I was just banned for saying that "astronomy is suppressed" by "The Atheist Experience". A church organization deceptively disguised as an atheist org. They support the big bang.
I was just blocked from a channel called "The Atheist Experience' for trying to promote this theory. Although they try to show they are anti religion & open to truth & new ideas they are big defenders of the big bang & god apparently. They do not tolerate other ideas. Same as priests. stubborn atheist idiots.
You were never taught to piss or shit either, but that doesnt change the fact you were taught good and bad.. The whole lessons parents teach us growing up is to be a good person, not a bad person, were taught to do good over bad..
God created all things. Science has shown us that something comes from something.. such as the first chemicals after the big bang, and chemicals from imploded stars.. well those stars were made from something before.. and everything else around it.. nothing can implode into more nothing and create the universe
@TheHallowed12 Actually, you're wrong. A new-born baby can cry without being tought how. He was not think of anything, (nothing) but that didnt mean he couldnt cry.
The problem I have with inflation is that any volume can be defined by its surface area, that the minimum surface area is one unit of information per planck area. This would mean the universe would be tens of thousands of light years across at its earliest point, otherwise information would have to populate the universe over time,which is not what the Big Bang theory postulates.
(cont) And inflation, the idea of an early superluminal expansion phase of the Universe, actually arose out of calculations Alan Guth did while exploring the formation of magnetic monopoles in the early Universe. Only then did he realize that it would solve the horizon and flatness problems of the Big Bang. I don't know who Marcus Chown is, but in this video, he's got everything upside down and backwards.
His "bolted-on explanations" are, in actuality, *discoveries* that the theory had to account for -- he's got it the wrong way around. Dark matter was proposed to explain several entirely different observations, and subsequently was shown to be able to explain the early formation of structure in the Universe. Dark energy was a completely unexpected discovery; even now, there's no explanation for what it *is* -- it wasn't invented to explain something. (cont)
Finally a channel with real intellectual conversations. I need to read more on cosmology. You guys and all the people that posted here seem to know what you're are talking about .
Correction to Chown. The cosmological constant has fit very naturally into General Relativity since the beginning. The vacuum energy *should* have some value. Einstein initially set it to 0. The real question is "why does it have the small value it has?". Re: Dark Matter. Gravity is a perfectly valid way to detect matter. We have actual maps, and know quite a lot about DM. The question: What particle(s) is it? Inflation can feel tacked on. But WMAP data *very* strongly supports its validity.
@sbergman27 I know he's exaggerating, but I share some of his hopes. The data we have are quite strong in favor of all these "epicycles" (in his words), but maybe we don't have the most accurate theory in our hands, and it's yet to be found. I truly believe that it's going to have dark matter and dark energy in it, but in a more convincing way, and it's limit will fall in GR, the same way GR falls in Newton's mechanics. Just conjecturing.
@MrBeiragua Well, we know that GR & QM are incomplete. No one would question that. I don't find DM to be at all surprising. What reason did we ever have to assume that all matter would interact via EM & Strong? My bet is on the neutralino. The low but nonzero value of DE is a more fundamental matter. & it may very well need quantum gravity to explain. That Inflation occurred is pretty much definite, but more detail & data on the 'how' would be nice. But... babies & bathwater and all that.
@MrBeiragua addendum: Here's a totally amateur, random observation on my part. A fundamental physics question is why normal attractive gravity is 10^25 to 10^38 times weaker than the other forces. Another fundamental question is why repulsive gravity (DE, the Cosmlogical Constant) is between 10^60 and 10^120 times weaker than combined quantum & GR predict. The discrepancies don't exactly... uhh... match. But the character of the questions is the same. And both involve huge magnitudes.
Some people just don't wanna face the truth... science is real, god is a remnant from thousands of years ago, when no one could explain how it all began... If anything, god created the big bang...
When people turn up to the site of a bomb explosion, they can reasonably infer that a bomb exploded from the damage - relocated fragments of damaged buildings, burn marks, chemical residues, pattern of damage - etc.
They don't have to have heard or seen the explosion to make the reasonable inference that there was an explosion. We appear to be in an exploding Universe.
Many commenters dismiss the central hypothesis of an explosion, without suggesting an alternative.
@Xaivier2000 So, another person misunderstands Big Bang, the rapid expansion of matter from a single point of origin that comprised of all the matter in the Universe, to mean "explosion"? Well done.
@Xaivier2000 I don't know where the matter came from. There are a lot of much smarter people then me looking for it, but keep in mind that we are still dicovering things about Earth and the life on it that we didn't know, so is it really a wonder that the answer of the scientists is "I don't know" about the origin of the universe?
Only religions deal with absolute "make-belive" answers, and doesn't bother to keep looking for actual ones. That's why their doomed, eventually.
To me a "make-believe" answer is this...(that scientists seem to ok) ...... the entire universe, space matter and time came from "Nothing" it just happened for no reason.
We are here for nothing just like a lucky card game at the casino, we are just “Luck”.
Arkticus, If we moved the earth 1000km off axis life would cease on earth. if there was no magnetic field life would cease
If the earth was 1000km closer to the sun, we would fry. 1000km more away we would freeze.
@Xaivier2000 It may or may not have come from "nothing" as you said. But we don't know yet, which one is the right answer, so we keep looking, and not accept an absolute answer that if we don't know, therefore "god". And there's quite the list to choose from too...
And as for the 1000 km shift, so? I'm not denying that it is truly awe inspiring that things have happened the way they have, but that doesn't make me assume that I'm the favourite toy of an uncareing creator deity.....
@Xaivier2000 Well I would say that we are equal part "luck" and "design", because in the end we live in a universe of random chances which create results that are logical. I tried, but i could not write a good example in 500 characters, but if you'd like I could send you a couple of examples via pm.
And as i said before, because we don't know, we keep loking for the correct answer, not assume abslute knowledge offered by man made (and, in more then one way, one-eyed) religions...
Either luck or design, and questions still left unanswered.
I am sort of a "Black & White person" I don't want to know about the grey in between i just want str8 to the point answers.
Anything we do here on earth is designed, so i say then the universe is designed, Some planets spin forwards while others backwards, some slower and some faster, the universe is like a well designed space shuttle
@Xaivier2000 "I am sort of a "Black & White person" I don't want to know about the grey in between i just want str8 to the point answers."
And that's the problem right there. I said it before, and I'll repeat: "There are no absolute answers". It would definately be much easier to live in a black and white world, but unfortunately that's not how thing work.
And to correct you a bit "most of the things we humans do are designed".
@Xaivier2000 i agree but im saying opposite of it to religous people because their books are certainly wrong and they are dangerous for minority of society
@Xaivier2000 "Luck" couldn't, but then it wasn't luck that created it. Luck is what created the conditions for so that cells such as the ones we are made of could be "created" and exist.
Actually, there a perfect video for this argumentation by a guy using the name "ONESPECIES" and his video "Intelligent Design Destroyed!" he explains the whole complexity argument and why it doesn't work. Highly recommend that vid.
@Xaivier2000 First of all, big bang was a expansion, not a explosion.
Perfect planet? We are adapted to how the planet is, our planet isn't adapted to inhabit us. If it were different, we would also be different.
No one have ever claimed that the human cell, or animals for that matter, were created by a explosion.
And how could you even compare how biology come about to how stars, planets etc do? And then draw the conclusion that if you cant create an animal with said process nothing can?
And by the way, a star that goes supernova gives birth to other stars... So it seems explosions in fact CAN create something. Not that it makes any difference though, since The big bang wasn't a explosion.
@garethb1961 "...they can reasonably infer that a bomb exploded from the..."
But our Universe doesn't look at all like an explosion occurred. We clearly see uniform *expansion*. An explosion has a center and doesn't look the same from all points. It looks like we are in the center of our U. But if you map it out, based upon observational data, you see that a viewer, say a billion lightyears away, would *also* think he was in the center. Explosions don't act like that. Uniform Expansion does.
I think it should be looked at less as a heating and cooling process and more like a shifting away from a state in which form and void were indistinguishable from each other (singularity) to a state in which they separated and complexity started exponentially building on itself from that schism.
Here's my alternative hypothesis: suppose the red shift is the natural result of light being stretched out or thinned by travelling billions of lightyears. If that were so, it would make us question the whole premise that the universe is expanding. Dismissing the assumption of an expanding universe would dismiss the entire basis of the big bang theory.
We haven't actually observed the universe expanding. We have only observed the red shift, from which we have INFERRED the expansion of space.
It may be that the red shift theory was a faulty premise on which was based the whole reverse calculation to the "big bang" point of origin. And while it seemed a clever deduction, it may turn out to be simply erroneous, causing us to perform all kinds of theoretical contortions just to make the total cosmos fit with this initial hypothesis. If you come up with a different explanation for red shift, suddenly you realize that we may be twisting our minds in knots completely unnecessarily.
