own brain to think things through. Its alot like how they usually teach Keynesian economics and usually leave out Hayek's ideas. The professors and your colleagues have picked what they want to believe and promote only that.
dlstb 1 year ago
@twopieye If you stopped moving however, and were still looking at the clock, you would see that the hands of the clock are moving like they should. Further, if you sped toward the clock, you would see the hands spin faster as you are intercepting the clocks reflection sooner and sooner. In reality, both you and the clock were always on the same "time", you never slowed time or sped it up. It was all in how you perceived your surroundings.
dlstb 1 year ago
@twopieye I am also aware of another method that is supposed to prove relativity and the bending of space time around large gravity wells by sheer virtue that we can see a star when it should be behind the sun. This leads to its own problems. Who ever said that the star doesn't send out light in all vectors and that the ray of light that we see and accept as the star isn't just another ray that has become bent by the gravitational force towards the observer?
dlstb 1 year ago
@twopieye What most people accept is that the ray they see is the same one they always see coming from this star and that it has actually bent around the sun, first moving away from slightly then towards it slightly. This does not dit reality or the other theories concerning gravity, the wave-particle nature of light, or a number of others. Why is it that we consider all of Einstein's work so untouchable that it cannot be questioned. If it doesn't follow common sense, its usually wrong.
dlstb 1 year ago
I don't think that you actually have a grasp of the ideas of infinite or universe. I base this on your video which says that the ENTIRE universe was a singularity before the big bang. If the universe is truly infinite and the products of the big bang really are the galaxies that we see, then wouldn't it make sense that there are more "universes" farther out, going through their own cycles of expansion a contraction? To say that ALL matter in the universe came from a single big bang is false.
dlstb 1 year ago
I love you.
Elrundz 1 year ago
to diagoras54 and conman300:
there is not only one universe, but many.
there are thousands of other universes where history has taken a different way.
a universe where dinosaurs still live and they are more evolved
a universe where the pioneers were defeated by the indians
a universe where there is no earth
a universe where humans are ruled by insects and many more universes were evolution has taken another path
Biguspikned 1 year ago
@Biguspikned Prove it.
diagoras54 1 year ago 5
@diagoras54 :
it was only a joke
Biguspikned 1 year ago 5
@Biguspikned Oh. Well. I feel silly. Carry on then.
diagoras54 1 year ago 8
@diagoras54 :
no worries, i do it all the time
Biguspikned 1 year ago
@diagoras54 very good vid. nice house and car too. lol. but, how can something be added to eternity? anything that is in eternity is eternal, no? i don't see how you can be added to eternity without being eternal.
peace, lardo.
lardo444 1 year ago
@diagoras54 There was probably even a universe in which you saw that coming. LOL
skepticoz 1 year ago
A universe where black is the new pink
A universe where we know who put the bop in the bop she bop.
A universe where the Jetsons actually happened.
A universe where the spork was considered a classy dining utensil.
The universe where the show Sliders was real doesn't exist, they all moved to the spork universe because apparently life there is -AWESOME-
oEQjet 1 year ago
@diagoras54 Yes, carry on... Turn it into a religion.
jrduarte99 8 months ago
@Biguspikned
Youtube -
They Sold Their Souls For Rock And Roll
JesusListens745 7 months ago
@diagoras54 This actually goes into, if I'm wrong shove a boot up my ass, physics. More specifically, M Theory. I'm not an expert on it at, I only know that they talk on this subject. But if Dr. Michio Kaku says it's a possibility, It's good enough for me.
HimesInu 8 months ago
@Biguspikned A universe where black is the new pink
A universe where we know who put the bop in the bop she bop.
A universe where the Jetsons actually happened.
A universe where the spork was considered a classy dining utensil.
The universe where the show Sliders was real doesn't exist, they all moved to the spork universe because apparently life there is -AWESOME-
oEQjet 1 year ago
@Biguspikned Don't prove it, just make a religion of it.
jrduarte99 8 months ago
@Biguspikned that is a hypothesis, a very interesting one, but it needs more work before it can be considered a theory.
xNoReligionx 6 months ago
Nice vid, keep them coming.
xNoReligionx 6 months ago 7
I like saying that without an established definition for this word, and given that the means to fulfill a definition for "god" can be so specific as to only refer one's own definition, this word is actually a foreign word in any language. In order to pursue any meaningful conversation involving that word at all, the definition being used must be made clear whenever it is used.
