Stephen Hawking's Universe - EP1:Seeing Is Believing (5/ 5)

[rugssean]

Praise God ...the more I watch these scientific documentaries, the more I believe in the Creator

[szaroki]

Since universe exploded why shouldn't the epicenter of explosion be denser??

[uniontera]

Big bang is to porsche what uniontera is to ferrari.

[epicocity0rio]

@uniontera what?

[Artfryne]

just imagine trying to explain quantum physics to the earliest astronomers... they scarcely had any idea of the science to come in the following centuries.

[thedude1347]

@Artfryne Indeed. Then, think about how simple our ideas today will seem in 50 more years...

[FIGHTFANNERD3]

they need this in schools

[PickOfDestiny89]

@FIGHTFANNERD3

My teacher just had me watch this :D

[StrikaAmaru]

@MoonPisces029 "Center of the Universe" 5 of 5 (finally!)

The catch is, nowhere on the surface of the balloon can you find a point (dot or otherwise), and say "this is the center; this is where the balloon started expanding". The catch about our own Universe is, the center, if it even exists at all, is not in 3-d space; it isn't part of the universe. It would be part of a mathematical model, to which the Universe is only the surface.

[ZZtop667]

@StrikaAmaru You explained everything really well, i'm really glad and happy that you took the time to type everything out and explain everything in really simple, but good, way. I hope it helps a lot of people :)

[StrikaAmaru]

@ZZtop667 Thanks for the pat on the back, ZZtop667. I do appreciate it.

Unfortunately, I'm now sure MoonPisces is one of those creationists who keep lobbing newbie-level questions at everybody, in the belief that if they don't know the answer neither does anybody else, and they'd finally get to stump those arrogant, lying evolutionists (ignore for a moment that astronomy has nothing to do with evolution, they don't know that either). I found similar comments of his on other videos, too.

[StrikaAmaru]

@MoonPisces029 "Center of the Universe" 4 of 5 (a note: I wrote 'motion' , with, '', because it's not really motion; the dots aren't going anywhere, it's the ballooon itself that's stretching. This is where the analogy gets, uhm, stretched: galaxies do travel through space, and when measuring Doppler shift for galaxies, the value is a combination of their own, real, motion, and the one induced by the fabric of space stretching like rubber)

[StrikaAmaru]

@MoonPisces029 "Center of the Universe" 3 of 5 An important bit: if you suddenly decide to pick another dot as Sol, and repeat the process, the exact same thing would happen. That's the idea of "no center to the Universe": all points in the Universe are equivalent; regardless which one you pick as your "center", you see the exact same process as from another point; none of them is special in any way.

[StrikaAmaru]

@MoonPisces029 "Center of the Universe" 2 of 5

To get an idea where stars and galaxies fit in all this, you could paint dots on it; as the balloon expands, they move away from each other with a constant ratio. You can pick a dot, and say "this is the counterpart to Sol"; watching all the other dots move, their 'motion' will be equivalent to that of objects in the observable Universe: they move at the same proportion of distance, measured from Sol, and from each other.

[MoonPisces029]

but how does it make sense that there is no center to the universe?? could someone explain that?

[StrikaAmaru]

@MoonPisces029 "Center of the Universe" 1 of 5

The documentary left out a rather important mention: **In three-dimensional space**, there is no center to the universe.

To make a 2-d analogy, let's take a balloon; the equivalent of our 3-d universe is the 2-d surface of the balloon. Before it's inflated, (i.e. in the past) the surface is smaller; when you start pushing air in it, is begins to expand.

[MoonPisces029]

this is awesomeee

[akkafietje]

Albert believed in a static universe, so he was very wrong

[smeesh2k]

meh, anyone know a good informative series that doesnt leave the new,mysterious discoveries (black holes, dark matter ect.) until the last two minutes of the programme ? as interesting as Newton and Gallileo are, I have seen their history and discoveries countless times

[DChodan]

Absolutely fascinating stuff.. My head is filled with so many questions after watching these. And like you say lejink I cannot understand how all 200 plus thousand didn't follow through to the end!