@MagiMysteryTour True. But what is the alternative hypothesis? This is not my field. Whilst there are obviously a lot of patched up holes and contortions in the bang bang theory, the central hypothesis seems unchallenged to me.
"Once upon a time, long ago and far away"...... there was an explosion that came from "nothing", nothing existed, nothing exploded and WOW here we are now.
Where did the explosion come from, where did the matter come from.... let me guess "nothing" lol
The Big Bang is a Fairy tale like Hansel and Gretel.
@Xaivier2000 This is just a statement of your religious belief and so uninteresting. People who investigate a bomb scene often didn't see or hear the bomb themselves. However, they look at the damage, and fragments of building scattered around and make the reasonable inference that there was an explosion.
My question is genuine. How does one account for fragments flying apart without an explosion? We are not merely seeing the aftermath of an explosion, we are observing an ongoing explosion.
What if there's a threshold of visibility of light, and red shift may be a feature of light approaching these farthest distances of visibilty. It may well be that 14 billion lightyears is merely the limits of light's visibilty, that the universe goes on well beyond 14 billion lightyears, but that it's simply not possible for us to receive light waves from beyond that visual horizon.
@MagiMysteryTour There is no threshold to red shift that i know of. Light can just be shifted to lower and lower frequencies. The red shift already goes well beyond visible frequencies - down to radio frequencies.
@garethb1961 When I say there may be a "threshold" of visibility, I mean like a horizon, a maximum distance beyond which light cannot be perceived, even though it's there. I'm suggesting that 14 billion lightyears may be that horizon. If so, then concluding that the universe must be 14 billion lightyears based on the lack of perceived light from farther distances would be a false conclusion.
Anyone who dares point out inconsistencies or alternative theories to the big bang are threatening a well established dogma and the status-quo of the day. Scientists have lost their jobs at universities for this for daring to disrupt such a deeply ingrained paradigm.
Exactly I'm questioning the Big Bang theory even though I kind of used to accept it, people hate when they can't bottle an answer because it means the don't know, but if anyone on here can give me proof of a single big bang creating this universe I'm all ears.
the big bang was like water from a river flowing over a high waterfall and crashing on the rocks at the bottom to produce spray and clouds. Prove me wrong!
@whatthefunk5 The fact that you ask this and think you have a vaguely credible hypothesis is very sad. What I see from the comments in this thread are people who are not only scientifically retarded, but who think that they can dismiss millions of hours of scientific grind and labour with a wave of their grubby hand.
is that baphomet on his shirt? satanist much? btw, we arent at the pinnacle of understanding everything right now, were just as stupid as weve ever been. all these scientific theories are still just theories and they arent even good ones. cmon, big bang? my point is, we are still just tiny creatures on a ball guessing about what the universe is. just because we have some people making guesses and theories doesnt mean we understand it. that means that it could be right or wrong. probably wrong
This is incredibly wrong, because this clown can't comprehend something so massive and something he has never seen. It's wrong nup not possible stuiped idea..that's what this guy is all about + making money..
I'll condense the argument, so others can easily bump it off: If the total amount of energy in the universe never changes, why assume that (e.g. 13.7 billion years ago with "The Big Bang") it began at all?
Isn't the reasoning simply this: It exists now and therefor it must have had a beginning. Now I'd submit that's not truly a reasoning, it's a primitively-held (not trying to be pejorative here, btw) principle instead. I'm not saying it's bad luck to hold it, actually it is often rewarded.
Near as I can understand it, the CMB argument is: cold empty space in every direction not only has more than zero energy, this minimal energy basically favors no direction, it comes from every direction, ergo the universe must have a beginning. Obviously I'm not denying the universe exists, I'm just asking: What is the rational need to see a beginning? Have you ever spent even a minute using that wonderfully impressive brain to consider the notion that there's no rational call for a beginning?
The state of popular science on the topic of absolute negative energy states is confusing. I'd say negative energy is a relative term, and so zero energy would also be a relative term, basically just as measurements given in terms of sea level are relative measurements. That leaves me in the same position as below: if the total amount of energy in the universe (or multiverse, whetever) never changes, where's a need to insist there was a beginning? BTW, 2nd "but", two posts down, should be "and".
To finish the point here; I like science, but creation theories are nothing to hold on to, dearly or otherwise. I'll accept the notion that the universe has always had zero energy, but then utterly fail to see why a beginning of the universe is required if that is the case. So, if you're a fan of science and you carry the wonderful essence of authoritarianism deep down in whatever extant quality a fundamentalist might identify with a soul, here's your new reason to rain down upon a skeptic.
Apparently the favorite quasi-religious creationist theory of scientific types (most notably weary biologista) and fundamentalists alike involves, at some point, the universe being created upon zero energy, but the creationist scientist fans, being the good creationist authoritarians they are, are able to point to lengthy papers, written by supposed experts, showing the universe still has net zero energy, but the fundamentalist fans refuse the notion that such opinions may be accurate.
I think it takes more faith to believe that a random explosion created everything
(since when have you seen a case where a building exploded into a new building spontaneously and why hasn't another big bang happened to create something else?) than it takes to believe that an omnipotent creator made the universe.
@YouCannotBeOurFriend mooting an omnipotent creator of the universe doesn't answer anything - where did it come from? Where did it get all the stuff? How do you get around the paradoxical nature of ominpotence (can an omnipotent being create an object so heavy it cannot lift it?)? Also, suggesting some hoodoo omnipotent creator then resting on your laurels is not going to increase the sum of human knowledge one iota... are you suggesting we stop all research into this subject?
@masquenada73 please, before demonstrating your misunderstanding of scientific terms again, look up what the word "theory" means when used in a scientific context. It is not the same as the layman's use of the word.
Mesons might not fall up or down outside the nucleus but they decay outside the nucleus too quickly to ever tell. Anyway they do show that nature has a capacity to combine antimatter and matter together into one particle, so maybe it's not too odd to think the quarks inside a meson are a variation on the mesonic theme of combining matter and antimatter.
Not aware of any laws that limit the size of a cosmic cataclysm, like a ceiling on the masses of two objects colliding at nearly lightspeed, or how big such a collision would have to be to be to fool everyone into seeing an immaculate conception type of big bang, but since physicists have been banging two particles together to make "little bangs" it seems it was just a matter of time before someone would say the universe started out 2D and media would call it an exciting and new idea. Whatever.
@AMikeOnLine This is highly unlikely as if the universe always was then logic would dictate that everything that could have happened would have happened.
I really don't see why it even matters how the fuck we got here. all that matters is that we are stuck with each other and we might as well stop wasting money trying to figure out these ridiculous questions and deal with actual issues. but thats just me.
@parker2324 Most scientific discoveries come from asking these sorts of questions - for example, if you asked a scientist 500 years ago "what good is studying a vacuum" - he wouldn't be able to tell you, and yet the invention of the light bulb relied on being able to produce a vacuum. As pointed out here, Ernest Rutherford's work on the structure of the atom would probably have appeared useless to many people early last century, yet it lead to the atomic age.
@parker2324 by dealing with these ridiculous questions and so called "wasting money" we actually end up accomplishing things that end up dealing with the "actual issues". For example theoretical nuclear physics led to the invention of the MRI machine which has saved countless lives. The inventor of the MRI would not have been able to invent such a machine if it were not for Theoretical physicists who certainly didn't set about trying to discover how to make a MRI machine.
what?!?!? he uses the fact that we thought planets traveled in circles as a reason for the big bang not working??
the theory of circular motion was BEFORE the big bang theory was even brought about. also dark matter and dark energy "doesnt work", ah, well if it exists, yes it does. I personally think its electrical energy holding the galaxies together but whatever. Im all for arguments, but this clip didnt have any valid points
@parkerjwill Exactly, that is when we also start getting into the metaphysics and the properties of this 'thing' outside of space. I usually don't end up moving to quick to this stage, since discussing the idea that it is actually more reasonable to believe in something outside of S/T, that is responsible for it. Things do start falling into place surprisingly well, and become very reasonable, especially with the idea of the a non-material part living on after the body dies.
I totally agree with this guy! If science doesn't get the answer completely right the first time it should just give up and start a brand new theory! Why develop knowledge further when you can just scrap it altogether and try a new random guess?
everything is perfect in our system and i dont believe in coincidences nor do i believe that nothing can create everything there HAS to be something that has ALWAYS been our minds cant fathom such a thing so theres no point trying to solve it because guess what? we never fuckin will!
