Sorry but you sound seriously uninformed. I've seen classmates bullshit stuff so similar to this it makes me think that you are also. Also, you regard creationists as if we are aliens or something. Annoying!
how do you even know time is a linear function? rediculous! man has no idea! were you their at creation? were you there at big bang? no! man does not even know how water works much less creation,, mysteries in front of us they cant explain much less 6000 years ago
What planet do you know that emits it's own light? A planet always reflects light, cus if it emits light it stops being a planet, cus only suns can emit their own light.
Why would I want to argue with a "creationist," or any fundamentalist for that matter? It would be like having a discussion with a drunk, talking in circles with no regard for logic or common sense - just a colossal waste of time!
No evidence what the fuck are you on about, the evidence is all around us, what other theory do we have that is as believeable as this one, its not like god created the world that a load of old shit
A couple of questions for you. Do you own your own telescope? If so, what kind do you have? And what is your opinion on the various astronomy publications on the market? Do you tend to read books more, in terms of astronomy?
Boy you sure talk a lot. do you ever watch your video and see how it puts people too sleep. 29 minutes to explain what would take 2 minutes shows lack of planning and preparation. When science is boring theists will choose god because it's easy just to except a creator then be baffled with science.
Answer to your question about God's purpose for astronomy is worship.
Worship is the adoring acknowledgment of all that lies beyond us—the glory that fills heaven and earth. It is the response that conscious beings make to their Creator, to the Eternal Reality from which they came forth; to God, however they may think of Him or recognize Him, and whether He be realized through religion, through nature, through history, through science, art, or human life and character.
Stromolites is the oldest known form of microbial life, it still exist today and it has never been known to evolve into another life form for that matter no types of bacteria have been known to do so. The sudden emergence of complex cambrian phyla shows no evidence of ancestral history as admitted by Richard Dawkins what he reffers to as a delight to the creationist . So you might want to double check that one.
"No evidence"? No. Very scant evidence? Yes. That "living fossils" exist is not evidence against evolution any more than the continued existence of apes means we did not evolve from apes.
I don't think you understand the concept of evolutionary theory very well. The neo Darwinist view is that we evolved from a common ancestor of modern living apes, not that we evolved from them directly. There is little physical evidence to support this. If you know of physical evidence, please let me know and I will contact Fred Spoors immediately and tell him I've met someone who can solve this transitional sequence that he has been working most of his life to confirm with little success.
Agree with adelma01, you making me to believe in God=)) All you told was right, but unfortunately for you, PHYSICS is much more than you think you know about physics...
What do you think about the existence of God? Don't you believe that the complexity of living specious on earth with complex ordered DNA and elements is not a work of a creator? Even how planets and stars behave to each other with certain forces and the fact that we can even calculate i.e. distances between them? Or do you think that's based on coincidence? Do you also think that outside the universe we have the physical rules and laws or like in our universe? ;-)
Also, if we lose the ozone/atmosphere, we lose the water, I think... yes? If that is the case, how did the atmosphere form when more dangerous gases were supposed to be on the earth that would've destroyed the ozone layer, and how did that layer form when the sun would've been getting rid of the water like Mars? The bible said the earth was formed before the sun, how do you see it?
Lastly, you're cute; and this is my friend's account; mine is pixelsword. My friend likes you, too. :D
« If that is the case, how did the atmosphere form »
Outgassing of the cooling planet continually renewed the atmospheric content. On top of that, chemical processes due to geological activity (vulcanism) contributed to its composition, and solar radiation as well. It is thought that a significant percentage of the nitrogen in our atmosphere was actually the result of radiation hitting the atmosphere.
Evolution is false. Megafauna has never been replaced from the Ice age, neither are there examples currently of megafauna. Things can't evolve, everything only has a genetic range; that's why you can breed every type of dog trait within a few generations of wolves, or when domesticated pigs are let out into the wild, they regain all of their wild pig traits within one generation against "thousands" of years of breeding.
Like protoavis; can't say why a fully formed bird existed before dinos did.
What if God made it so, that we can calculate and observe our butts off, but we will only see that he made everything "old", so he is giggling at us tiny ones thinking we have found it all out? hehe... just a thought experiment.. But presuming he is omipotent it would present no problem to him to make real good stage sets for us..
This rings of the argument known as 'Maxwell's Demon', from an Informational/Physical view, creating a God would involve creating a universe of a greater complexity than our own. Who ordered that? Adopting dualistically foundationed arguments leads to a never ending conversation...and thats what its all about, right?
yes, she may sound arrogant from a particular frame of reference, but academic science and medicine is full of arrogant people, and at the same time full of really lovely people, often with humility.
scepticism and truth are often mistaken for arrogance, as it often challenges and shakes peoples' belief systems to the core, as she so eloquently does here. its so much easier and less effort to believe in creationism and intelligent design, as it poses no challenge to our minds. we simply accept something because we are told to by some authority. However, understanding empirical proof and pure unadulterated science is much more of a challenge to our tiny, unevolved minds.
Although I agree with you, I couldn't help notice the extreme arrogance in the way you spoke and expressed. It really annoyed me. Being condescend and blunt isn't the right way to pass your word.
Nice initiative nevertheless. Hope the "speech attitude" got better in the last two years. You sure got potential.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
There will never be a straight proven answer to this subject anyways. If there were then we would to be forced to believe something because it is fact. The Bible says God loves us to much to do that, that is why he gave us the choice to believe or not believe. If he forced us to believe and love him that would basically be like rape, and he loves us too much to do that. If anyone can refute this, please do.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Gods purpose for creating everything else (supernova's black holes, etc) is beyond human comprehension. Remember God has infinite power and knowledge. I'm sure we wouldn't be able to exist if there were no other stars or galaxies. God is an architect with infinite knowledge, who designed the universe. God gave us imaginations, and if he gave us no stars to see that would be cruel to us to give us nothing to imagine.
i wanna take a stab at answering your 2 questions at the end. 1. we neglect physics because of personal beliefs. 2 (my favorite to answer)god only exists to belivers. to non belivers he didn't creat anything. to those who do believe, i think the bible only states that he created the earth. no mention of him creating anything else(i think). if he did though, i'd say his purpous for creating everything would be to feed our insatiable curiousty for the unknown. that would include aliens too.
carbon dating is i think the only way scientists have to tell the age of earth. as well as the only way to date bones, fossils, and so on. i could be wrong, but as far as i know thats about all. since palentologists/scientologists date dinosaur bones/fossils to be 65 million years+ old, how would it be at all possible for the univers to be only 1000 some odd years old. i think it's the other way around. the universe is infinate years old and the earth being an age we can count too lol.
uhm yeah i do, wouldn't have written it if i didn't.infinate years old, no other way to say it. you can't possibly date how old the universe is. the universe is both infinate space wise and infinate age wise.
God's purpose w.r.t multiple galaxies? No one, absolutly no one can define *perfectly* even the concept of god leave alone expliain why he did what he did. Understanding of "god" itself changes as humans evolve to beings of enhanced intellect and improved knowledge of the universe. However it is probable that humans never fully understand the origin of the universe and life and continue to assume the existance of supreme intellegence/energy we call "god".
the twinkling of stars is because the dose of light is never the same at any given time. this irregularity of light causes the twinkle we see. since planets don't emit their own light they don't twinkle. the dose of light is regular due to the fact that its reflected light. so simplely put "stars" that twinkle are actually stars, and "stars" that don't twinkle are actually planets. but you had it very close!! you remind me of myself lol. you know your shit!!