[lejink]

205,000 people watched part one, only 38,000 watched to the end.. how sad

[nancyl2]

Adromeda My home. OH yes. :-))) Einstein was groomed; I believe by our gov.Ha. A BBC Show years had a letter in hand + showed the TV viewer: "E's" female friend at the time. Read like this: "I have found the answer to our query." NOW how could a lady share this knowledge? She was just a chief cook + baby oven. NOW look at how brilliant-walk-in Tesla was treated like Galileo. Research: Tesla called Einstien an idiot. Search your truth. (I had no empty tape to record the BBC show-My mouth :-O<-

[RavenmoonAlberta]

This "dark matter" that seems to be only just discovered will lead to an entire new level of physics once it is fully understood. Considering that it makes up over 99% of all matter in the known universe is astounding and exciting. It could reshape the way we look at all things.

[CrazyKraut20]

independent learning is a very vitalising past time after i came home from work i spent much time reading and watched this documentary afterwards i really respect scientist no matter what field they work in those people are really what i call the elite of mankind and they don't get the credit they deserve for all their inventions and discoveries that enhance and prolong our lifes and enrich our spirites

i wish i could become a scientist but i fear that i am way to stupid and unfocused

[britdemo]

9:36 looks like an eye

[AClarke2007]

I cannot be flambouyant whilst under scrutiny. Sorry

[infinitenight2093]

I like how each new idea of the universe was based around the idea that our little corner of space is the center of the universe. How egotistical we humans are...

[weeryan2008]

@infinitenight2093 We are like tiny Tom Cruise's.

[CERBERUS300ify]

over 90% of matter is dark.. that is deep.

[Diemedes]

@CERBERUS300ify

Dark is just a word used to describe our ignorance of that exotic stuff's nature. Neutrinos were also considered to be mysterious things that had to account for beta decay not violating the conservation of mass and momentum (something which seemed to happen during experiments), until we actually detected them.

[CERBERUS300ify]

@Diemedes the fact remains we are comprised of the minority of matter..apparently...something to be studied, analyzed and hopefully it will lead us closer to answering questions about our solitude in this universe...or lack thereof..

[Diemedes]

@CERBERUS300ify

Indeed, visible matter seems account only for 0.005% of the total matter in the Universe today.

[MikeAngel06]

Correct me if I'm wrong... but the necesity of mass to be pulled by gravity is a Newtonian point of view; instead of the relativity one where gravity is distortion of the space time by mass.

Excuse my english pls.

[ninjatoothpaste]

@MikeAngel06 To my knowledge you are correct :)

[jacksawild]

@MikeAngel06 Newton describes what is happening. Einstein begins to explain how it is happening; they do not disagree with each other much except that Einstein said that gravitation isn't instantaneous as Newton postulated. Newton's theory is still more useful than Einstein's in many ways, mostly because it's a simpler version with no special cases.

[nelo2thegreat]

@jacksawild I agree. I just want to state that the only reason Newton's theory is more useful is because it applies to the daily world. The world of kinematics. Once we get to massive and lengthy objects that in some cases, seem to approach infinity, we use Einstein's general relativity. Likewise when we go the infinitesimal spectrum, we use quantum mechanics.

[123perrin]

yea. wat she said ..

[0987878]

The light shift is proportional to distance in every direction the same proportionality. It would be logical to believe that light changes frequency with distance and would eventially change into what?

[tmowlee]

light does not change frequency with distance it changes frequency with speed. Hubble said that speed of galaxies away from us is proportional to distance.

[0987878]

Mass increases exponentially as it approaches light speed. If light has a rest mass it must be infinitely small. What I suggest is this mass, or a wave, can not travel "indefinitely" without loss of energy.

[tmowlee]

light has no mass.

mass of light =0

[0987878]

Newtonian mechanics, The orbitals of the atom change orbital radius with absorption or emission of light. Not a change in speed but a change in mass.