@pdblouin33 Useful, applicable and valid theories should stay so upon new discoveries. Like this guy is saying, the current BB theory always fails in this manner. We always have to patch-work the BB theory with things like "dark" matter etc.
Everything material goes in cycles of creation and destruction, birth and death. Everything material goes in this cycle which has seven stages: conception, gestation, birth, growth, production of byproducts, degeneration/disease and finally death.
The big bang is a misconception of the actual fussion of energies, but the interaction of two basic forms of energy did contribute to that concept. Fill up a glass with ice cubes and then pour water on the from the faucet. Bring the glass close to your ear and listen. And it's true that we aren't here since if one analizes the concept of time, only the intant is a segment of time in which everything exists. A gravitational force field is made up of two subfields; one excursive and one incursive.
I've named the excursive field the X-gravity field factor. It serves to repel other worlds and sets their orbital corridors and therefore impedes them from invading other world's orbits and avoid collitions. The repelling force of the X-gravity factor is equivalent to that of gravity, or a constant of .0735 pounds per sq. in. per linear mile of ascension. Matter is weightless, and this fact can come to light when we consider that an object having a weight on earth becomes weightless in space.
This means that an object weighing 1000 lbs at sea level will only weight 500 lbs one hundred miles up into the atmosphere considering that earth's atmosphere is 200 miles high. That's because matter loses .005% of its mass weight per sq. in. per linear mile of ascension. This fact relate to other fact associated to atmospheric weight and height, and i've recorded my theoretical findings in The Phantom Powers of the Universe which i've registered with the library of congress copy rights office..
Matter is void of a gravitational force field but gravity lends itself to matter on a temporary basis while matter is contained within gravity's influential field. A gravitational force field is inherent of extreme heat and it reaches out beyond the borderline of the planet's atmosphere and absolute space from whence it comences to accrue weight pressure as it expands towards interstellar space, as the X-field factor Gravity accrues pressure in the opposite direction and serve to coalesce matter
Red-Shift and Radiation is evidence for an explosion or an expanding universe. But, how is this evidence that everything came from the explosion?
For example, an explosion could have been caused by something else, that simply was too strong and pushed everything away (Already formed Galaxies and Stars). What caused that explosion? I don't know.
I am really confused here. I am asking for my own knowledge.
So, the big bang (IF IT EXISTED) created space and time. Therefore, time didn't exist before the big bang. Therefore, if time didn't exist, the "container" of the big bang must have only existed in a fraction of a time that just cannot be defined. Therefore, nothing before the big bang was there. Therefore, the "container" could not come from anywhere. Therefore, it couldn't exist. Therefore, the big bang could not happen. Yet it did.
@IcenaldicN00bTuber Exactly, I guess that is where we get to the point where there is a cause that is outside of space/time that is necessary to bring space/time into existence. So I guess the big big could still definitely work. But I guess if we get to any point where space/time is finite then there needs to be a cause outside of space/time. If not, then space/time needs to be infinite.
@BeatMasterPhil Intelligence! Good point. Big Bang is fine, so long as it includes something outside space and time, or something transcendental to it. What is this? Consciousness, the primary symptom of the living entity, the soul.
There is jīva or ātma and there is paramātma, Supersoul. Consciousness is the most fundamental aspect of material existence. Consciousness is the ground of all being.
@parkerjwill Religion doesn't answer any questions. Religion just fill the unknowns with complete mumbo jumbo, at least scientists try and fill the unknowns with feasible ideas.
If you believe in a creator, then who created the creator? You see religion answers nothing.
@mikeyo1234 First, try to clear your mind of bias against religion. There are a lot of layers of ignorance one needs to transcend in this arena of Absolute Truth.
I too, like you, once placed all my faith in modern science, for the same reasons you state now. Actually, I found, and still do, religions and their answers to life's big questions unsatisfactory. Then I found a legit spiritual master in the Vedic disciplic succession and life for me began at that point. That was a year ago.
It's very important to be conscious of the difference between religion and God. Religions are organizations of men, and often involve politics and the many faults of men. Religions are organized around revelations of Absolute Truth. They are not the Absolute Truth itself. Therefore, your negative emotional charge concerning religion is completely understandable because today, religion is being used improperly by men and their politicians.
@mikeyo1234 Oh, and regarding the "who created the [C]reator" question; nobody did. You are using faulty logic, applying material, Aristotelian Logic to transcendental subject matter. God has always been. He does not exist within the domain of time. He is time. Ever heard the saying, "Mother earth, Father time."?
When trying to understand transcendence, you must use transcendental logic, logic which is beyond the MATERIAL mind. Spiritual truth is absolute, not relative. Acintya-bhedābheda
@mikeyo1234 I wouldn't say religion is complete "mumbo jumbo" all religions have a purpose most of which teach lessons about laws and rules which are now a standard implementation in the current society. Although religion can be fueled by fear and reward based teachings, so is modern science and everyday social life so in truth science is a merely an ever changing religion. There may be no deity or idol but there is an everlasting search for the truth, which is another religious ideal.
@FaithfulDragon "Although religion can be fueled by fear and reward based teachings" That is the unfortunate part that I think needs to be dealt with in the modern Church. (Catholic Church) There are some large misunderstandings about the Church as a whole, one of which is the idea of saying "No!" to lots of things for fear of hell, etc. When in reality it is really like saying one big "Yes!" with a couple small "no's" along the way. The truth will set you free is something that comes to mind.
@parkerjwill Exactly, we're finding from modern physics & cosmology that all the theories that have some weight are necessarily pointing towards some distinct beginning to all of space/time. Which means, unless you have faith something can come absolute nothing(nice magic trick), there must be 'something' outside of S/T that brought S/T itself into existence. The big bang doesn't need to be the beginning of space/time, but even the pre-big bang theories are leading to a distinct beginning.
@BeatMasterPhil So then the question becomes, What is more fundamental than S/T? The answer is consciousness. OK, so what is consciousness? It's us, its the primary, distinguishing feature of life. Hmmm....
Another thing wrong with the the big bang, is saying that everything came from nothing. I think it was a big black hole that passed a critical mass and eventually turned its self inside out and exploded.
@Typho0n86 Who may as well believe in god? Define nothing. In our Universe we can't say there is such thing as nothing because there isn't. And I thought black holes dissolve by the jet emissions on their poles'. If a Universe was created through your idea then the Universe before us should have had immense gravity or something to keep it from getting to far away from itself so this black hole wouldn't of had enough time to radiate the energy. Our black holes will not spawn new Universes.
@aqouby Nothing = 0 mass, 0 size, it would be an infinitely small point. Im not saying a black hole would radiate the whole universe. Im saying a Black hole the size that has never been thought of before (like over 10^12 times the size of a supermassive blackhole in the center of our galaxy) would explode. Similar to the "Big crunch" idea. How do u think then big bang happened?
@Typho0n86 Through a Universe that expanded and kept expanding like our Universe, until every particle decays and nothing is let but a single wave packet so spread out that it is equal to that of exactly 0 K. Then quantum flux can take hold and any minor flux isn't minor, it becomes what we know as our Universe. When we expand out to infinity then our endless Universe will be just a singularity for the next Universe when all of our energy here is gone. Again, such thing as absolute zero here.
@aqouby Did you just break one of the fundamental laws of physics?!?! ROFL "When all our energy here is gone".... good work no0b :D Gone where? Even if our universe keeps expanding, it will never reach infinity. It may be accelerating in its expansion now, but there is no proof that it will keep expanding forever.
@Typho0n86 Relative to space there would be less energy. A box, with a wave. Now expand that box and the wave will eventually turn into a straight line. Suck my balls dude, you know jack about shit. N00B.
@aqouby You mean the energy density? Too bad the vacume energy remains constant no matter how much space expands. You could turn a circle into a straight line depending on what significant figures/scale u use, but at a diffrent scale it would still be a circle. I dont actually know Jack, and i dont want to get to know shit, but it seems to be your highest pirority, and good luck to you getting to know shit :D no_0b
@Typho0n86 You didn't understand what I said? In black holes Gravity is the dominant force. Over the strong, weak, and EM force. You can't reach a maximum mass density for a black hole, it'll just spew it out through its goddamn poles. There's your reason why you're talking shit. Congrats, you're an idiot.
@aqouby What if a black hole decayed, you even said it yourself "until every particle decays and nothing is let". What if the EM forces got stronger and pushed apart the black hole, They are extremly more powerful than gravity. All I am doing is trying to think of diffrent theorys how our universe began, and u have done nothing but call me names. Science is about exploring diffrent ideas, You have none, you are the idiot once again "Fcuk off you fcuking loser" :D
@Typho0n86 I see you love science and I do too... We both don't have any proof for what we're claiming. Might as well have a third party to claim there is a God. He's be just as valid as our arguments.