Because there is currently no objective means to render a singular definition, the word is meaningless to science.
craigore 1 year ago
To think that there is only 1 "universe" is like saying there is only 1 earth like planet. Highly unlikely. Don't you think? Thanks a fellow athiest
conman300 1 year ago
@conman300 True, but I reserve judgement on anything outside the universe, because we simply know nothing about it. We could assume there were many Earth-like planets before we found any because the laws of nature are the same everywhere in the universe. However, until we know something about what's beyond the universe, the multiverse theory is just a probabilistic model, and it's equally likely that the universe is repeatedly destroyed and reincarnated with new physical laws.
diagoras54 1 year ago 5
@diagoras54 , I like the the idea of a multiverse theory.
markhorneyuk 4 months ago
@conman300 Since the term universe refers to all space forever and ever, wouldn't all "alternate" universes be included in the one UNIverse?
dlstb 1 year ago
@conman300 the universe is the term for all things. Just because what you comprehend as the universe is limited, doesn't make it so. And if it did, what would you call the thing that holds all of the universes?
dlstb 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The mere fact that you are using microsoft windows to edit your videos is proof enough to me that you do not have the brain capacity to even begin to comprehend God.
MrTbonewazoo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The mere fact that you are using microsoft windows to edit your videos is proof enough to me that you do not have the brain capacity to even begin to comprehend God.
MrTbonewazoo 1 year ago
The mere fact that you are using microsoft windows to edit your videos is proof enough to me that you do not have the brain capacity to even begin to comprehend God.
MrTbonewazoo 1 year ago
Therefore you, as you just said all humans are, are limited in experience to understand the existence of God and you are creating theories against the existence of God.
Well I guess we will find out when we die.
pilot2b1993 1 year ago
The theory of Cosmological Evolution is a direct violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
wjgpiano92 1 year ago
@wjgpiano92 OVERALL (entire universe) entropy increases, however LOCAL order can increase to an incredible extent allowing formation of such complex structures as entire galaxies. Do us all a favor: Be sure you understand whether a principle you're about to cite ACTUALLY supports the contention you are about to make before opening your yap next time OK?
Thanks.
steveb0503 1 year ago
Comment removed
wjgpiano92 1 year ago
More info on the electron moving orbits, but not passing through the space between the orbits ?
migraine516 1 year ago
Möbius Strip Cannot exist in the 2D only in the 3D+ and above, just like the klein bottle and the tesserac,that can not exist in our 3D only in the 4D + and above
objects can loop themselfs without intersecting themselfs in the 4D, thas why we "cant" see or "imaging" the real Tesserac in this 3D that we live in we can only see their shadows
makes you go mad and want to break into the other higher Dementions dosent it?
Sonicku 1 year ago
once humans understand that we will never be able to comprehend where or how anything came into existence due to the simple fact that we are incapable of comprehending....its like explaining calculus to a dog...the dog is simply incapable of comprehending....that is the simple fact of our dilema...humans simply cant comprehend it...and once we realise that simple fact, our earth will be a much more peaceful place to live!!!!!
1989Boop 1 year ago
@1989Boop What's your basis for this claim? Where's your evidence that anything is unknowable? For that matter, how can we know something is unknowable if it's unknowable? We haven't yet reached the limits of our technology, and we've never come across something that we couldn't at least deduce a hypothesis for. It's like saying that we can never understand the cure cancer because we haven't yet found it; if we haven't found it, we can't know whether we can ever understand it.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 Humans are too stupid to understand God's existance.
ClythiaMystica 1 year ago
@ClythiaMystica Speak for yourself.
diagoras54 1 year ago 2
@diagoras54 Ok, explain to me how life can arise from nonlife. Abiogenesis is FALSE google it
ClythiaMystica 1 year ago
@ClythiaMystica Non-sequitur. What the hell does that have to do with god? If you want to know how abiogenesis works, watch cdk007's videos.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 Ok ill watch his vids. See u in a bit
ClythiaMystica 1 year ago
@diagoras54 ...okay, i watched it.. and it's a load of rubbish.
ClythiaMystica 1 year ago
@ClythiaMystica And what's your explanation for the origin of life?
*note - "God did it!" isn't an explanation, it's a claim. People seem to think this claim seems to have authority over proper explanations.
RonBurgundy161 1 year ago
time is a perception (you can feel observed but no one is there observing you), to measure life span. how many TIMES the sun arise after we complete an orbit. only for math purposes. time/space is a theory if you see the moon and trace a line north to south are 2 points. if the moon disappears the point 1 and 2 just merge in continuity. is like put a stone in a pond, the stone mass displace the water if you submerge the stone you will see point 1 and 2 merging in continuity.
xtasytube 1 year ago
You know what, I just found out how to make a time machine. I think so... cause if a black hole has singlurity or what ever and if you go in you will/might see no progression in time, doesnt that mean if you. Nvm I just frogot. My head hurts now.