[tmowlee]

what the hell are you talking about?

the change in orbital radius does not constitute a change in mass.

[albinoman13bt]

In the sense that light has mass by way of moving and having energy, then atoms whose outer electrons are bumped a few levels out have more energy and insignificantly more mass.

[QuantumRevelations]

Light photons have a zero rest mass however if they are moving (speed of light=300km/s) then they have energy and thus a mass which can be calculated using the equation E=MC(sq)

[Daemonique]

I wouldn't be too convinced of that. After all, why is a black hole "black"? Because its gravity is so strong as to let not even light escape - and gravity usually acts on mass. Thus, photons might have an ever so tiny mass.

[tmowlee]

gravity has a affect on light because mass, by way of gravity, bends space-time, and light takes the path of least resistance, creating the phenomenon of gravitational lensing.

light has no mass in the sense that it can be called mass. it has energy that can be equated with mass as stated (E=mc^2) but in the context of what was being talked about light has no mass.

[Gazzar]

It's not really that photons have mass. The gravity of the black hole is not really acting on the photons themselves but rather the space through which they are travelling. The photons still travel in a straight line but the space through which they move is being curved, so much so that space and time itself completely curves in on itself, taking the photons with them.

[Daemonique]

Thank you for this brilliant explanation! Of course, it's only logical that when space is being curved it will take everything it contains with it. :)

[Gazzar]

You're welcome :)

[keggerous]

it does change actually

[keggerous]

microwaves

[tmowlee]

please elaborate.

[keggerous]

nvm what i put before that was wierd i dont remember that.... but if a electron is in a high orbit it has more energy, in the form of speed i believe, and potential energy. light has no mass btw, and an electron can produce infinite photons.

[landin048]

Are you 2 zealots through with your pissing contest, or do we get a few more laughs?

[godzilla5500]

you went in circles and tried to say im stupid because im using abbreviations and slang? wow kid its online grow up, ive debunked all ur lies which werent even on the subject, and way to be a hypocrite you mispelled atheist idiot

[godzilla5500]

wow buddy,way to prove my point that your a stereotype,its almost being prejudice in a way,u think all atheists are evil close minded people yet statistics show that catholics-religious people are 2-4x more close minded,we study both sides and thats why we are skeptical, u however base ur arrogance off one book thats overrated, dawkins book is considered 3x better then davies whos been debunked,you def didnt read his book your all talk and no game,i won this debate uve proved nothing kid

[teepeeth]

Thank you Gravitationalist for posting this... Very intresting documentary.

[Linkwii64]

this is truly the iillusion of reality.

[martinpil]

what do you mean it contradicts the laws of physics? In what way? They dremed it up because they have measured the universe is expanding.

[aARIESsSs]

many say the universe is expanding, or is it dividing further.

[martinpil]

What I would like to try and understand is, when the universe was at a singularity, what does that mean in terms of what is going on at that point? Is it just waves or what? Or is there mass. I just cant work out what it looks like. Stephen Hawking says it is boundless. what does that mean? AND WHERE is this singularity? if there is no universe, where is it then at that point? I just cant get my head around these ideas. WHERE IS THE UNIVERSE WHEN IT's A Singularity?

[Biarry]

Imagine a surface of a balloon. Balloon is 3D object, but it's surface is 2D and it is boundless - it has no edge.

Now deflate a balloon - the surface is shrinking, getting smaller and smaller and finally becomes zero = singularity.

[martinpil]

Yes, but I can see where the balloon is, it's in 3D space. If you blow it up, it uses up more of the 3D space which it expands into. But I cant work out what our "3D universe" is IN. Space must be IN something to be able to expand, just like the balloon is in space to be able to expand into it. That's what I don't get.

[ZeroHumans]

Umm. There was no "big bang" and no "singularity". It contradicts the laws of physics. Some dumb scientists just dreamed that up to get media attention.

[TheUniverseChannel]

I'm sorry but your an idiot.