@aqouby At least i dont have to break fundemantal laws to make my arguments work, You have have not told me in scientific terms how my theorys do not work, or how you would work out if its not form this universe, i am still waiting on an explination, you just talk shit, k tkz no0b
@Typho0n86 You think fundamental laws follow you down when you get to a singularity or to the inverse? There is no science behind you and your guess.. You're making an assumption that black holes have a critical mass and your theory is based on this assumption. A black hole would prevent itself from an explosion because of the goddamn definition of a black hole-- Nothing can escape it because its a singularity. Thats why you're wrong, you royal turd.
@aqouby Well from what u said u were breaking the law of conservation of energy ""When all our energy here is gone" its not my fault you changed ur meaning, with expanding a curve to a line good work, maybe u should be 15 again and go back to school
@Typho0n86 ok, a misunderstanding on your part. I wasn't talking about vacuum energy as decreasing. I was talking about the stuff that our Universe is. When everything decays nothing will be left with an ever stretching wave function... Eventually everything is black and cold and without time. You can't do anything when the Universe is expanding faster then light. Thats when the vacuum energy is the dominant force. At least I'm trying ideas that might have some physical validity.
@aqouby "You think fundamental laws follow you down when you get to a singularity or to the inverse?"
In fact, yes. Haven't followed the thread. But the holographic principle shows that all events in a 3 dimensional universe with gravity have an equivalent expression on a 2 dimensional surface without gravity. There is no reason to think that nothing can escape from any part of the gravityless surface. So some form of fundamental laws should follow you right into the BH, via nonlocality.
@sbergman27 I always though that a singularity and the inverse is based in 1 dimension. OK you sound very intelligent so I'll ask this in full. If the cosmological constant continues and our Universe expands at an accelerated rate then at one point space should be expanding faster then light can travel, no? I mean, wouldn't the other forces such as gravity and electromagnetism become arbitrary? If you were in this Universe then no matter where you went you wouldn't of really moved, right?
I was just banned for saying that "astronomy is suppressed" by "The Atheist Experience". A church organization deceptively disguised as an atheist org. They support the big bang.
This is their comment -
@nayanmalig
- " astronomy is suppressed."
So are you. Blocked!
nayanmalig 1 week ago
the term big bang was coined sarcastically by a British scientist who opposed the theory. Fred Hoyle. Now it has got popular. ironic.
nayanmalig 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I was just blocked from a channel called "The Atheist Experience' for trying to promote this theory. Although they try to show they are anti religion & open to truth & new ideas they are big defenders of the big bang & god apparently. They do not tolerate other ideas. Same as priests. stubborn atheist idiots.
nayanmalig 1 week ago
Marcus Clown
Blumis2000 2 weeks ago
that guy reminds me of billie joe armstrong with his " you know"
Lucmegamind 2 weeks ago
Did anyone else think this was about the show "The big bang theory"? But this was actually kinda interesting nevertheless.
fluffmymuffin1 1 month ago
You were never taught to piss or shit either, but that doesnt change the fact you were taught good and bad.. The whole lessons parents teach us growing up is to be a good person, not a bad person, were taught to do good over bad..
TheHallowed12 1 month ago
@TheHallowed12 1 point for you my good man.
fletchertdf 1 week ago
@TheHallowed12
I was taught to be selfish...
dudejohnny 6 days ago
God created all things. Science has shown us that something comes from something.. such as the first chemicals after the big bang, and chemicals from imploded stars.. well those stars were made from something before.. and everything else around it.. nothing can implode into more nothing and create the universe
TheHallowed12 1 month ago
@TheHallowed12 Actually, you're wrong. A new-born baby can cry without being tought how. He was not think of anything, (nothing) but that didnt mean he couldnt cry.
ryan6627 1 month ago
@TheHallowed12
You're not very good at maths.
dudejohnny 6 days ago
How can you have a big bang without I big banger. Inquiring minds want to know.
curlybobz 1 month ago
i wonder this man is a physicist?
esraretin 1 month ago
the big bang theory is gay soooooooooooooo fake!!!
sonicfan197 1 month ago
"All of these things are bolted on in a ad hoc way to the
standard picture [model]
The Big Bang, doesn't work so we {They} tack on inflation
That doesn't work so we tack on Dark Matter
That doesn't work so we tack on Dark Energy"
The Big bang ha to be the single greatest fallacy in the
history of science, eclipsed only by the world being 'flat'
TheZenoEffect 1 month ago 6
10 to 15 years it will all fit together in a logical fashion eh? I've already done so. Youtube: Earth is older than the sun. You are welcome.
MrWolynski 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Whats wrong with the Big Bang Theory? - A hot blond girl wouldn't hang around a group of nerds all day!
91Robbedoes 2 months ago
Whats wrong with the Big Bang Theory? - The hot blond girl wouldn't hang around a group of nerds all day!
91Robbedoes 2 months ago 24
@91Robbedoes lol
weswii 2 months ago
@91Robbedoes
come see your comment ,,,, you got 24 thumbs up !!
alhosani1991 4 days ago
there was a really BIG BANG ?... & I missed it ?
WeAskThePeople 3 months ago
The problem I have with inflation is that any volume can be defined by its surface area, that the minimum surface area is one unit of information per planck area. This would mean the universe would be tens of thousands of light years across at its earliest point, otherwise information would have to populate the universe over time,which is not what the Big Bang theory postulates.
freedomfrombots 3 months ago
(cont) And inflation, the idea of an early superluminal expansion phase of the Universe, actually arose out of calculations Alan Guth did while exploring the formation of magnetic monopoles in the early Universe. Only then did he realize that it would solve the horizon and flatness problems of the Big Bang. I don't know who Marcus Chown is, but in this video, he's got everything upside down and backwards.
pseudorandomly 4 months ago
His "bolted-on explanations" are, in actuality, *discoveries* that the theory had to account for -- he's got it the wrong way around. Dark matter was proposed to explain several entirely different observations, and subsequently was shown to be able to explain the early formation of structure in the Universe. Dark energy was a completely unexpected discovery; even now, there's no explanation for what it *is* -- it wasn't invented to explain something. (cont)
pseudorandomly 4 months ago
Finally a channel with real intellectual conversations. I need to read more on cosmology. You guys and all the people that posted here seem to know what you're are talking about .
giovanone 4 months ago
Correction to Chown. The cosmological constant has fit very naturally into General Relativity since the beginning. The vacuum energy *should* have some value. Einstein initially set it to 0. The real question is "why does it have the small value it has?". Re: Dark Matter. Gravity is a perfectly valid way to detect matter. We have actual maps, and know quite a lot about DM. The question: What particle(s) is it? Inflation can feel tacked on. But WMAP data *very* strongly supports its validity.
sbergman27 4 months ago
@sbergman27 I know he's exaggerating, but I share some of his hopes. The data we have are quite strong in favor of all these "epicycles" (in his words), but maybe we don't have the most accurate theory in our hands, and it's yet to be found. I truly believe that it's going to have dark matter and dark energy in it, but in a more convincing way, and it's limit will fall in GR, the same way GR falls in Newton's mechanics. Just conjecturing.
MrBeiragua 4 months ago
@MrBeiragua Well, we know that GR & QM are incomplete. No one would question that. I don't find DM to be at all surprising. What reason did we ever have to assume that all matter would interact via EM & Strong? My bet is on the neutralino. The low but nonzero value of DE is a more fundamental matter. & it may very well need quantum gravity to explain. That Inflation occurred is pretty much definite, but more detail & data on the 'how' would be nice. But... babies & bathwater and all that.
sbergman27 4 months ago
@MrBeiragua addendum: Here's a totally amateur, random observation on my part. A fundamental physics question is why normal attractive gravity is 10^25 to 10^38 times weaker than the other forces. Another fundamental question is why repulsive gravity (DE, the Cosmlogical Constant) is between 10^60 and 10^120 times weaker than combined quantum & GR predict. The discrepancies don't exactly... uhh... match. But the character of the questions is the same. And both involve huge magnitudes.
sbergman27 4 months ago
Lol pwng bitch
lzam95 5 months ago
Some people just don't wanna face the truth... science is real, god is a remnant from thousands of years ago, when no one could explain how it all began... If anything, god created the big bang...
TheMikkelik 5 months ago
@TheMikkelik ah exactly. if you cant see it then it doesn't exist. makes sense :)
like aliens and oxygen.
alvisc2002 5 months ago
@MrNeonmonkey12 thank you! I hate theories like this there all full of lies ^_^
akaboombby7 5 months ago
god is real! big bang?! gotta be kidding me! GOD CREATED THE WORLD! THE UNIVERSE!!!!!