SomeNightElf 1 year ago
i bet if you go on one side of the universe you will pop up on the other side :P
MrBrian987987 1 year ago
@MrBrian987987 you know that what you said can be an accidental true? o.O
xtasytube 1 year ago
My brain just got scrambled and served with potatoes.
Dirtboy101 2 years ago
Excellent!
IllPropaganda 2 years ago
Let me point out the simple flaw in the question, what happened before the big bang.
First of all we must understand what time is. Time is an abstract concept formed by man to describe why things do not remain static. For time to exist something must be changing, be it the swing on a pendulem or the vibration in an atom.
The BB marks the creation of the universe, which is everything. If we extrapolate time to before the BB then we find that nothing exists to change, hense NO TIME, NO BEFORE!
alihaggis78 2 years ago
No, there is no time, there is only spacetime. We divide this into the separate concepts of space and time to keep things simple, but time is intricately connected to space. Thus, it's not that time began when space started expanding, but that they're the same thing. We have no way of knowing whether there is such a thing as "absolute time", or that which exists separately from spacetime, and therefore outside the universe. Just because what we recognize as time is finite does not mean all is.
diagoras54 2 years ago
Yes time is a dimension of a 4 dimensional spacetime, of which we experience only 3 dimesions fully and travel along the fourth, time. We cannot directly measure time we can only measure changes experienced in the other 3 dimensions. If there is nothing in the other 3 dimensions to measure then time cannot be measured. So if time could not be measured before the big bang then quantum therory suggests that it had no value and could only exist as a quantum probability, so "before" has no meaning
alihaggis78 2 years ago
"Before" has no meaning to us, because we live within spacetime and don't recognize anything else. That's not to say that there is no time which is distinct from spacetime beyond our universe, or even permeating our universe. There could very well be time which is distinct from the fabric of space, and to which "before" the Big Bang is perfectly logical. Because the "time" in spacetime is tied to space, experiencing it is relative to space as well, which need not be so for absolute time.
diagoras54 2 years ago
Is it not possible that we confuse ourselves by labelling this "absolute time" as time at all. As absolute time would have to have to be governed by different laws to spacetime and therefore be a distinctly different concept. If absolute time had no direction then the concept of cause and effect has no meaning and the same would be true of before and after.
Thankyou for your patience diagoras. It has been many years since I sudied physics and I'm sure scientific progress has left me behind.
alihaggis78 2 years ago
Who said anything about direction? The only thing that need be different is that time wouldn't be connected to space; it marches inexorably forward, for eternity, regardless of our position in, or velocity through, space. That's the point: just because time is connected to space in our universe doesn't mean that's necessarily so for anything else.
diagoras54 2 years ago
The direction of spacetime is linked to the directin in which entropy increaces yes? since entropy is a spacial concept then it would be an unfounded assumtion that absolute time should also have a direction if it is not connected to space. Or am I just visualising it wrong?
The only other way I can think of to visualise time is that of an observer outside of spacetime, unfortunately that concept raises more questions than it answers.
alihaggis78 2 years ago
Entropy is the means by which we see the arrow of time, but it's not the cause of time having a direction; it's a result of it. Imagine a universe which has no structures, only shifting clouds of gas. We would see the passage of time by the movement of gas, but would the universe be any more or less ordered? Events would still occur, and cause-and-effect would still be in place, as one gas particle striking another would send it off to hit other particles.
diagoras54 2 years ago
The reason entropy is so significant in our universe is that the expansion of the universe is related to the increase in disorder, which certainly wouldn't be so in an infinite, constant expanse. A Big Bang could easily occur within such a space without creating anything, so long as the net result is zero, much like a particle and its paired anti-particle spontaneously generating out of nothing. Thus, our spacetime would be found within a larger expanse possessing time unrelated to space.
diagoras54 2 years ago
But surely entropy is how the direction of time is determined. In a system where entropy is conserved it would be impossible to disinguish time running backwards from time running forwards. It would be impossible to distinguish cause from effect. A thought just off the top of my head: if at the start of the big bang cause and effect become interchangeable, could the big bang have been both cause and effect? Probably impossible but very weird things happen when you delve into quantum mechanics.
alihaggis78 2 years ago
p.s. you'll have to forgive my crazy hypotheses, I've always found the weird and counter intuitive way in which the universe works facinating, but I never could properly grasp the maths involved
alihaggis78 2 years ago
It's entirely possible, and an intriguing area of philosophical introspection.