Actually, a question about your correction -- I thought (as far as I read, and I have to admit, I am not sure about this) -- that the twinkling of stars is more due to 'stuff' in the way of the light than the actual star 'twinkling'.
For that matter, if I were to get close to one of those stars -- would i see it twinkle (or - would I have any sort of change in light intensity) as opposed to planet's reflection of the same light?
now to answer star vs planet questions. here i'm gonna take an educated guess. i don't think planets would reflect the twinkle because light is consistant. if you had a flash light and moved your hand in front of it theres no twinkle but light is obstructed. theres not much that would get in the way of the light hitting the planets as most things are tiny compared to the sun. it would be like a fly going pasted the flash light. so light there remains constant.
take our sun for an example, it's a star. the solar flares you'd see in photos are the same things we see as the twinkle in the stars. it could be possible that some of the twinkle we see is caused by things in the way but i'm not sure. lol i'm no pro. we don't see the sun really twinkle because we shouldn't really look at the sun directly. if you did, you'd see a vauge twinkle. if you were to get close to another star i'd assume you'd see "solar flares". hope that answers one question.
Well I think the reason astronomy gets left behind in a lot of these debates is that the majority of the experts who debate creationists just happen to be biologists of one form or another. They are smart not to speak about subjects, namely astronomy, about which they know fairly little. That's more than I can say about creationists!
Maybe people use evolution rather then astronomy to counter young earth creationists claims because we can relate better to living things then huge celestial objects that are far, far away.
Secondly, the story of the creation of man and the original sin is very important to religious people, because without original sin there is not that much of need for a saviour.
Then Why I said that they are wrong using that particular verse on the Bible (Joshua 10:12)
First Joshua doesn't know about the facts that
the earth are revolving around the sun not the sun around the earth.
Second since they don't know too much about astronomy they believe that the sun is the one revolving around the earth, so if God said to Joshua (you are wrong) do you think Joshua immediately believe on God?
Listen now. If you say that the people in the bible didn't know things that we found later, then you say that the bible is not the word of God and cannot be taken as valid information. It's an ad hoc excuse; the bible is the truth, but when you find something that doesn't fit, then that specific person didn't know what he's talking about...
It's a comfortable excuse, but it doesn't work. Be consistent; either the bible's true or it isn't.
the Bible say circle, then the other say it is a flat circle if you read it again on Isaiah 40:22 you cannot read a word "flat circle" but it is better to read on old scripture like greek and hebrew.
"..When therefore it spoke of the sun staying his course at the prayer of Joshua, or the earth as being ever immovable, it was assumed that the doctrine of Copernicus and Galileo was anti-Scriptural; and therefore heretical."
Source: Catholic Encyclopedia
Catholic did not really understand the Bible.
A prayer by Joshua
"..Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon."
Either whoever wrote it didn't know what to write (and if that's the case, then some word of god it is..) or God himself wasn't sure, OR God meant for us to get confused.
Now, there's another point about this: Joshua prayed, but God listened, and it is written in that episode that the heavens "listened" and "obeyed"... which means that the bible is SAYING that the sun STOPPED in the middle the sky. Which would only mean that the earth stopped rotating. Which is not only physically impossible, it is *REALLY REALLY BAD* if that happens immediately.
So.... the bible's wrong? The events are depicted wrong?
The problem isn't the facts that don't appear in the bible, it is the "facts" that *DO* appear in the bible.
They're wrong.
And smarterthanthat is my other name (for the other science experiments ;) -- I can't give you a number, but you can't too, that's not the point. The point is that unlike the bible, the scientific method makes predictions along with the theories -- and when those predictions come true, a theory is substantiated.
The bible predicts *AFTER* the fact. That doesn't count.
oh, uhm, correct me if I'm wrong but.. the fact that your dog's name is moosho is .. well.. quite unsignificant, to.. say.. the *SHAPE OF THE EARTH*.
While I would assume that the names of dogs in general can be ommitted from the 'word of god', the shape, behaviour and movement of the earth - should most DEFINITELY not.
..... I fail to see the connection to what I've explained. Other than that, using the bible to prove the bible is circular logic, and doesn't count. Third, the text is so vague, I don't quite get what you're trying to say with the quotes....
Again, your quotes make no sense, and they don't help scientifically AT ALL; bottom line is that we find things out by researching the sky, not by reading that book. The bible *never* gave us information about the universe, other than *after* scientists found it. If we'd have 'trusted it' then you still be living in a flat world (remember Galileo?), believing the sun is revolving around us, and predictions of ANYTHING would be impossible.
"..When therefore it spoke of the sun staying his course at the prayer of Joshua, or the earth as being ever immovable, it was assumed that the doctrine of Copernicus and Galileo was anti-Scriptural; and therefore heretical."
AGain, a circle is flat, a SPHERE is 3-D, and the bible KNEW what a sphere is because it's using the word in other contexts (ball/wahtever). Why would the word of God use an inaccurate description?
And I don't quite understand the quote, what's it supposed to explain...?
Galileo was one of those who discovered that the planet earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around. For centuries the church refused to accept this. You *WOULD* be living on flat earth if it was for the bible.
No, no no, it doesn't need space to expand into, not if it is expanding in more than 3 dimensions.
Even if it does, though, your quote means nothing other than the *EARTH* having foundations (huh??) and ... measureable size.. ((what the heck DOES it mean??))
Besides, the question shouldn't be "why can't we" (because science obviously CAN do a lot more than the bible, hence germ theory, medicine and poor Galileo), but rather "Why can't religion".
IF the bible is God's word, then it doesn't seem God described the universe the way it is.. and explaining things backwards (hence, after science discovers something, finding, how the bible supports it) is not only childish, but unhelpful. Find me *ONE PREDICTION* TODAY that helps us make progress.
Besides, the question shouldn't be "why can't we" (because science obviously CAN do a lot more than RELIGION, hence germ theory, medicine and poor Galileo), but rather "Why can't religion".
IF the bible is God's word, then it doesn't seem God described the universe the way it is.. and explaining things backwards (hence, after science discovers something, finding, how the bible supports it) is not only childish, but unhelpful. Find me *ONE PREDICTION* TODAY that helps us make progress.
A quotation from Marx: "As Marx puts it: "We no longer regard religion as the cause, but only as the manifestation of secular narrowness. Therefore, we explain the religious limitations of the free citizen by their secular limitations. We do not assert that they must overcome their religious narrowness in order to get rid of their secular restrictions, we assert that they will overcome their religious narrowness once they get rid of their secular restrictions."
I am certain you have a valid argument to make, but damn !!! you talk so damn much!!1...get to the point, and the negative comments will be less about your wordiness...lol
I sincerely doubt anyone watches the entirety of your video... images, as well as other videos, other than just your face will help as well...lol
You, your self are close minded mooeypoo. From my understanding, you immediatly disbelieve God because of some science. Just the way others disbelieve some science because they believe in God.
Next time, think of every possible situation. That can be comprehended at a point in time. (p.s. I'm not going to respond to any comments about mine, or any for that matter)
ok heres what we were put on this planet to do: grow up, get layed, and have more children. there i just described evolution we were not put here to chat on youtube for 39 minutes about astronomy. (lose your virginity) there i said it
The purpose for it all is for we as humans to realize we cannot comprehend the mind of God. And to see just how huge and great he is. Also, to keep us entertained by our constant quest for discovery.. otherwise we would have run out of stuff to discover.