MrNeonmonkey12 5 months ago
When people turn up to the site of a bomb explosion, they can reasonably infer that a bomb exploded from the damage - relocated fragments of damaged buildings, burn marks, chemical residues, pattern of damage - etc.
They don't have to have heard or seen the explosion to make the reasonable inference that there was an explosion. We appear to be in an exploding Universe.
Many commenters dismiss the central hypothesis of an explosion, without suggesting an alternative.
garethb1961 5 months ago
@garethb1961 Every explosion we see on earth or in space destroys something, tears buildings apart.
Etc
The universe is in perfect order "not to heavy , not to light , just right"
Our planet is perfect
To make something just right for example "my human cells" no explosion could possibly achieve that.
Try making me a a dog or a cat, and the only tools you have to make them is an explosion.
Nothing would happen.
same goes for the universe.
Xaivier2000 5 months ago
@Xaivier2000 So, another person misunderstands Big Bang, the rapid expansion of matter from a single point of origin that comprised of all the matter in the Universe, to mean "explosion"? Well done.
Arkticus 5 months ago
@Arkticus So where did the "single point of origin" that comprised of all the matter in the Universe come from.
where did the "matter" come from.
please do not tell me "Nothing"...... I want a answer if your so clued up in this big bang theory.
Xaivier2000 5 months ago
@Xaivier2000 I don't know where the matter came from. There are a lot of much smarter people then me looking for it, but keep in mind that we are still dicovering things about Earth and the life on it that we didn't know, so is it really a wonder that the answer of the scientists is "I don't know" about the origin of the universe?
Only religions deal with absolute "make-belive" answers, and doesn't bother to keep looking for actual ones. That's why their doomed, eventually.
Arkticus 5 months ago
@Arkticus Ok,
To me a "make-believe" answer is this...(that scientists seem to ok) ...... the entire universe, space matter and time came from "Nothing" it just happened for no reason.
We are here for nothing just like a lucky card game at the casino, we are just “Luck”.
Arkticus, If we moved the earth 1000km off axis life would cease on earth. if there was no magnetic field life would cease
If the earth was 1000km closer to the sun, we would fry. 1000km more away we would freeze.
Xaivier2000 5 months ago
@Xaivier2000 It may or may not have come from "nothing" as you said. But we don't know yet, which one is the right answer, so we keep looking, and not accept an absolute answer that if we don't know, therefore "god". And there's quite the list to choose from too...
And as for the 1000 km shift, so? I'm not denying that it is truly awe inspiring that things have happened the way they have, but that doesn't make me assume that I'm the favourite toy of an uncareing creator deity.....
Arkticus 5 months ago
@Arkticus I am just saying that we are not random "Luck"
Everything is so well, should i say "Designed"
If I had to choose between design vs luck, I would take and go for design anyday as it makes such more logical sense, as luck can't build a house.
If everything on this planet has to be made by us human beings cars houses roads etc, why cant the earth and universe be "designed"
I still don't know the real answer to the origin of the universe and how we got here, but deisgn does it for me.
Xaivier2000 5 months ago
@Xaivier2000 Well I would say that we are equal part "luck" and "design", because in the end we live in a universe of random chances which create results that are logical. I tried, but i could not write a good example in 500 characters, but if you'd like I could send you a couple of examples via pm.
And as i said before, because we don't know, we keep loking for the correct answer, not assume abslute knowledge offered by man made (and, in more then one way, one-eyed) religions...
Arkticus 5 months ago
@Arkticus you can pm me if you want.....
Well someone is right and someone is wrong.
Either luck or design, and questions still left unanswered.
I am sort of a "Black & White person" I don't want to know about the grey in between i just want str8 to the point answers.
Anything we do here on earth is designed, so i say then the universe is designed, Some planets spin forwards while others backwards, some slower and some faster, the universe is like a well designed space shuttle
"Just right"
Xaivier2000 5 months ago
@Xaivier2000 "I am sort of a "Black & White person" I don't want to know about the grey in between i just want str8 to the point answers."
And that's the problem right there. I said it before, and I'll repeat: "There are no absolute answers". It would definately be much easier to live in a black and white world, but unfortunately that's not how thing work.
And to correct you a bit "most of the things we humans do are designed".
Arkticus 5 months ago
@Xaivier2000 i agree but im saying opposite of it to religous people because their books are certainly wrong and they are dangerous for minority of society
esraretin 1 month ago
@Arkticus another thing, Look at human cells, one human cell is more complex than the Nasa space shuttle and a cell is so tiny.
How could "luck" design a cell?
Xaivier2000 5 months ago
@Xaivier2000 "Luck" couldn't, but then it wasn't luck that created it. Luck is what created the conditions for so that cells such as the ones we are made of could be "created" and exist.
Actually, there a perfect video for this argumentation by a guy using the name "ONESPECIES" and his video "Intelligent Design Destroyed!" he explains the whole complexity argument and why it doesn't work. Highly recommend that vid.
Arkticus 5 months ago
@Xaivier2000 First of all, big bang was a expansion, not a explosion.
Perfect planet? We are adapted to how the planet is, our planet isn't adapted to inhabit us. If it were different, we would also be different.
No one have ever claimed that the human cell, or animals for that matter, were created by a explosion.
And how could you even compare how biology come about to how stars, planets etc do? And then draw the conclusion that if you cant create an animal with said process nothing can?
ssmooerr 5 months ago
And by the way, a star that goes supernova gives birth to other stars... So it seems explosions in fact CAN create something. Not that it makes any difference though, since The big bang wasn't a explosion.
ssmooerr 5 months ago
@garethb1961 "...they can reasonably infer that a bomb exploded from the..."
But our Universe doesn't look at all like an explosion occurred. We clearly see uniform *expansion*. An explosion has a center and doesn't look the same from all points. It looks like we are in the center of our U. But if you map it out, based upon observational data, you see that a viewer, say a billion lightyears away, would *also* think he was in the center. Explosions don't act like that. Uniform Expansion does.
sbergman27 4 months ago
@sbergman27 Its less like an explosion and more like some uniform transformation or shift.
JNathanK2011 4 months ago
I think it should be looked at less as a heating and cooling process and more like a shifting away from a state in which form and void were indistinguishable from each other (singularity) to a state in which they separated and complexity started exponentially building on itself from that schism.
JNathanK2011 4 months ago
Here's my alternative hypothesis: suppose the red shift is the natural result of light being stretched out or thinned by travelling billions of lightyears. If that were so, it would make us question the whole premise that the universe is expanding. Dismissing the assumption of an expanding universe would dismiss the entire basis of the big bang theory.
We haven't actually observed the universe expanding. We have only observed the red shift, from which we have INFERRED the expansion of space.
MagiMysteryTour 5 months ago
It may be that the red shift theory was a faulty premise on which was based the whole reverse calculation to the "big bang" point of origin. And while it seemed a clever deduction, it may turn out to be simply erroneous, causing us to perform all kinds of theoretical contortions just to make the total cosmos fit with this initial hypothesis. If you come up with a different explanation for red shift, suddenly you realize that we may be twisting our minds in knots completely unnecessarily.
MagiMysteryTour 5 months ago
@MagiMysteryTour True. But what is the alternative hypothesis? This is not my field. Whilst there are obviously a lot of patched up holes and contortions in the bang bang theory, the central hypothesis seems unchallenged to me.
garethb1961 5 months ago
What's Wrong with the Big Bang Theory?
Well for starters its a fairy tale.
"Once upon a time, long ago and far away"...... there was an explosion that came from "nothing", nothing existed, nothing exploded and WOW here we are now.
Where did the explosion come from, where did the matter come from.... let me guess "nothing" lol
The Big Bang is a Fairy tale like Hansel and Gretel.
silly big bang theory lol.
Xaivier2000 5 months ago
@Xaivier2000 This is just a statement of your religious belief and so uninteresting. People who investigate a bomb scene often didn't see or hear the bomb themselves. However, they look at the damage, and fragments of building scattered around and make the reasonable inference that there was an explosion.
My question is genuine. How does one account for fragments flying apart without an explosion? We are not merely seeing the aftermath of an explosion, we are observing an ongoing explosion.
garethb1961 5 months ago
@garethb1961 Your funny, Lol a bomb creates death and chaos, it makes things "Out of order".
The uninverse is "in order" no big bang, something "placed" everyything in order
Science is science when it can be observed.
As soon as they say ......4.5 billion years ago, its the same as "Once upon a time, long ago and far away"....
can you invent a working time machine please, then we both can "observe" and find out the truth of what really happend in the past.