Entropy is how the direction of time is determined, but not how the arrow of time is formed. We see time pass because of entropy, but entropy is not the cause of time passing. It's like seeing cars drive on the same side of the road: they drive on the same side because of the law to which they conform, not vice versa.
diagoras54 2 years ago
I see entropy and the arrow of time to be some what of a chicken and the egg conumdrem. Quantum theory suggests that it is the act of measurement / observation that gives the universe form as untill something is observed and its wavefunction collapsed, all things exist as probabilitys. I know that quantum mechanics doesn't really work when applied to dimensionality but maybe something similar does. Sort of an anthropic principle of time. Again probably wrong but a fun bit of mental exorcise.
alihaggis78 2 years ago
who designed the designer?
amtpictures 2 years ago
I admit it. I did it. In fact, i created the universe yesterday. All the memories you have of last week were created by me. All those photos of your wild spring break party back in '06? Me again. Totally. The backstreet boys? Me. Hey, there's just as much evidence for it as for biblical creation.
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
Why do you waste time typing up nonsense, surely your time would be better served with something constructive!
amtpictures 2 years ago
Don't be stupid anthonydavidpritle.
WarriorsGod 2 years ago
who designed everything in the universe?
WarriorsGod 2 years ago
@WarriorsGod
That's a presuppositional question.
Rijara 2 years ago
anthonydavidpirtle designed everything in the universe! How do I know? I saw him do it. Since I made him of course.
NoCrispin 2 years ago
no matter what, god does not eixst
EdgeOfSpaceTime 2 years ago
Hahahaha.... and no matter what you say, God exist.
WarriorsGod 2 years ago
Your talking complete rubbish. A black hole is not also known as a singularity. A singularity is reached when the matter drawn inside it is so compressed, that the laws of physics break down. At that point it is then a singularity.
Once again nice fancy words that appear so convincing to the unsuspecting novice and makes you look like you actually know what you are talking about. In reality I think you just like the sound of your own voice.
NeilAnthony69 2 years ago
A black hole is an example of a singularity, because within it the laws of physics break down. That's not because "matter...is so compressed", however; it's because of the extreme curvature of spacetime. Do some research before posting idiotic comments that reveal your complete lack of education, and refrain from insulting me. If you don't like my videos, don't watch them.
diagoras54 2 years ago
I'm wondering what you use to make these videos in which you have made-arranged-set up the graphics quite well. Thx for the explanation ahead of time.
dotoree 2 years ago
Windows Movie Maker. I record the audio and find pictures on Google to match. If I need something I can't find I make it with Paint.
diagoras54 2 years ago
""Once again nice fancy words that appear so convincing to the unsuspecting novice and... bleeah bleeah bleeah..."
So, you're clinically fucktarded... right?
jussts 2 years ago
All that a black hole is, Neil, is the effect of a singularity. Look it up, buddy.
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
If you read the bible it states that God is alpha and omega, beginning and end. God does not go by time and his concept of time is much different then ours. For God time never began and never ended. He is infinite and us as humans cannot understand that.
It makes sense for got to have no beginning or end. If God had a beginning then who created him? If someone created God then he wouldn't be God because there would be someone of a higher power.
God is all powerful and infinite.
retsnom92 2 years ago
You've just restated the position against which I was arguing without adding any new perspective or information. "God is eternal." "The Bible says the righteous will spend eternal life in heaven, so if eternity begins at a specific point and goes into the future, couldn't god begin at a specific point and go into the future?" "God is eternal." You've also presented Dawkins's position on the "watchmaker" perfectly: something complex requires something more complex to create
diagoras54 2 years ago
You've also presented Dawkins's position on the "watchmaker" perfectly: something complex requires something more complex to create it, and god is more complex than the universe, so he needs something to create him. That makes an infinite regression which doesn't actually answer any questions. You've hit the nail on the head and sealed the coffin of your own theism without realizing it.
diagoras54 2 years ago
No you do not understand what i said.
God means you are all powerful nothing is of a higher power. So if God is all powerful nothing created him. If you say someone created god then god is not all powerful. So that means God is God nothing created him he is eternal he is everything he is power.
In the end if i say i believe in God it means that i believe in a single being of the highest power. So what are you having trouble with in my statements?
retsnom92 2 years ago
I'm having trouble getting you to understand the irony of your own statements. The most common creationist argument I've heard is that the universe is so complicated and perfect that it required something intelligent to create it. If that's the case, then something more complex was required to create that. You outlined that perfectly.
diagoras54 2 years ago
You still haven't addressed my original point though: the Bible says you'll have eternal life in heaven, so why should eternity, which begins at a definitive point, be any different for god? The Bible's position is that infinity can have a starting point, which means that god could have a starting point and still be infinite. If that's the case, then something more powerful was required to create god. I'm not saying that's my position or my understanding, it's just a possible interpretation.
diagoras54 2 years ago
I think you mixing eternity and infinity...
Infinity has no beginning or end, while eternity has a beginning but no end. God is infinite so that means he has not beginning or end.
That's my final point and if you reject it then whatever. It does not matter what you think because this is how it is.
retsnom92 2 years ago