[ZeroHumans]

too bad your not just an idiot but a sorry idiot :)

[humanist7117]

you're not your

[aARIESsSs]

everything is 1, everything that exist is part of the same one thing, that you could call a god complex, religion teaches you your just a physical creation , you are actually energy which cannot be created or destroyed so you have been and will be here forever with everything else. owned

[fightthepower77]

I think that a black hole is the beginnings of a big bang.Once a black hole has accumulated enough mass to finally stretch space to its break point,and BANG.A new universe is born.

[ZeroHumans]

dumbest idea ever dreamed up.. big bang, the new religion

[sickdrifter]

black holes actually do break the fabric of space, thats where theoretically wormholes come from

[aARIESsSs]

the universe is always a singularity, and it is always everywhere.

[sickdrifter]

what? always a singularity? if that was the case space and time wouldnt exist, we'd be in a non-existant world

[fightthepower77]

No one knows what happens at a singularity,their physics equasions break down and stop making any sense?

[fightthepower77]

They think our universe is like a soap bubble of some sort,a 3d soap bubble floating around in 11d hyper space.That is if you were to leave our universe to go to another,you would have to take a detour through the 11th dimention.Where all the parrell universes are also floating around lol.Pretty fuckin cool stuff.

[alphaomega223]

wow science has come far but what i want to know is how did the singlelarity come to exsist.what was going on billions of years before the the big bang?thnx for posting this video i love this stuff

[YogzDaBeatChild]

Some things we might never know, but not places a blackbox in it's place keep the possibilities open.

[omgitsphil01]

time actually did not exist until AFTER the big bang. Time itself was created in that moment.

[mar8les]

time and space exhisted before the big bang however they were reduced to a singularity, the big bang does not refer to an explosion as such that created everything, but rather the rapid expansion of space and time.

[kiber420]

Since scientists have failed for so long, this proves that God lives. God exists. Stop trying to prove God wrong. Praise Jesus, start now, this will help you in the afterlife. PRaise Jesus1!1!!

[mar8les]

Wake up, religion is a man made, socially constructed way for us to deal with the fact that we will die one day. Praise Jesus - no - praise life - cause you only get one.

[infinitenight2093]

@mar8les maybe, unless our consciousness spreads away from our bodies once we die, only to be gathered again at a different place and time. I believe reincarnation has some pretty compelling evidence and theories to back it up.

[pazhekar]

"says who" - Ed@mar8les

[FIGHTFANNERD3]

@mar8les indeed

[abarbacone]

It makes no sense to say everything is moving away from each other yet there was no center.

[ViciousSeed]

Not everything is "redshifted". Take the galaxy of Andromeda for example. It is "blueshifted" and it is predicted that both the Milky Way and Andromeda will one day collide and merge to become a much larger galaxy.

[dnp97001]

It does make sense to say things are moving away from each other. The galaxies are moving away from each other. A galaxy emits light and if its moving the wavelength of light is going to be stretched out which is that redshift business.

[eoinycroiny]

that redshit buisness your talking about is the proof that the universe is expanding, you just contridited yourself. think befor you speak m8

[dnp97001]

I'm right. I'll give you a more down to earth example. When you're standing by the street and a car is approaching, the sound the car makes is high pitch. It gets higher the closer it comes to you, but after it passes you, the sound changes to this low pitch thing. What's happened? The sound has shorter wavelength on approach to you, and then longer wavelength as it moves away from you. Light, like sound, is a wave. Shifted toward blue=short wavelength, shifted toward red=long

[Quantrindic]

If galaxies are moving away at different speeds due to their distances, than there must be a center that governs the speeds in which they spread. They say there is no center but if there wasn't, wouldn't they all go at the same speed? Are they sure that this observation of varying speeds isn't just perspective based?

[drewdonham]

those views of the universe at the end were insane!

[satail]

How do you know that Zeus is mythological figure?