So are we to give up? "We can't comprehend the mind of god" (whatever that means) so.. what, really? we stop trying? surely you see the problem I have with this suggestion.
And if the suggestion is just 'there' to 'keep us busy' with discoveries then.. what's the point of the statement in the first place? it's not contributing anything to a rational discussion, and not helping discovering anything new.
That's simply stupid, karenkeil. And a lie. If God didn't want us to know his mind, then why did he write all the books of the bible? He supposedly did it to let us in on the Truth, ya know. Moralising christians claim they know the "mind of God" all the time, that's why they think they have the right to act like judgemental neanderthals. Your just covering up crap with more crap. The question, to the christians, in the end of the video is a really good one. Thanks for that one, moo.
i agree with karenkeil. God has created us so that we submit to him and to reflect upon His creations. the universe is so diverse and wide and there's alot for us to dicover.
Good informative lecture. Will follow other lectures. The creationists have a lot to answer. Coming from a semi catholic/agnostic viewpoint its hard to fight the physics but also hard to deny God. Still bought my latest niece a Noahs Ark moneybox. Isn't the size of the universe awe-inspiring compared to us.
I just glanced through your comments and I think that trondreitan's got it right with his formula v=gt/sqrt(1+(gt/c)2). (At least he definately has the right idea) If there is doubt, we can break it down step by step to check if he is right.
Not to defend the flat earth, but your velocity calculation of the earth accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 for more than a year needs to incorporate the Lorentz equation. Earth would continuously approach the speed of light without ever exceeding it.
Still, though... hehe... we would probably experience at the very LEAST time differentials between us and the rest of the universe, since they claim the rest of the universe is NOT working by these set of physical laws.
That constant 9.8m/s^2 acceleration does sounds like a great solution to space travel's zero-g problem of being able to take a decent crap (among other problems). Only thing is that after a year, we would have to have the technology to clear the way because anything hitting you at that speed is going to vaporize you.
also, srini, I hope to give methods to other people on how to argue against idiotic claims from creationists. While it's true these are facts anyone can get online, most people are too lazy to do their own research....
Sad fact, but.. hey.. if I can help even ONE PERSON stand his ground on the side of facts and not myth, then I've done my good deed.
photographing the sun? that the earth revolves in an elliptical orbit? that the speed of light is 186000 miles a sec? i mean even if someone didnt know all that, theres not much they can do with that information.
The point of my comment is to know why you did what you did.
Watch the beginning again, there's a full explanation. There are hoaxers that strawman science to "convince" people that their foolish ideas are true, and the sad thing is that they're successful.
I did it for the people who are not as aware as you and me, but deserve the chance to know real facts.
I hope it enlightens some people. But personally, creationists dont argue to defend facts, they dont argue for knowledge, they just argue for religion. So even if you tlak physics with them I dont think it would make a difference. Religion and prejudices are more powerful than education or research and that precisely is what would be the root cause for the demise of humanind.
I agree, but sadly, I see way too often people get convinced because of their METHODS of arguments (usually low blows and logical fallacies) rather than their facts. So I hope that by supplying the facts in an easy-to-get way, I can counteract that effect, even if only to a few individuals.
This lecture is not for the creationists, it's for the people they're convincing.
rofl, nice, but technically, by what they're sayin, the moon should've looked more like a pendulum swinging above a flat disk goin at the speed of light (and beyond) in a space that doesn't obey the same laws of physics.
Excuse me. The sun is no different in 2006 then it was in 2007. Or at least it changed in such a miniscual way that it is not even noted. Also planets were never "clumps of rock" When teh sun was created it pulled tons of gasses in with it. These gasses circled the sun. Soon the gasses pulled together slowly. The gasses that pulled in the most became planets.
When you see the picture of Sun in 2007 you would find it is very different from the Sun of 2006. The constant explosions and eruptions happening on the surface of sun is going to explode sooner than we normally think - talking about these planets, planets can be artificially created since these used to be just a giant piece of rock... it is theoritically possible:)
good job mooey - consdr this also this is really intrstng to know that when we look at the Sun, we calc. the distance in our mind from the mass and proportions of our body not by the actual size of the planet Earth which is thousands of times larger than an average human body. So what I mean to say, when we talk about our Earth will be sucked into the Sun or the Blackhole, it won't take too long since the distance is relative to the mass of any object at the same time.
Its so good to see a young person who is interested in something so worthwhile as astronomy, physics and mathematics. Keep on going, and I'm sure you're on your way to an amazing career and life in this field!
Its good to see that there is someone else who is thinking about our universe, and what is going on around about us, especially from a physical science and mathematical point of view.
why is physics not used to argue religious faith? because the argument is not a rational one. faith is not based on rational proof by definition.
why would a god creat many universes and so many celestial objects that humans observe on earth?
because he is very very bored. he is running many parallel experiments in order to impress his professor. god is a teaching assistant to an even greater being.
nice job explaining some basics of astronomy in a way that can be easily grasped.
Yes, but we DO argue using evolution, which is rational as well. Besides, the argument is not against the evangelist, it's to counter his arguments so that those who don't know how to THINK straight have another POV and are not just convinced out of ignorance. That's a worthy cause too... :)
Very impressive. I think you could have cleared up some of it by doing more pre-writing, because you backtrack a bit too much. Maybe actually write a script. It would also help stop a lot of "Ums"
I think I have identified somekind of worm-hole on Google.sky by pure random browsing of a particular section of space. PM me if you want coordinates and maybe you could explain what it is for me. thanks.
Sorry to be politically correct, but anything that exist must exist above 0deg K, and therefore, EVERYTHING emmits light at some wavelength. Stars should be classed as "an object that is sustaining nuclear fusion in its core"....in infrared...even I emmit light!
All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.
Hi! I'm from Spain, and I understood almost everything, you speak very clear. Thank you for collaborating with science, you're doing a great job. As you say, astronomy is an amazing subject and I think people should know about it.
yep yep, good stuff, well spoken and I certainly can relate to your angle about not always jumping into the debates theists want to have. Also for someone to just talk to the camera for half an hour an not piss me off is a real miracle! - Keep it up
hi my name is nicholas Arciero, I am 16 years old and I have watched your lecture and I am most likely the only one of my age to do so, anyway im amazed with astronomy and id like to ask you some questions like, what have you done to get to the point you are at now, what do you do , and what advice can you give me so that i can be in a respectable position in knowing and doing my email is nicka20019 at thanks and if you have TIME then get ahold of me , thanks
Hi there. I'm happy you take interest in Astronomy, it's a great subject (but I'm biased, of course :) about tips, well, I'd suggest going online to badastronomy(dot)com, and to the podcast of astronomycast(dot)com, they're both awesome. Start there, and get see what inside that wide subject you like, and go from there :)
I just descovered your inreresting video, but let me be the devils advocate. Mesuring the speed of light does´t proove that c is the maximum possible speed.
Without Einstein (means with no speed limit) your arguments are somehow wrong.
Measuring the speed of light doesn't prove that this speed is the max speed. Proving it's the max speed is what Einstein did in his theories (a bit too long for a 500-char-limit comment. The argument you put forth is not the one I stated :)
IS THIS A GIRL OR A BOY? I AM CONFUSED........
lesonen1 1 week ago
Sorry but you sound seriously uninformed. I've seen classmates bullshit stuff so similar to this it makes me think that you are also. Also, you regard creationists as if we are aliens or something. Annoying!