Xaivier2000 5 months ago
That's a whole lot of idiots.
mmasny 6 months ago
I am not an astronomer or cosmologist - but I am a physicist. I ask with genuine ignornce, what is the alternative theory? What causes red shift?
garethb1961 6 months ago
What if there's a threshold of visibility of light, and red shift may be a feature of light approaching these farthest distances of visibilty. It may well be that 14 billion lightyears is merely the limits of light's visibilty, that the universe goes on well beyond 14 billion lightyears, but that it's simply not possible for us to receive light waves from beyond that visual horizon.
MagiMysteryTour 5 months ago
@MagiMysteryTour There is no threshold to red shift that i know of. Light can just be shifted to lower and lower frequencies. The red shift already goes well beyond visible frequencies - down to radio frequencies.
garethb1961 5 months ago
@garethb1961 When I say there may be a "threshold" of visibility, I mean like a horizon, a maximum distance beyond which light cannot be perceived, even though it's there. I'm suggesting that 14 billion lightyears may be that horizon. If so, then concluding that the universe must be 14 billion lightyears based on the lack of perceived light from farther distances would be a false conclusion.
MagiMysteryTour 5 months ago
Anyone who dares point out inconsistencies or alternative theories to the big bang are threatening a well established dogma and the status-quo of the day. Scientists have lost their jobs at universities for this for daring to disrupt such a deeply ingrained paradigm.
Lisztman88 6 months ago
Exactly I'm questioning the Big Bang theory even though I kind of used to accept it, people hate when they can't bottle an answer because it means the don't know, but if anyone on here can give me proof of a single big bang creating this universe I'm all ears.
khasseki 6 months ago
the big bang was like water from a river flowing over a high waterfall and crashing on the rocks at the bottom to produce spray and clouds. Prove me wrong!
whatthefunk5 6 months ago
@whatthefunk5 The fact that you ask this and think you have a vaguely credible hypothesis is very sad. What I see from the comments in this thread are people who are not only scientifically retarded, but who think that they can dismiss millions of hours of scientific grind and labour with a wave of their grubby hand.
garethb1961 5 months ago
It's sad how easy is to ridicule science when you talk to people who know nothing about it....
Splashky 6 months ago
God is.
IKSIRB68 6 months ago
@IKSIRB68 a jerk.
Doum92 5 months ago
is that baphomet on his shirt? satanist much? btw, we arent at the pinnacle of understanding everything right now, were just as stupid as weve ever been. all these scientific theories are still just theories and they arent even good ones. cmon, big bang? my point is, we are still just tiny creatures on a ball guessing about what the universe is. just because we have some people making guesses and theories doesnt mean we understand it. that means that it could be right or wrong. probably wrong
ColonelKucemeken 7 months ago
This is incredibly wrong, because this clown can't comprehend something so massive and something he has never seen. It's wrong nup not possible stuiped idea..that's what this guy is all about + making money..
DivineO2 7 months ago
ooooo boi ur too much grieved on the success of BIG BANG Theory well rather being depressed go knock your head on the wall cux u suck
lenardass 7 months ago
Penny..knock knock knock...Penny..Knock knock knock..Penny...
ianwilson2007 7 months ago
what a load of bullshit!
kulac 8 months ago
The big bang is impossible.
mrtadreamer 8 months ago
no rational cause for a beginning that's great physics
7orqu3 8 months ago
I'll condense the argument, so others can easily bump it off: If the total amount of energy in the universe never changes, why assume that (e.g. 13.7 billion years ago with "The Big Bang") it began at all?
Isn't the reasoning simply this: It exists now and therefor it must have had a beginning. Now I'd submit that's not truly a reasoning, it's a primitively-held (not trying to be pejorative here, btw) principle instead. I'm not saying it's bad luck to hold it, actually it is often rewarded.
CACBCCCU 8 months ago
Near as I can understand it, the CMB argument is: cold empty space in every direction not only has more than zero energy, this minimal energy basically favors no direction, it comes from every direction, ergo the universe must have a beginning. Obviously I'm not denying the universe exists, I'm just asking: What is the rational need to see a beginning? Have you ever spent even a minute using that wonderfully impressive brain to consider the notion that there's no rational call for a beginning?
CACBCCCU 8 months ago
The state of popular science on the topic of absolute negative energy states is confusing. I'd say negative energy is a relative term, and so zero energy would also be a relative term, basically just as measurements given in terms of sea level are relative measurements. That leaves me in the same position as below: if the total amount of energy in the universe (or multiverse, whetever) never changes, where's a need to insist there was a beginning? BTW, 2nd "but", two posts down, should be "and".
CACBCCCU 8 months ago
To finish the point here; I like science, but creation theories are nothing to hold on to, dearly or otherwise. I'll accept the notion that the universe has always had zero energy, but then utterly fail to see why a beginning of the universe is required if that is the case. So, if you're a fan of science and you carry the wonderful essence of authoritarianism deep down in whatever extant quality a fundamentalist might identify with a soul, here's your new reason to rain down upon a skeptic.
CACBCCCU 8 months ago
Apparently the favorite quasi-religious creationist theory of scientific types (most notably weary biologista) and fundamentalists alike involves, at some point, the universe being created upon zero energy, but the creationist scientist fans, being the good creationist authoritarians they are, are able to point to lengthy papers, written by supposed experts, showing the universe still has net zero energy, but the fundamentalist fans refuse the notion that such opinions may be accurate.
CACBCCCU 8 months ago
I think it takes more faith to believe that a random explosion created everything
(since when have you seen a case where a building exploded into a new building spontaneously and why hasn't another big bang happened to create something else?) than it takes to believe that an omnipotent creator made the universe.
YouCannotBeOurFriend 8 months ago
@YouCannotBeOurFriend mooting an omnipotent creator of the universe doesn't answer anything - where did it come from? Where did it get all the stuff? How do you get around the paradoxical nature of ominpotence (can an omnipotent being create an object so heavy it cannot lift it?)? Also, suggesting some hoodoo omnipotent creator then resting on your laurels is not going to increase the sum of human knowledge one iota... are you suggesting we stop all research into this subject?
lo2enge 8 months ago
the big bang theory is just that. a theory.
it's not proven to be the truth.
masquenada73 8 months ago
@masquenada73 please, before demonstrating your misunderstanding of scientific terms again, look up what the word "theory" means when used in a scientific context. It is not the same as the layman's use of the word.
asgardian001 8 months ago
@asgardian001 well i don't consider the big bang nor the theory of evolution to be satisfactorily tested or proven.
you believe what you want. i keep my self open to other possibilities . i think science should do the same.
masquenada73 8 months ago
OMG a golden cocroduck candidate!
hedleypanama 9 months ago
Mesons might not fall up or down outside the nucleus but they decay outside the nucleus too quickly to ever tell. Anyway they do show that nature has a capacity to combine antimatter and matter together into one particle, so maybe it's not too odd to think the quarks inside a meson are a variation on the mesonic theme of combining matter and antimatter.
CACBCCCU 9 months ago
Not aware of any laws that limit the size of a cosmic cataclysm, like a ceiling on the masses of two objects colliding at nearly lightspeed, or how big such a collision would have to be to be to fool everyone into seeing an immaculate conception type of big bang, but since physicists have been banging two particles together to make "little bangs" it seems it was just a matter of time before someone would say the universe started out 2D and media would call it an exciting and new idea. Whatever.
CACBCCCU 9 months ago
@CACBCCCU "2D"
That should be "1D." Haha, silly me, making new jokes there. Sorry about that.
CACBCCCU 9 months ago
Big bang theory is not 100% confirmed so what is this guy trying to debunk?
oldpiq 9 months ago
What a scientific wrestler.
poochpoints 9 months ago
wtf came to see Sheldon.
omma911 9 months ago
There was no big bang. There was no begining. There was no creation. We are, we allways were, we allways will be. End of.
AMikeOnLine 9 months ago
@AMikeOnLine I'm sure you don't know what big bang is.
wjavier316 8 months ago
@AMikeOnLine This is highly unlikely as if the universe always was then logic would dictate that everything that could have happened would have happened.
asgardian001 8 months ago
I really don't see why it even matters how the fuck we got here. all that matters is that we are stuck with each other and we might as well stop wasting money trying to figure out these ridiculous questions and deal with actual issues. but thats just me.
parker2324 9 months ago
@parker2324 Human curiosity about the nature of the reality that we inhabit is one of our few redeeming features as a species. Thumbs down.