[fredfelosofar]

There is scientific proof that God exists. Einstien believed so and he was a man of intellectual.

[bal2501]

Some say he meant nature when referring to God.

[PeterJeq]

i wouldnt really call that scietific proof

[satail]

So, where is god then?

[fusionfreq]

he was a vegetarian also.

[Seano71]

Einstein didn't believe in God, that's a myth. When he said 'God does not play dice' when arguing with Neils Bohr, he was only joking.

[YogzDaBeatChild]

everybody knows that.....Lol.

[ViciousSeed]

He didnt believe in a personal god. He however did refer to him as "The Old One". Even then I dont see how this is scientific proof.

[dnp97001]

Einstein did not believe in a personal God. This is what Einstein said: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

[illusionist1977]

I like Joel Olsteen. What do you think of him??

[marjoe77]

ever hear that song by the rock band RATT round and round?? because thats your arugment it gose around and around.

[marjoe77]

Jesus is a mythological figure

Zeus is not silly

[illusionist1977]

itsaboutjesus, no the heavens declare the glory of Zeus. the earth shows forth the handiwork of Zeus.

[silvercade]

This universe is so beautiful, complex and harmonious. I find myself sometimes wondering if some type of intelligence is behind it all. Although when people hear me say that, they assume I'm a Christian or something. I laugh at your Bible, it is obviously mythology because it explains nothing of our universe.

[walmansa]

and it's so funny when amateur religious enthusiasts use Einstein as their supporting point. If they studied a bit of Einstein's life, they would know that Einstein's god isn't the Christian God at all. The belief that god has to love humans, or even have human attributes, is utterly foolish.

[Jim1905]

Yes, but it's even funnier when Athiests use Einstein to defend their belief. Given the fact that Einstein had a particular disdain for Athiests. I believe in God and one of the reasons is intelligent design, but my God is the bible's God. The bible is part Myth and part history. It's not a record on our universe, other then man's early attempts to define it, but is a set of laws, ethics and morals.

[godzilla5500]

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."

-Albert Einstein

Stephen Hawking is 100% Atheist too, and hes one of the smartest people on earth, prob the smartest is science

[Jim1905]

Well it's good to know that you let others think for you.

Albert Eintein was most assuredly NOT an atheist, in fact he despised them, especially (ironically) when they used his quotes to back up their claims.

And stephen hawking is not the smartest person in science or on earth.

[godzilla5500]

i didnt say Einstein was an atheist dumbshit , stop putting words in my mouth, i clearly said he was a pantheist dumbshit, and i said hawking is one of the smartest and if u ignore that ur just stubborn

[Jim1905]

Oh really you didn't....after Einstein quote of him denoucing god "Stephen Hawking is 100% Atheist TOO". lol read what you type, jackass. One of the smartest? So are Paul Davies Andrew Flew, and Francis Collins to name a few and they believe in God, and if you ignore them, then by your very definition you're stubborn.

[godzilla5500]

theres more than hawkings in fact i have percentages that show people working in biology,science,astrology have shown that around 90%+ are atheists, and ur stubborn and close minded to ignore all the evidence against it, u dont look into the other side just your own, grow up and look up the facts

[Jim1905]

Yeah you're numbers are BS, and did you just mention...astrology, well clearly I'm talking to a very educated person indeed. I had no idea that the good men and women of astrology were athiests. But hey if you want others to think for you then that's fine, Look up the facts, that some people believe in god and some don't? Astonishing!! I had no idea! You see I have the advantage of actually being in science, so i do consider things thoughtfully and not let others do that for myself.

[godzilla5500]

i got the same results off around 8websites,and ur stereotyping atheists being self-centered?and I guess your not-lmao?look at what you just said,mind of god has a poor defense,its basically the old , if science doesnt know then god did it, paul davies isnt that bright compared to hawkings .u need to grow up and not assume matters from 1 book you read written by a deist. i looked into his issues and they end up being a poor argument.his reasoning his low.Dawkins made a ton of criticisms on it

[Jim1905]

Wow. I don't even think those were coherent sentences but sure. Mind of God is an excellent book and hawking is overrated. Dawkins book is terrible, his arguments are poor and he, as a scientist is even poorer. Evolutionary biologist, what a joke lol.