Timmymtd 2 months ago
how do you even know time is a linear function? rediculous! man has no idea! were you their at creation? were you there at big bang? no! man does not even know how water works much less creation,, mysteries in front of us they cant explain much less 6000 years ago
ncbookz 9 months ago
i can't decide whether to be a doctor or an astronomer :((
yourteendreamgirl15 1 year ago
goor video!
junior1984able 1 year ago
you are hot
junior1984able 1 year ago
are you a dude or a chick?
ernie5229 1 year ago
@ernie5229 thats quiet obviously a woman
yourteendreamgirl15 1 year ago
What planet do you know that emits it's own light? A planet always reflects light, cus if it emits light it stops being a planet, cus only suns can emit their own light.
biggee316 1 year ago
The time for mankind to honor itself will soon come to and end, all you thought was impossible will be reality...
biggee316 1 year ago
Why would I want to argue with a "creationist," or any fundamentalist for that matter? It would be like having a discussion with a drunk, talking in circles with no regard for logic or common sense - just a colossal waste of time!
cwldoc 1 year ago
No evidence what the fuck are you on about, the evidence is all around us, what other theory do we have that is as believeable as this one, its not like god created the world that a load of old shit
happylolproductions 1 year ago
what the hell is buckteariea?
feefoofii 1 year ago
First of all, U jump from "definition" to definition without defining anything,
"Time is the succession of some events with others" so it is intuitive.
and If Apes "evolved" into humans, how come there are still apes
None of the creatures chose what physical attributes they will have next,
Our creator has specified everyone and everything with their attributes.
The snow leopard was giving his attributes to survive the environment he lives in.
We do not have a choice in our existance,
polarkerr 2 years ago
NERD!!!
sweetlemonade123 2 years ago
isnt it just soo ironic that people make fun of nerds and bully them, but in the end the nerds are ones that become billionaires and shit.
dmravi13 2 years ago 2
I would looooove Niteskygirl to see this ! she is a smart astronomer ( type niteskygirl in google people)
saturnflyby 2 years ago
A couple of questions for you. Do you own your own telescope? If so, what kind do you have? And what is your opinion on the various astronomy publications on the market? Do you tend to read books more, in terms of astronomy?
acs1978aus 2 years ago
Boy you sure talk a lot. do you ever watch your video and see how it puts people too sleep. 29 minutes to explain what would take 2 minutes shows lack of planning and preparation. When science is boring theists will choose god because it's easy just to except a creator then be baffled with science.
MicrosoftsourceCode 2 years ago
Answer to your question about God's purpose for astronomy is worship.
Worship is the adoring acknowledgment of all that lies beyond us—the glory that fills heaven and earth. It is the response that conscious beings make to their Creator, to the Eternal Reality from which they came forth; to God, however they may think of Him or recognize Him, and whether He be realized through religion, through nature, through history, through science, art, or human life and character.
elnino559 2 years ago
blah blah blah blah... blah... blah.....
blah... blah....
oh really? blah.... blah...
hey lets argue/debate with ignorant/innocent people
who have no basis.
yes this is real fun
good night.
jameywcll 2 years ago
Stromolites is the oldest known form of microbial life, it still exist today and it has never been known to evolve into another life form for that matter no types of bacteria have been known to do so. The sudden emergence of complex cambrian phyla shows no evidence of ancestral history as admitted by Richard Dawkins what he reffers to as a delight to the creationist . So you might want to double check that one.
benthemiester 2 years ago
"No evidence"? No. Very scant evidence? Yes. That "living fossils" exist is not evidence against evolution any more than the continued existence of apes means we did not evolve from apes.
Maxdwolf 2 years ago
I don't think you understand the concept of evolutionary theory very well. The neo Darwinist view is that we evolved from a common ancestor of modern living apes, not that we evolved from them directly. There is little physical evidence to support this. If you know of physical evidence, please let me know and I will contact Fred Spoors immediately and tell him I've met someone who can solve this transitional sequence that he has been working most of his life to confirm with little success.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Agree with adelma01, you making me to believe in God=)) All you told was right, but unfortunately for you, PHYSICS is much more than you think you know about physics...
mitrg 2 years ago
Hello beauty,
What do you think about the existence of God? Don't you believe that the complexity of living specious on earth with complex ordered DNA and elements is not a work of a creator? Even how planets and stars behave to each other with certain forces and the fact that we can even calculate i.e. distances between them? Or do you think that's based on coincidence? Do you also think that outside the universe we have the physical rules and laws or like in our universe? ;-)
VirtualBiz 3 years ago
haha you don't want to bore me? too late.
omg you are making me want to believe in god, ciao
adelma01 3 years ago
Whoah when did they invent this astronomy thing?
adelma01 3 years ago
if you are all 4 astronomy, than I'm not! LOLOLOLOLOL
subzero810 3 years ago
whats with the strange accent??? and i agree with ashan555...
moomoo1999 3 years ago
are u a boy or girl
ashan5555555555 3 years ago
Are you a troll or simply retarded?
Maxdwolf 2 years ago
Magnificent closing thought.
sutphin281 3 years ago
Thank you very much for the lecture. you are a very good teacher. i love your glasses too!
amasomah 3 years ago
Also, if we lose the ozone/atmosphere, we lose the water, I think... yes? If that is the case, how did the atmosphere form when more dangerous gases were supposed to be on the earth that would've destroyed the ozone layer, and how did that layer form when the sun would've been getting rid of the water like Mars? The bible said the earth was formed before the sun, how do you see it?
Lastly, you're cute; and this is my friend's account; mine is pixelsword. My friend likes you, too. :D
kermitdfrogz 3 years ago
youre cute? are you kidding? she hideous ha...plus shes french
pjharr 3 years ago
« If that is the case, how did the atmosphere form »
Outgassing of the cooling planet continually renewed the atmospheric content. On top of that, chemical processes due to geological activity (vulcanism) contributed to its composition, and solar radiation as well. It is thought that a significant percentage of the nitrogen in our atmosphere was actually the result of radiation hitting the atmosphere.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
Evolution is false. Megafauna has never been replaced from the Ice age, neither are there examples currently of megafauna. Things can't evolve, everything only has a genetic range; that's why you can breed every type of dog trait within a few generations of wolves, or when domesticated pigs are let out into the wild, they regain all of their wild pig traits within one generation against "thousands" of years of breeding.
Like protoavis; can't say why a fully formed bird existed before dinos did.
kermitdfrogz 3 years ago
alterations to an organism's structure cannot fabricate themselves "within one generation"
LDKronik 3 years ago
What if God made it so, that we can calculate and observe our butts off, but we will only see that he made everything "old", so he is giggling at us tiny ones thinking we have found it all out? hehe... just a thought experiment.. But presuming he is omipotent it would present no problem to him to make real good stage sets for us..
Kenzofeis 3 years ago
This rings of the argument known as 'Maxwell's Demon', from an Informational/Physical view, creating a God would involve creating a universe of a greater complexity than our own. Who ordered that? Adopting dualistically foundationed arguments leads to a never ending conversation...and thats what its all about, right?
britri17 3 years ago
If you don't play with ideas you may get stuck in dogma's ;P
Kenzofeis 3 years ago
Play is ok, but there comes a time to move from alphabet blogs and peekaboo to more complex toys and games.