ScottBrown666 9 months ago
@parker2324 Most scientific discoveries come from asking these sorts of questions - for example, if you asked a scientist 500 years ago "what good is studying a vacuum" - he wouldn't be able to tell you, and yet the invention of the light bulb relied on being able to produce a vacuum. As pointed out here, Ernest Rutherford's work on the structure of the atom would probably have appeared useless to many people early last century, yet it lead to the atomic age.
matthewjsharpe 9 months ago
@parker2324 by dealing with these ridiculous questions and so called "wasting money" we actually end up accomplishing things that end up dealing with the "actual issues". For example theoretical nuclear physics led to the invention of the MRI machine which has saved countless lives. The inventor of the MRI would not have been able to invent such a machine if it were not for Theoretical physicists who certainly didn't set about trying to discover how to make a MRI machine.
asgardian001 8 months ago
Actually he knows exactly what hes talking about... Dark energy is just another way of sayingg wtf is that shit
MrNeeman70 9 months ago
what?!?!? he uses the fact that we thought planets traveled in circles as a reason for the big bang not working??
the theory of circular motion was BEFORE the big bang theory was even brought about. also dark matter and dark energy "doesnt work", ah, well if it exists, yes it does. I personally think its electrical energy holding the galaxies together but whatever. Im all for arguments, but this clip didnt have any valid points
Heliosvector 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Heliosvector
> he uses the fact that we thought planets traveled in circles as a reason for the big bang not working??
No. He's using it to exemplify paradigm changes in science.
garouHH 8 months ago
@parkerjwill Exactly, that is when we also start getting into the metaphysics and the properties of this 'thing' outside of space. I usually don't end up moving to quick to this stage, since discussing the idea that it is actually more reasonable to believe in something outside of S/T, that is responsible for it. Things do start falling into place surprisingly well, and become very reasonable, especially with the idea of the a non-material part living on after the body dies.
BeatMasterPhil 10 months ago
I totally agree with this guy! If science doesn't get the answer completely right the first time it should just give up and start a brand new theory! Why develop knowledge further when you can just scrap it altogether and try a new random guess?
*sarcasm alert*
Stairc 10 months ago
@Stairc Yeah when I have a hundred piece jigsaw but lack two pieces it's obvious to me there wasn't a jigsaw in the first place so I toss it out.
ganados0 10 months ago
@ganados0 That's right! Hmm... What else can we disprove this way?
We don't know every facet of George Washington's life - so there's no George Washington.
I doubt many people can name every country in the european union, so that's out.
We don't have a complete knowledge of god because he's supposed to be so much greater than us - so screw that.
This is fun!
Stairc 10 months ago
I also tought it was the show with sheldon etc...
I didn't watch the video but I also don't believe in the big bang
w0to 10 months ago
everything is perfect in our system and i dont believe in coincidences nor do i believe that nothing can create everything there HAS to be something that has ALWAYS been our minds cant fathom such a thing so theres no point trying to solve it because guess what? we never fuckin will!
HOW7EY 10 months ago
@HOW7EY That's unlikely.
DYTisOver 10 months ago
@DYTisOver its very likely actually, its false thinking like that, that makes people ignorant as fuck
HOW7EY 10 months ago
@HOW7EY You think it is likely that we will won't find the answer? Then you're part of the problem, not the solution.
DYTisOver 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A readers digest version of creation. It is interesting the order in which things happen, especially the first bit.
#1 God creates light
#2 God creates a firmament
#3 God commands the waters below to be gathered together in one place, and dry land to appear
#4 God creates lights in the firmament. (?)
#5 God commands the sea to "teem with living creatures",
#6 God commands the land to bring forth living creatures
waiotahi52 10 months ago
If one could explain what time is then he could explain everything because it would define what a beginning really is.
slevin741 10 months ago
So what if the Big Bang theory has discrepancies? It doesn't claim to explain everything perfectly, and it's certainly better than "God did it!"
pdblouin33 10 months ago
@pdblouin33 Useful, applicable and valid theories should stay so upon new discoveries. Like this guy is saying, the current BB theory always fails in this manner. We always have to patch-work the BB theory with things like "dark" matter etc.
Everything material goes in cycles of creation and destruction, birth and death. Everything material goes in this cycle which has seven stages: conception, gestation, birth, growth, production of byproducts, degeneration/disease and finally death.
parkerjwill 10 months ago
Comment removed
MrFixItDK 10 months ago
Comment removed
MrFixItDK 10 months ago
Sure sure, but what about Sheldon...? ;-)
MrFixItDK 10 months ago
Am I the only one who thinks this guy is wrong?
gulbirk 10 months ago
Thumbs up if you're watching this because you thought it was about the show! XD haha!
MaruMovieFan9779 10 months ago 4
what an idiot
Blazekickz 11 months ago
i thought they meant the show...
J4ROM4 11 months ago 110
@J4ROM4 lol, me too
federicocapucci 11 months ago
@J4ROM4 me,too. :p
TheLastTomato 8 months ago
@J4ROM4 yea!..meh too!!!!!!!!!!!!!
spnmemories 7 months ago
The big bang is a misconception of the actual fussion of energies, but the interaction of two basic forms of energy did contribute to that concept. Fill up a glass with ice cubes and then pour water on the from the faucet. Bring the glass close to your ear and listen. And it's true that we aren't here since if one analizes the concept of time, only the intant is a segment of time in which everything exists. A gravitational force field is made up of two subfields; one excursive and one incursive.
jqs1943 11 months ago
I've named the excursive field the X-gravity field factor. It serves to repel other worlds and sets their orbital corridors and therefore impedes them from invading other world's orbits and avoid collitions. The repelling force of the X-gravity factor is equivalent to that of gravity, or a constant of .0735 pounds per sq. in. per linear mile of ascension. Matter is weightless, and this fact can come to light when we consider that an object having a weight on earth becomes weightless in space.
jqs1943 11 months ago
This means that an object weighing 1000 lbs at sea level will only weight 500 lbs one hundred miles up into the atmosphere considering that earth's atmosphere is 200 miles high. That's because matter loses .005% of its mass weight per sq. in. per linear mile of ascension. This fact relate to other fact associated to atmospheric weight and height, and i've recorded my theoretical findings in The Phantom Powers of the Universe which i've registered with the library of congress copy rights office..
jqs1943 11 months ago
Matter is void of a gravitational force field but gravity lends itself to matter on a temporary basis while matter is contained within gravity's influential field. A gravitational force field is inherent of extreme heat and it reaches out beyond the borderline of the planet's atmosphere and absolute space from whence it comences to accrue weight pressure as it expands towards interstellar space, as the X-field factor Gravity accrues pressure in the opposite direction and serve to coalesce matter
jqs1943 11 months ago
when you throw a melon to a wall, you have a Big Bang, everyone knows that!
Oh good, I hate this loosers that think they speak the truth with simply theories.
bensablon 11 months ago
I AM CONFUSED:
Red-Shift and Radiation is evidence for an explosion or an expanding universe. But, how is this evidence that everything came from the explosion?
For example, an explosion could have been caused by something else, that simply was too strong and pushed everything away (Already formed Galaxies and Stars). What caused that explosion? I don't know.
I am really confused here. I am asking for my own knowledge.
actionreplayman07 11 months ago
You guys want your mind blown?
So, the big bang (IF IT EXISTED) created space and time. Therefore, time didn't exist before the big bang. Therefore, if time didn't exist, the "container" of the big bang must have only existed in a fraction of a time that just cannot be defined. Therefore, nothing before the big bang was there. Therefore, the "container" could not come from anywhere. Therefore, it couldn't exist. Therefore, the big bang could not happen. Yet it did.
Amazing right?
IcenaldicN00bTuber 11 months ago
@IcenaldicN00bTuber Exactly, I guess that is where we get to the point where there is a cause that is outside of space/time that is necessary to bring space/time into existence. So I guess the big big could still definitely work. But I guess if we get to any point where space/time is finite then there needs to be a cause outside of space/time. If not, then space/time needs to be infinite.
BeatMasterPhil 11 months ago
@BeatMasterPhil Intelligence! Good point. Big Bang is fine, so long as it includes something outside space and time, or something transcendental to it. What is this? Consciousness, the primary symptom of the living entity, the soul.
There is jīva or ātma and there is paramātma, Supersoul. Consciousness is the most fundamental aspect of material existence. Consciousness is the ground of all being.
parkerjwill 10 months ago
@parkerjwill Religion doesn't answer any questions. Religion just fill the unknowns with complete mumbo jumbo, at least scientists try and fill the unknowns with feasible ideas.
If you believe in a creator, then who created the creator? You see religion answers nothing.
mikeyo1234 10 months ago
@mikeyo1234 First, try to clear your mind of bias against religion. There are a lot of layers of ignorance one needs to transcend in this arena of Absolute Truth.