Most self proclaimed athiests I've met all have one thing in common, arrogance, it's not a stereotype, it's an observation.

Yes cause I clearly base all my thoughts and beliefs on that one book.

[godzilla5500]

also dumbass , paul davies is an agnostic look it up, i can give you links if you'd like...i just checked

[Jim1905]

Paul Davies is a deist, like Einstein, I never said which God, just something. Not the arrogant, self-centered view of athiesm. Read his book, the Mind of God, where he does present a few arguments for god, intelligent design and Godels incompleteness theorem; which is a brilliant take on logic and how we are doomed to fail using rational alone in the explanation of certain matters, essentially. However, judging by your previous responses it seems most of that will be lost on you anyway.

[FreeThought10]

I don't know what was Paul Davies, but Einstein was no deist. Einstein was a pantheist:

"For me god is the paradise."-Einstein

"Bus isn't god the creator of the paradise."-nurse

"Yes, and I always had try to catch him."-Einstein

(Unfinished symphony of Einstein)

No deist would had said that. Anyways, that really doesn't matter, just enjoy the series, as we are not talking about gods, we are talking about physics.

[Jim1905]

Well he pretty much directly said that he was a deist:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

Belief in an impersonal creator is a deist.

[FreeThought10]

You forgot that the pantheist god IS impersonal as well. Moreover, Spinoza was a physiological pantheist, not a deist.

[SeadogDriftwood]

And what, praytell, godzilla5500, is wrong with pantheism?

[Jim1905]

God doesn't have human attributes, Jesus does but that's bc it's the human manifestation of God. And why not love humans? Is it so improbable to love something you created that can actually appreciate and marvel at the world you designed? Perhaps that gives insight into his love, perhaps not. But it's not foolish.

[walmansa]

I appreciate your open-minded comment even when we're of different sides. Sorry for having used the word foolish. I completely agree with your statement about the bible: "It's not a record on our universe, other then man's early attempts to define it, but is a set of laws, ethics and morals".

To talk of God scientifically would lead to no conclusion, and that's what I want people to realize.

[walmansa]

however, though, the comment about God loving his creation has always seemed to puzzle me. It is hard for a faithless person like myself to imagine that kind love, because God has no human attributes to begin with. It's a human attribute to love one's own creation, but humans are limited within his oxygen-rich earth. To think that there's an omnipotent being independent of the universe who feels humanly love is quite difficult for me.

[walmansa]

within *this

[Erbstank]

If the world around us is moving in an expanding motion due to the big bang effect, we should then be observing not only the galaxies that are travelling away from us, due to propelling effect of the explosion, but we should also be observing galaxies propelling towards us and others moving in tandem with us away form the centre point of the big bang. And if that's the case then how come we're only seeing red shift galaxies around us unless we were somehow the centre of that big bang explosion?

[Newton1692]

There is no centre point of the big band.

And it's not an explosion. It's a rapid expansion of space and time (but I think that's being a pain).

[hollow0rld]

There are 2 relativity theories, general (expansion), and specific. Both can´t be right, because they contradict each other.General says, time and space was created by light, special says, that time disappears, because the light is getting slower and curves the space

[KaoriKikiro]

See in your mind the point of infinite mass prior to the expansion of the universe. As that point begins to expand and the galaxies begin to form, they are all racing away from that point as quickly as they can.

The further the newly formed galaxies get from the original point, the further away they also become from one another. Think of a glass sphere exploding outwards, do the shards of glass come closer or further away from one another? This is the same effect.

[xTacoHeadx]

:')

[klakkin]

im mesmerized by the whirl !!

[icthebigpicture]

thank you!

[liveevil4good]

great!!

[grenangle]

Thank you yet again cant wait to watch it all