Maxdwolf 2 years ago
yes, she may sound arrogant from a particular frame of reference, but academic science and medicine is full of arrogant people, and at the same time full of really lovely people, often with humility.
acs1978au 3 years ago
scepticism and truth are often mistaken for arrogance, as it often challenges and shakes peoples' belief systems to the core, as she so eloquently does here. its so much easier and less effort to believe in creationism and intelligent design, as it poses no challenge to our minds. we simply accept something because we are told to by some authority. However, understanding empirical proof and pure unadulterated science is much more of a challenge to our tiny, unevolved minds.
acs1978au 3 years ago
Although I agree with you, I couldn't help notice the extreme arrogance in the way you spoke and expressed. It really annoyed me. Being condescend and blunt isn't the right way to pass your word.
Nice initiative nevertheless. Hope the "speech attitude" got better in the last two years. You sure got potential.
Peace.
alexviseu 3 years ago
Also, for your 2nd question, Stephen Hawking already answered it, he said:
"If the universe were slightly different, no one would be around to ask the question."
Lincoln257 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There will never be a straight proven answer to this subject anyways. If there were then we would to be forced to believe something because it is fact. The Bible says God loves us to much to do that, that is why he gave us the choice to believe or not believe. If he forced us to believe and love him that would basically be like rape, and he loves us too much to do that. If anyone can refute this, please do.
Lincoln257 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Gods purpose for creating everything else (supernova's black holes, etc) is beyond human comprehension. Remember God has infinite power and knowledge. I'm sure we wouldn't be able to exist if there were no other stars or galaxies. God is an architect with infinite knowledge, who designed the universe. God gave us imaginations, and if he gave us no stars to see that would be cruel to us to give us nothing to imagine.
Lincoln257 3 years ago
Lunacy
RhinoAts51 3 years ago 2
wow im in love with you.
Ditchpants 3 years ago
i wanna take a stab at answering your 2 questions at the end. 1. we neglect physics because of personal beliefs. 2 (my favorite to answer)god only exists to belivers. to non belivers he didn't creat anything. to those who do believe, i think the bible only states that he created the earth. no mention of him creating anything else(i think). if he did though, i'd say his purpous for creating everything would be to feed our insatiable curiousty for the unknown. that would include aliens too.
runawayloco 3 years ago
carbon dating is i think the only way scientists have to tell the age of earth. as well as the only way to date bones, fossils, and so on. i could be wrong, but as far as i know thats about all. since palentologists/scientologists date dinosaur bones/fossils to be 65 million years+ old, how would it be at all possible for the univers to be only 1000 some odd years old. i think it's the other way around. the universe is infinate years old and the earth being an age we can count too lol.
runawayloco 3 years ago
Do you understand the phrase you typed "infinate years old"
RhinoAts51 3 years ago
uhm yeah i do, wouldn't have written it if i didn't.infinate years old, no other way to say it. you can't possibly date how old the universe is. the universe is both infinate space wise and infinate age wise.
runawayloco 3 years ago
Good lecture. Thought provoking.
God's purpose w.r.t multiple galaxies? No one, absolutly no one can define *perfectly* even the concept of god leave alone expliain why he did what he did. Understanding of "god" itself changes as humans evolve to beings of enhanced intellect and improved knowledge of the universe. However it is probable that humans never fully understand the origin of the universe and life and continue to assume the existance of supreme intellegence/energy we call "god".
vikaskakkar 3 years ago
.....................................
vikaskakkar 3 years ago
oh, no, no, no..
CharlesRClayton 3 years ago
so painful....mooey hahahaha man i fee sorry for that girll....mmmmoooooooeeeyyy
suavehobo 3 years ago
to correct you on one thing.
the twinkling of stars is because the dose of light is never the same at any given time. this irregularity of light causes the twinkle we see. since planets don't emit their own light they don't twinkle. the dose of light is regular due to the fact that its reflected light. so simplely put "stars" that twinkle are actually stars, and "stars" that don't twinkle are actually planets. but you had it very close!! you remind me of myself lol. you know your shit!!
runawayloco 3 years ago
Hey runawayloco :)
Actually, a question about your correction -- I thought (as far as I read, and I have to admit, I am not sure about this) -- that the twinkling of stars is more due to 'stuff' in the way of the light than the actual star 'twinkling'.
For that matter, if I were to get close to one of those stars -- would i see it twinkle (or - would I have any sort of change in light intensity) as opposed to planet's reflection of the same light?
mooeypoo 3 years ago
Also - the planet reflects the light of the star, so if the star 'twinkles' -- wouldn't the reflection twinkle too?
Again, in this subject, I humbly admit, I am not too well versed, and not too sure at all. Any info would be welcome :) thanks!
mooeypoo 3 years ago
now to answer star vs planet questions. here i'm gonna take an educated guess. i don't think planets would reflect the twinkle because light is consistant. if you had a flash light and moved your hand in front of it theres no twinkle but light is obstructed. theres not much that would get in the way of the light hitting the planets as most things are tiny compared to the sun. it would be like a fly going pasted the flash light. so light there remains constant.
runawayloco 3 years ago
Stars appear to twinkle viewed from earth due to earth's atmospheric interference. Leave earth's atmosphere and stars wont twinkle.
puFoNiT 3 years ago
take our sun for an example, it's a star. the solar flares you'd see in photos are the same things we see as the twinkle in the stars. it could be possible that some of the twinkle we see is caused by things in the way but i'm not sure. lol i'm no pro. we don't see the sun really twinkle because we shouldn't really look at the sun directly. if you did, you'd see a vauge twinkle. if you were to get close to another star i'd assume you'd see "solar flares". hope that answers one question.
runawayloco 3 years ago
@runawayloco
Stars twinkle because of turbulence in the atmosphere of the Earth.
chfireball 9 months ago
Why don't you get a pan and cook some eggs?
Americo1974 3 years ago
don't take pictures of the sun! it'll damage the lens
zacharyvince 3 years ago
why are you so pissed off? God existence is irrelevant. Be practical.
Martinscarcella 3 years ago
Is english your secondary language? :D
CatzDaLegit 3 years ago
why earth is on oval orbit with the sun? answer to pm message plz. ^_^
Bmeson 3 years ago
They put the cans of dog food in the same grocery bag as the bread and smooshed it all up...
dethrockk 3 years ago
Well I think the reason astronomy gets left behind in a lot of these debates is that the majority of the experts who debate creationists just happen to be biologists of one form or another. They are smart not to speak about subjects, namely astronomy, about which they know fairly little. That's more than I can say about creationists!
niksanovovic 3 years ago
Excellent video.
Maybe people use evolution rather then astronomy to counter young earth creationists claims because we can relate better to living things then huge celestial objects that are far, far away.
Secondly, the story of the creation of man and the original sin is very important to religious people, because without original sin there is not that much of need for a saviour.
DeletedDelusion 3 years ago
"... which means that the bible is SAYING that the sun STOPPED in the middle the sky. Which would only mean that the earth stopped rotating."
The Bible did not say that the earth stopped on rotating.
"And there was no day like that before it or after it,.."
Joshua 10:14
INCMATD 3 years ago
The original hebrew says the sun stopped in the middle of the sky.
I read it in highschool, actually. In hebrew.
Anyways, again. If the bible has text that's innaccurate, why should I take it as anything other than a collection of mythology.
There are *VERY* interesting similarities-to-truth in the Incan mythologies too.
So what?
mooeypoo 3 years ago
PS:The Bible is not a word of God there is word of Satan here ~_~
Back to topic:
Then what did God when Joshua pray like that,
he did not accept it?