I too, like you, once placed all my faith in modern science, for the same reasons you state now. Actually, I found, and still do, religions and their answers to life's big questions unsatisfactory. Then I found a legit spiritual master in the Vedic disciplic succession and life for me began at that point. That was a year ago.
parkerjwill 10 months ago
It's very important to be conscious of the difference between religion and God. Religions are organizations of men, and often involve politics and the many faults of men. Religions are organized around revelations of Absolute Truth. They are not the Absolute Truth itself. Therefore, your negative emotional charge concerning religion is completely understandable because today, religion is being used improperly by men and their politicians.
parkerjwill 10 months ago
@mikeyo1234 Oh, and regarding the "who created the [C]reator" question; nobody did. You are using faulty logic, applying material, Aristotelian Logic to transcendental subject matter. God has always been. He does not exist within the domain of time. He is time. Ever heard the saying, "Mother earth, Father time."?
When trying to understand transcendence, you must use transcendental logic, logic which is beyond the MATERIAL mind. Spiritual truth is absolute, not relative. Acintya-bhedābheda
parkerjwill 10 months ago
@mikeyo1234 I wouldn't say religion is complete "mumbo jumbo" all religions have a purpose most of which teach lessons about laws and rules which are now a standard implementation in the current society. Although religion can be fueled by fear and reward based teachings, so is modern science and everyday social life so in truth science is a merely an ever changing religion. There may be no deity or idol but there is an everlasting search for the truth, which is another religious ideal.
FaithfulDragon 10 months ago
@FaithfulDragon "Although religion can be fueled by fear and reward based teachings" That is the unfortunate part that I think needs to be dealt with in the modern Church. (Catholic Church) There are some large misunderstandings about the Church as a whole, one of which is the idea of saying "No!" to lots of things for fear of hell, etc. When in reality it is really like saying one big "Yes!" with a couple small "no's" along the way. The truth will set you free is something that comes to mind.
BeatMasterPhil 10 months ago
@parkerjwill Exactly, we're finding from modern physics & cosmology that all the theories that have some weight are necessarily pointing towards some distinct beginning to all of space/time. Which means, unless you have faith something can come absolute nothing(nice magic trick), there must be 'something' outside of S/T that brought S/T itself into existence. The big bang doesn't need to be the beginning of space/time, but even the pre-big bang theories are leading to a distinct beginning.
BeatMasterPhil 10 months ago
@BeatMasterPhil So then the question becomes, What is more fundamental than S/T? The answer is consciousness. OK, so what is consciousness? It's us, its the primary, distinguishing feature of life. Hmmm....
parkerjwill 10 months ago
@IcenaldicN00bTuber Enter the "Corner Paradox" - how many corners can you paint yourself into simultaneously?
Some hold that the possibilities are infinite, or so it seems.
And if it becomes a problem, just divide by zero.
Kenzofeis 10 months ago
The big bang doesn't work but not for the reasons this clown is sayin.
YellowCheapers 11 months ago
Another thing wrong with the the big bang, is saying that everything came from nothing. I think it was a big black hole that passed a critical mass and eventually turned its self inside out and exploded.
Typho0n86 11 months ago
@Typho0n86 .....What?? How old are you? 15??
aqouby 11 months ago
@aqouby Do you beileve that everything came from nothing??? You may as well believe in god
Typho0n86 11 months ago
@Typho0n86 Have you ever heard of a black hole hitting critical mass in our Universe?
aqouby 5 months ago
@aqouby it would be our universe
Typho0n86 5 months ago
@Typho0n86 Who may as well believe in god? Define nothing. In our Universe we can't say there is such thing as nothing because there isn't. And I thought black holes dissolve by the jet emissions on their poles'. If a Universe was created through your idea then the Universe before us should have had immense gravity or something to keep it from getting to far away from itself so this black hole wouldn't of had enough time to radiate the energy. Our black holes will not spawn new Universes.
aqouby 5 months ago
@aqouby Nothing = 0 mass, 0 size, it would be an infinitely small point. Im not saying a black hole would radiate the whole universe. Im saying a Black hole the size that has never been thought of before (like over 10^12 times the size of a supermassive blackhole in the center of our galaxy) would explode. Similar to the "Big crunch" idea. How do u think then big bang happened?
Typho0n86 5 months ago
@Typho0n86 Through a Universe that expanded and kept expanding like our Universe, until every particle decays and nothing is let but a single wave packet so spread out that it is equal to that of exactly 0 K. Then quantum flux can take hold and any minor flux isn't minor, it becomes what we know as our Universe. When we expand out to infinity then our endless Universe will be just a singularity for the next Universe when all of our energy here is gone. Again, such thing as absolute zero here.
aqouby 5 months ago
@aqouby Did you just break one of the fundamental laws of physics?!?! ROFL "When all our energy here is gone".... good work no0b :D Gone where? Even if our universe keeps expanding, it will never reach infinity. It may be accelerating in its expansion now, but there is no proof that it will keep expanding forever.
Typho0n86 5 months ago
@Typho0n86 Relative to space there would be less energy. A box, with a wave. Now expand that box and the wave will eventually turn into a straight line. Suck my balls dude, you know jack about shit. N00B.
aqouby 5 months ago
@aqouby You mean the energy density? Too bad the vacume energy remains constant no matter how much space expands. You could turn a circle into a straight line depending on what significant figures/scale u use, but at a diffrent scale it would still be a circle. I dont actually know Jack, and i dont want to get to know shit, but it seems to be your highest pirority, and good luck to you getting to know shit :D no_0b
Typho0n86 5 months ago
@Typho0n86 Im not talking about vacuum energy, Im talking about the kinetic energy in our expanding Universe. Christ, you're fuckin annoying.
aqouby 5 months ago
@aqouby Im annoying?i¿! LOL you have dissmissed my ideas with no valad reason and your compalining that im annoying Fcuk off you fcuking loser
Typho0n86 5 months ago
@Typho0n86 You didn't understand what I said? In black holes Gravity is the dominant force. Over the strong, weak, and EM force. You can't reach a maximum mass density for a black hole, it'll just spew it out through its goddamn poles. There's your reason why you're talking shit. Congrats, you're an idiot.
aqouby 5 months ago
@aqouby What if a black hole decayed, you even said it yourself "until every particle decays and nothing is let". What if the EM forces got stronger and pushed apart the black hole, They are extremly more powerful than gravity. All I am doing is trying to think of diffrent theorys how our universe began, and u have done nothing but call me names. Science is about exploring diffrent ideas, You have none, you are the idiot once again "Fcuk off you fcuking loser" :D
Typho0n86 5 months ago
@Typho0n86 I see you love science and I do too... We both don't have any proof for what we're claiming. Might as well have a third party to claim there is a God. He's be just as valid as our arguments.
aqouby 5 months ago
@aqouby At least i dont have to break fundemantal laws to make my arguments work, You have have not told me in scientific terms how my theorys do not work, or how you would work out if its not form this universe, i am still waiting on an explination, you just talk shit, k tkz no0b
Typho0n86 5 months ago
@Typho0n86 You think fundamental laws follow you down when you get to a singularity or to the inverse? There is no science behind you and your guess.. You're making an assumption that black holes have a critical mass and your theory is based on this assumption. A black hole would prevent itself from an explosion because of the goddamn definition of a black hole-- Nothing can escape it because its a singularity. Thats why you're wrong, you royal turd.
Im breaking no quantum mechanical laws.
aqouby 5 months ago
@aqouby Well from what u said u were breaking the law of conservation of energy ""When all our energy here is gone" its not my fault you changed ur meaning, with expanding a curve to a line good work, maybe u should be 15 again and go back to school
Typho0n86 5 months ago
@Typho0n86 ok, a misunderstanding on your part. I wasn't talking about vacuum energy as decreasing. I was talking about the stuff that our Universe is. When everything decays nothing will be left with an ever stretching wave function... Eventually everything is black and cold and without time. You can't do anything when the Universe is expanding faster then light. Thats when the vacuum energy is the dominant force. At least I'm trying ideas that might have some physical validity.
aqouby 5 months ago
@Typho0n86 so i cleared up what you misheard and now my theory breaks no fundamental laws. ooo, the point goes to.....
aqouby 5 months ago
@aqouby "You think fundamental laws follow you down when you get to a singularity or to the inverse?"
In fact, yes. Haven't followed the thread. But the holographic principle shows that all events in a 3 dimensional universe with gravity have an equivalent expression on a 2 dimensional surface without gravity. There is no reason to think that nothing can escape from any part of the gravityless surface. So some form of fundamental laws should follow you right into the BH, via nonlocality.
sbergman27 4 months ago
@sbergman27 I always though that a singularity and the inverse is based in 1 dimension. OK you sound very intelligent so I'll ask this in full. If the cosmological constant continues and our Universe expands at an accelerated rate then at one point space should be expanding faster then light can travel, no? I mean, wouldn't the other forces such as gravity and electromagnetism become arbitrary? If you were in this Universe then no matter where you went you wouldn't of really moved, right?
aqouby 4 months ago