"No Joshua you are wrong the earth is the one revolved around the sun, I cannot accept your pray"
is that so?
God who at sundry times and IN DIVERS MANNERS SPAKE in time PAST unto the fathers by the prophets ,
Hebrews 1:1
INCMATD 3 years ago
Again: Either the bible's TRUE or it ISNT.
IF you expect me to take the bible as an authority, you need to convince me I can trust it.
Obviously I can't... then why bother making it anything other than an interesting myth book?
mooeypoo 3 years ago
Then Why I said that they are wrong using that particular verse on the Bible (Joshua 10:12)
First Joshua doesn't know about the facts that
the earth are revolving around the sun not the sun around the earth.
Second since they don't know too much about astronomy they believe that the sun is the one revolving around the earth, so if God said to Joshua (you are wrong) do you think Joshua immediately believe on God?
INCMATD 3 years ago
Listen now. If you say that the people in the bible didn't know things that we found later, then you say that the bible is not the word of God and cannot be taken as valid information. It's an ad hoc excuse; the bible is the truth, but when you find something that doesn't fit, then that specific person didn't know what he's talking about...
It's a comfortable excuse, but it doesn't work. Be consistent; either the bible's true or it isn't.
mooeypoo 3 years ago
Sorry if my reply got too long. Cause I really busy on my work. But don't worry I'm still read your post.
lets start to Galileo since I cannot write over 500 character ^_^
Yes Galileo discovered that the planet revolved around the sun
Catholic Church did not accept it
and according to them it is blasphemy
(anti scriptural) and they use the book
of Joshua 10:12
INCMATD 3 years ago
κύκλος = sphere, globe, circle
the Bible say circle, then the other say it is a flat circle if you read it again on Isaiah 40:22 you cannot read a word "flat circle" but it is better to read on old scripture like greek and hebrew.
And also it was written by Isaiah
if he write a word circle instead of
sphere then we cannot put a description
about his word circle since we do not know
what in his mind when he said a word circle.
INCMATD 3 years ago
So parts of the bible were written by people (who aren't perfect) and some is the true word of God? How do you pick and choose which is which?
Talking of picking and choosing, eh? ;)
mooeypoo 3 years ago
The purpose of the Bible is not for astronomy
or whatever ^__^ it was written because God loves us.
If the science is facts it will not contradicting the Bible then the Bible
will not contradicting too the facts of it.
sorry for my bad english ^_^
INCMATD 3 years ago
Now you're just preaching ;)
*and* avoiding the problems I've raised with your bible...... comfortable position, but.. you can't possibly expect me to embrace it do you? ;)
Don't worry about the english btw, it's perfectly fine :)
Anyways, keep asking questions; doubt is the most important thing - it leads to more questions, and more progress.
Cheers :)
mooeypoo 3 years ago
"..When therefore it spoke of the sun staying his course at the prayer of Joshua, or the earth as being ever immovable, it was assumed that the doctrine of Copernicus and Galileo was anti-Scriptural; and therefore heretical."
Source: Catholic Encyclopedia
Catholic did not really understand the Bible.
A prayer by Joshua
"..Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon."
Joshua 10:12
Joshua is not an astronomer
INCMATD 3 years ago
So we agree: God's word is vague.
Either whoever wrote it didn't know what to write (and if that's the case, then some word of god it is..) or God himself wasn't sure, OR God meant for us to get confused.
Which is it?
mooeypoo 3 years ago
Now, there's another point about this: Joshua prayed, but God listened, and it is written in that episode that the heavens "listened" and "obeyed"... which means that the bible is SAYING that the sun STOPPED in the middle the sky. Which would only mean that the earth stopped rotating. Which is not only physically impossible, it is *REALLY REALLY BAD* if that happens immediately.
So.... the bible's wrong? The events are depicted wrong?
Which is it?
mooeypoo 3 years ago
Not all facts are written on the Bible,
the fact that my dogs name is "moosho"
and that is not written on the Bible.
So don't read the Bible if you want to know
where you can find all black hole, and what is your name.
Universe teach us a knowledge
and how glory is God.
@smarterthanthat
then give the exact measure
INCMATD 3 years ago
The problem isn't the facts that don't appear in the bible, it is the "facts" that *DO* appear in the bible.
They're wrong.
And smarterthanthat is my other name (for the other science experiments ;) -- I can't give you a number, but you can't too, that's not the point. The point is that unlike the bible, the scientific method makes predictions along with the theories -- and when those predictions come true, a theory is substantiated.
The bible predicts *AFTER* the fact. That doesn't count.
mooeypoo 3 years ago
oh, uhm, correct me if I'm wrong but.. the fact that your dog's name is moosho is .. well.. quite unsignificant, to.. say.. the *SHAPE OF THE EARTH*.
While I would assume that the names of dogs in general can be ommitted from the 'word of god', the shape, behaviour and movement of the earth - should most DEFINITELY not.
Wouldn't you agree? ;)
mooeypoo 3 years ago
@ mooeypoo
Thanks on your video blog ^___^
1.God's Purpose:
a.) "..The heavens[pl.] DECLARE the GLORY of God;.."
Psalms 19:1
*heavens[pl.]
"..To him that rideth upon the HEAVENS of HEAVENS,.."
Psalms 68:33
= 2 Corinthians 12:2
"..a one caught up to the THIRD HEAVEN."
INCMATD 3 years ago
..... I fail to see the connection to what I've explained. Other than that, using the bible to prove the bible is circular logic, and doesn't count. Third, the text is so vague, I don't quite get what you're trying to say with the quotes....
mooeypoo 3 years ago
How many heaven did you know?
I only know two [heaven on earth and the universe]
b.) "..night unto night SHOWETH KNOWLEDGE."
Psalms 19:2
c.) "..this sore travail hath God given to the sons
of man to be EXERCISED THEREWITH."
Ecclesiastes 1:13
INCMATD 3 years ago
Again, your quotes make no sense, and they don't help scientifically AT ALL; bottom line is that we find things out by researching the sky, not by reading that book. The bible *never* gave us information about the universe, other than *after* scientists found it. If we'd have 'trusted it' then you still be living in a flat world (remember Galileo?), believing the sun is revolving around us, and predictions of ANYTHING would be impossible.
GPS, for that matter, would be impossible.
mooeypoo 3 years ago
@mooeypoo
I'm not leaving on a flat world
"It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the EARTH..."
Isaiah 40:22 (Written on 701 and 681 B.C.)
"..When therefore it spoke of the sun staying his course at the prayer of Joshua, or the earth as being ever immovable, it was assumed that the doctrine of Copernicus and Galileo was anti-Scriptural; and therefore heretical."
Source: Catholic Encyclopedia
INCMATD 3 years ago
AGain, a circle is flat, a SPHERE is 3-D, and the bible KNEW what a sphere is because it's using the word in other contexts (ball/wahtever). Why would the word of God use an inaccurate description?
And I don't quite understand the quote, what's it supposed to explain...?
Galileo was one of those who discovered that the planet earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around. For centuries the church refused to accept this. You *WOULD* be living on flat earth if it was for the bible.
mooeypoo 3 years ago
2. WHY DID GOD MAKE UNIVERSE SO BIG?
a.) Is it true that the universe is an ever expanding
universe?
If the universe are continue to expanding, then it
need a space which is expanding too! "Where wast thou when I laid the FOUNDATIONS
of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the MEASURES thereof, if thou
knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?"
Job 38:4 - 5
It has a measure.
INCMATD 3 years ago
No, no no, it doesn't need space to expand into, not if it is expanding in more than 3 dimensions.
Even if it does, though, your quote means nothing other than the *EARTH* having foundations (huh??) and ... measureable size.. ((what the heck DOES it mean??))
mooeypoo 3 years ago
b.) If the universe has a measure, then why we
cannot measured it? For as the HEAVENS are HIGHER than the earth,
so are MY WAYS higher than your ways, and MY
THOUGHTS than your thoughts.
Isaiah 55:9
God made it so big to teach us something
INCMATD 3 years ago
We can. We know how far things are, we just always expand our knowledge. Much better than remaining relying on a false account from 2000 years ago.
smarterthanthat 3 years ago
Besides, the question shouldn't be "why can't we" (because science obviously CAN do a lot more than the bible, hence germ theory, medicine and poor Galileo), but rather "Why can't religion".
IF the bible is God's word, then it doesn't seem God described the universe the way it is.. and explaining things backwards (hence, after science discovers something, finding, how the bible supports it) is not only childish, but unhelpful. Find me *ONE PREDICTION* TODAY that helps us make progress.
mooeypoo 3 years ago
Besides, the question shouldn't be "why can't we" (because science obviously CAN do a lot more than RELIGION, hence germ theory, medicine and poor Galileo), but rather "Why can't religion".
IF the bible is God's word, then it doesn't seem God described the universe the way it is.. and explaining things backwards (hence, after science discovers something, finding, how the bible supports it) is not only childish, but unhelpful. Find me *ONE PREDICTION* TODAY that helps us make progress.
mooeypoo 3 years ago
you are awesome!!!
what the world needs more of is science!!!
i'm going to check out more of your vids when i have the chance
ronmackay 3 years ago
are you a boy or a girl?
SKATERwithHEART 3 years ago
A quotation from Marx: "As Marx puts it: "We no longer regard religion as the cause, but only as the manifestation of secular narrowness. Therefore, we explain the religious limitations of the free citizen by their secular limitations. We do not assert that they must overcome their religious narrowness in order to get rid of their secular restrictions, we assert that they will overcome their religious narrowness once they get rid of their secular restrictions."
decameron2 4 years ago
Greetings from Turkey, Istanbul. Thanks a lot. That was brilliant! You dominate the subject and the fluent way you give the lecture is awesome.
Yes, I agree with you: The atheists must use physics for their arguments.
Your video proves that it is very difficult to be religious once you have a scientific vision.
decameron2 4 years ago
I am certain you have a valid argument to make, but damn !!! you talk so damn much!!1...get to the point, and the negative comments will be less about your wordiness...lol
I sincerely doubt anyone watches the entirety of your video... images, as well as other videos, other than just your face will help as well...lol
Felixelguapo 4 years ago
you really love the sound of your voice, don't you? Your aim is worth anyway
unideanet 4 years ago
im 3 minutes 33 seconds in and yu talk to much .....aint to the point yet...damn
econtax 4 years ago
You, your self are close minded mooeypoo. From my understanding, you immediatly disbelieve God because of some science. Just the way others disbelieve some science because they believe in God.
Next time, think of every possible situation. That can be comprehended at a point in time. (p.s. I'm not going to respond to any comments about mine, or any for that matter)
XeroHeroes 4 years ago
mind you, I don't "immediately disbelief".. I looked - and still am looking - for viable evidence. I just didn't find any.
I'm ready to be convinced, if you think you're able, just take into account that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
ok heres what we were put on this planet to do: grow up, get layed, and have more children. there i just described evolution we were not put here to chat on youtube for 39 minutes about astronomy. (lose your virginity) there i said it
rosebudjacko 4 years ago
a very shallow view of life, but if you're happy with that then good luck mate.
acs1978au 4 years ago
I agree Rosebud.
This kid is fucking ugly.
ct0386 4 years ago
suck it bicth
mcsquaredequalse 4 years ago
im the god here
Dakakata 4 years ago
All the critics. Step up to the plate if you think that you can do better. I bet you can't.
acs1978au 4 years ago
The purpose for it all is for we as humans to realize we cannot comprehend the mind of God. And to see just how huge and great he is. Also, to keep us entertained by our constant quest for discovery.. otherwise we would have run out of stuff to discover.
karenkeil 4 years ago
So are we to give up? "We can't comprehend the mind of god" (whatever that means) so.. what, really? we stop trying? surely you see the problem I have with this suggestion.
And if the suggestion is just 'there' to 'keep us busy' with discoveries then.. what's the point of the statement in the first place? it's not contributing anything to a rational discussion, and not helping discovering anything new.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
That's simply stupid, karenkeil. And a lie. If God didn't want us to know his mind, then why did he write all the books of the bible? He supposedly did it to let us in on the Truth, ya know. Moralising christians claim they know the "mind of God" all the time, that's why they think they have the right to act like judgemental neanderthals. Your just covering up crap with more crap. The question, to the christians, in the end of the video is a really good one. Thanks for that one, moo.
frodolf8212 4 years ago
i agree with karenkeil. God has created us so that we submit to him and to reflect upon His creations. the universe is so diverse and wide and there's alot for us to dicover.
cheers
:)
MORTified 4 years ago
Good informative lecture. Will follow other lectures. The creationists have a lot to answer. Coming from a semi catholic/agnostic viewpoint its hard to fight the physics but also hard to deny God. Still bought my latest niece a Noahs Ark moneybox. Isn't the size of the universe awe-inspiring compared to us.
Inthebasketchief 4 years ago
BORING!!
ablytan 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
he looks like my anus
NaSdApHITLER 4 years ago
Do you actually look at your anus?
Maybe the guy knows to much for you.
Inthebasketchief 4 years ago
I just glanced through your comments and I think that trondreitan's got it right with his formula v=gt/sqrt(1+(gt/c)2). (At least he definately has the right idea) If there is doubt, we can break it down step by step to check if he is right.
iviewthetube 4 years ago
Not to defend the flat earth, but your velocity calculation of the earth accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 for more than a year needs to incorporate the Lorentz equation. Earth would continuously approach the speed of light without ever exceeding it.
iviewthetube 4 years ago
true. I stand corrected.
Still, though... hehe... we would probably experience at the very LEAST time differentials between us and the rest of the universe, since they claim the rest of the universe is NOT working by these set of physical laws.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
That constant 9.8m/s^2 acceleration does sounds like a great solution to space travel's zero-g problem of being able to take a decent crap (among other problems). Only thing is that after a year, we would have to have the technology to clear the way because anything hitting you at that speed is going to vaporize you.
iviewthetube 4 years ago
Actually I am a proponent of the Earth SUCKS theory, one in which object are vacuumed/sucked to the earth at an acceleration rate of 9.8m/s^2.
iviewthetube 4 years ago
i think you're hotter than a box of rocks. good job and am looking forward to watching all your lectures.very funny but serious.thanks!
mickalene 4 years ago
Nice presentation. Thanks.
humairayouth 4 years ago
also, srini, I hope to give methods to other people on how to argue against idiotic claims from creationists. While it's true these are facts anyone can get online, most people are too lazy to do their own research....
Sad fact, but.. hey.. if I can help even ONE PERSON stand his ground on the side of facts and not myth, then I've done my good deed.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
so whats the point of your video? ou havent said anything any lay man wouldn't know.
srini208 4 years ago
I find this information interesting as well, srini, but from the replies that this video received -- apparently NOT any layman would know this.
What's the point of your comment?
mooeypoo 4 years ago
photographing the sun? that the earth revolves in an elliptical orbit? that the speed of light is 186000 miles a sec? i mean even if someone didnt know all that, theres not much they can do with that information.
The point of my comment is to know why you did what you did.
srini208 4 years ago
Watch the beginning again, there's a full explanation. There are hoaxers that strawman science to "convince" people that their foolish ideas are true, and the sad thing is that they're successful.
I did it for the people who are not as aware as you and me, but deserve the chance to know real facts.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
I hope it enlightens some people. But personally, creationists dont argue to defend facts, they dont argue for knowledge, they just argue for religion. So even if you tlak physics with them I dont think it would make a difference. Religion and prejudices are more powerful than education or research and that precisely is what would be the root cause for the demise of humanind.
srini208 4 years ago
I agree, but sadly, I see way too often people get convinced because of their METHODS of arguments (usually low blows and logical fallacies) rather than their facts. So I hope that by supplying the facts in an easy-to-get way, I can counteract that effect, even if only to a few individuals.
This lecture is not for the creationists, it's for the people they're convincing.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
nice glasses.
'buckateria'! :-)
srini208 4 years ago
you dont know what your talking about at all.
Benthedrummer 4 years ago
lol, If Earth were flat and accelerating, the Moon would be orbiting an elivator.
PerfectBlindness 4 years ago
rofl, nice, but technically, by what they're sayin, the moon should've looked more like a pendulum swinging above a flat disk goin at the speed of light (and beyond) in a space that doesn't obey the same laws of physics.
Very reasonable.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Excuse me. The sun is no different in 2006 then it was in 2007. Or at least it changed in such a miniscual way that it is not even noted. Also planets were never "clumps of rock" When teh sun was created it pulled tons of gasses in with it. These gasses circled the sun. Soon the gasses pulled together slowly. The gasses that pulled in the most became planets.
bloodyhawk2000 4 years ago
When you see the picture of Sun in 2007 you would find it is very different from the Sun of 2006. The constant explosions and eruptions happening on the surface of sun is going to explode sooner than we normally think - talking about these planets, planets can be artificially created since these used to be just a giant piece of rock... it is theoritically possible:)
askjami 4 years ago
good job mooey - consdr this also this is really intrstng to know that when we look at the Sun, we calc. the distance in our mind from the mass and proportions of our body not by the actual size of the planet Earth which is thousands of times larger than an average human body. So what I mean to say, when we talk about our Earth will be sucked into the Sun or the Blackhole, it won't take too long since the distance is relative to the mass of any object at the same time.
askjami 4 years ago
Its so good to see a young person who is interested in something so worthwhile as astronomy, physics and mathematics. Keep on going, and I'm sure you're on your way to an amazing career and life in this field!
acs1978au 4 years ago
Thank you very much :) I am glad I manage to pull others to the enthusiasm (or at least, I hope so ;)
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Its good to see that there is someone else who is thinking about our universe, and what is going on around about us, especially from a physical science and mathematical point of view.
acs1978au 4 years ago
Science and Physics do not necessarily have to conflict with a belief in God. Even Steven Hawking leaves 'room' for God in Science and Math.
I haven't heard about a 12k year argument, that is as silly as taking Noah's age of 800 years literally.
mazzefr 4 years ago
Yes, which is why when someone asks me "Do you believe in God" I reply "Define God".
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Shalom
JamesTCA 4 years ago
why is physics not used to argue religious faith? because the argument is not a rational one. faith is not based on rational proof by definition.
why would a god creat many universes and so many celestial objects that humans observe on earth?
because he is very very bored. he is running many parallel experiments in order to impress his professor. god is a teaching assistant to an even greater being.
nice job explaining some basics of astronomy in a way that can be easily grasped.
peace.
cambridgee 4 years ago
Yes, but we DO argue using evolution, which is rational as well. Besides, the argument is not against the evangelist, it's to counter his arguments so that those who don't know how to THINK straight have another POV and are not just convinced out of ignorance. That's a worthy cause too... :)
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Very impressive. I think you could have cleared up some of it by doing more pre-writing, because you backtrack a bit too much. Maybe actually write a script. It would also help stop a lot of "Ums"
nickdude9110 4 years ago
I think I have identified somekind of worm-hole on Google.sky by pure random browsing of a particular section of space. PM me if you want coordinates and maybe you could explain what it is for me. thanks.
geogenerated 4 years ago
Sorry to be politically correct, but anything that exist must exist above 0deg K, and therefore, EVERYTHING emmits light at some wavelength. Stars should be classed as "an object that is sustaining nuclear fusion in its core"....in infrared...even I emmit light!
pjholl 4 years ago
Check out Bill Hicks:) Your a bit younger, so you might have missed him.. google him, or youtube search him:)
zysin5 4 years ago
All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.
zysin5 4 years ago
It should be noted that not all physicists believe light is both a particle and a waveform. Some physicists think it only as waveforms.
weboh2 4 years ago
Hi! I'm from Spain, and I understood almost everything, you speak very clear. Thank you for collaborating with science, you're doing a great job. As you say, astronomy is an amazing subject and I think people should know about it.
Congratulations!
P.S.: nicka20019, I'm 15 :)
xobenick 4 years ago
yep yep, good stuff, well spoken and I certainly can relate to your angle about not always jumping into the debates theists want to have. Also for someone to just talk to the camera for half an hour an not piss me off is a real miracle! - Keep it up
Iskra100 4 years ago
Thank you very much! I'm happy every time someone takes interest in science, and astronomy specifically (of course :)
Thanks again :)
mooeypoo 4 years ago
you look like a bookworm chick and sounds like one too.
tehStig 4 years ago
Proud to be guilty.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
hi my name is nicholas Arciero, I am 16 years old and I have watched your lecture and I am most likely the only one of my age to do so, anyway im amazed with astronomy and id like to ask you some questions like, what have you done to get to the point you are at now, what do you do , and what advice can you give me so that i can be in a respectable position in knowing and doing my email is nicka20019 at thanks and if you have TIME then get ahold of me , thanks
NICKA20019 4 years ago
Hi there. I'm happy you take interest in Astronomy, it's a great subject (but I'm biased, of course :) about tips, well, I'd suggest going online to badastronomy(dot)com, and to the podcast of astronomycast(dot)com, they're both awesome. Start there, and get see what inside that wide subject you like, and go from there :)
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Great job. How about dimensions and how they relate to what is observed.
reality2guy 4 years ago
Very interesting video.
ganstergirl5516 4 years ago
I feel small....
And now I want a telescope. Thanks Moo I will watch more off your videos. You explain very well.
tadstar 4 years ago
if you had used some pictures drawings on white board it would have been more effective
Kapoor43 4 years ago
Yeah, I don't have one, but I am trying to see how I can replace it.. either some effects or some paper.. Thanks :)
mooeypoo 4 years ago
I just descovered your inreresting video, but let me be the devils advocate. Mesuring the speed of light does´t proove that c is the maximum possible speed.
Without Einstein (means with no speed limit) your arguments are somehow wrong.
zigozagoilmago 4 years ago
Measuring the speed of light doesn't prove that this speed is the max speed. Proving it's the max speed is what Einstein did in his theories (a bit too long for a 500-char-limit comment. The argument you put forth is not the one I stated :)
mooeypoo 4 years ago