I am no scientist. And scientific terms can be difficult for me to understand. But it makes sense, But you still going to have morons, and USA is full of them, "denying" the evidence for the Big Bang. Am I right, Mr Rick Perry of Texas? Am I right, Mr Rush Limbaugh, fat idiot?
Got to take you on one thing, though, Phil. In the intro you say, "The theory does NOT say the universe comes from nothing...". In fact, that begs the title of the physicist Lawrence Krauss' new book, "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing". The Lambda_CDM theory starts with an empty universe (no space, no time, just the omnipresent quantum foam).
@philhellenes: True enough. Yet is is neither matter or energy; it is the substrate that quantum interaction happens against, and I don't know enough to talk about it. Perhaps after I get a copy of Krauss' book. Cheers.
They tried everything they could (including removal of pigeon shit) from their radio telescope to eliminate background noise (3K 'noise'). so that they could 'get on' with their work. Meanwhile another team was desperately LOOKING for the 3K which Penzias & Wilson had inadvertently discovered.
Similar to Michelson&Morley looking for Aether and not finding it - but continuing to look - (Einstein: "Hey guys - perhaps its not there.").
Hey guys can anyone tell me how we measure the ages of the white dwarfs? Also how is the temperature of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation Measured?
@mikebaxtersc5 ok its quite complicated but if you really want to learn - look up Hubble's Law. It involves looking at how much stars and galaxies are red-shifted.
@mikebaxtersc5: I'm not sure there is a method for determining the age of white dwarfs. In particular, they can spend a long, long time as dwarfs, slowly cooling off.
As for the CMBR, that temperature is directly measurable; in fact, that is exactly what the WMAP satellite does, determining microwave levels and using a black body radiation model to determine the temperatures; it does that very precisely for many, many points in the celestial sphere around it.
Just wandering if there's anything known (or estimated) about what was there prior to the big bang, is there any hypothesis? are there any predictions to be confirmed?
@PRJking I'm not a scientist or an expert or anything, but from what I understand there was no "before the big bang." Time and space began with the big bang. At 10^-46 seconds or something there "was." You would have to go to 20^-46 seconds for there to have been a "before" and there wouldn't have been much of it. This is all math of course - I'm terrible with math. So, somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
@PRJking There are multiple theories. It may never be known what was before (if there was anything before). There is no consensus or conjecture as to wether there was or wasn't anything before the event which resulted in the formation of this universe (which is commonly called the 'Big Bang', although the Big Bang is not just the starting point (singularity) but also the period afterwards).
Search for 'Timeline Of The Big Bang' on wikipedia.
I'm aware of the big bang being the best explanation of the expenssion of the universe and that cosmologists knows exactly the results of that event.
Just wandering what do scientists believe about the situation "before" it.
There are also interesting questions about parallel universes or other big bangs but these are just phylosofical issues, there's no solid explanation to that.
@PRJking It's all theoretical (when we approach the period before the singularity, wether there was or wasn't a 'before', etc), and it might always be like that.
I'm not sure wether finding out what happened 'before' (or, in the very beginning, depending on how you look at it and what you believe) would give us insight as to what's happening now. It could give us an idea of what may happen in the future, but we would not exist at that time, so I can't see any reason for knowing that, either.
@PRJking: String theorists have some ideas, but that is all they are, is ideas based on requirements of their theory about matter. Very, very tentative.
Thank you, I didnt know much about the big bang and I can now say I belive in it. Although that feeling of realisation didnt give me the pre-mentioned euphoria you mentioned =p .
It's impossible for a 10 minute video to take you from "I didn't know much" to being almost certain. You shouldn't be convinced about ANYTHING by a ten-minute video. It took me several books to get there, several different concepts and the way they inter-relate (you need some atomic understanding too).
Try some books listed in the notes section under the video. I can't guarantee it will "hit" you if you do, but I doubt it can if you don't.
@philhellenes yeah, I have to admit that I'm quite new to all of this stuff. While I've been an atheist for years its only in the past month or so that I've began to explore it in depth, and everything only strengthens my philosophical outlooks on life and morals ect. I will take a look at those books and i have some atomic understanding but i plan on improving this as well, thanks for your help. Also I'm 18 =).
The hypothetical dark energy field violates one of the best-tested laws of physics--the conservation of energy and matter, since the field produces energy at a titanic rate out of nothingness. To toss aside this basic conservation law in order to preserve the Big Bang theory is something that would never be acceptable in any other field of physics.
Your conclusion is a bit premature; we don't have any idea of what "dark energy" actually *is* yet. At the present, it's just a name we give to whatever it is that is accelerating the expansion of the Universe. The Universe is expanding; gravity should be slowing down that expansion. But what we observe instead is that the expansion rate is *speeding up*. Why? We don't know, but we call it dark energy. It's too early to claim it "violates the laws of physics".
@pseudorandomly So we don´t know what dark matter is although it could constitute 83% of matter in the know universe, we don´t know what or how dark energy works and we don´t know why things are expanding, but we do know that something blew up and started it off:) seems a bit of a simple assumption imo. Maybe all matter floats on a sea of dark matter, with the dark energy flowing through everything gives it lfe in some way, and the expansion and contraction is it breathing. Just as believable:)
The difference, of course, is that we have observational evidence and extrapolation from known physical law to back up our ideas of dark matter and dark energy. Your "just as believable" story is merely New Age handwaving. Yes, the Big Bang is a simple idea -- the Universe is expanding; therefore it was smaller in the past. Go back in time far enough, and everything meets at a single point. There's no compelling reason to think it was any more complicated than that.
@pseudorandomly But maybe the universe is expanding then contracting in a steady way, and wasn´t a singularity in the past. The problem here is the human failure to comprehend eternity. Everything has to have started somewhere, does it? Maybe time doesn´t exist outside our solar system bubble.
But that's not what the observational evidence says. According to observation, the expansion of the Universe is *speeding up*; there's simply no evidence or physics that points to the possibility of it every contracting again. I don't think there's any failure to comprehend eternity, but how is that relevant? And time most definitely exists outside our solar system; things *change* out there, whether it's binary star orbits or distant supernova explosions.
@pseudorandomly There´s a main problem here, we havn´t been about long enough to know whether the expansion contraction is a continues thing so we don´t know. And viewing galaxies and stars who´s light has taken billions of years to get here doesn´t help as they probably no longer even exist. Ok the red shift shows they were moving away then. As for time outside the solar heliosphere, have we been there? Time dilation is weird and we are moving very fast in space, around the galaxy core,sun etc.
Sigh -- this is getting tiresome. I'm talking physics and observations, and you're talking woo. Time dilation may be "weird", but we understand it perfectly well. Whether the stars observed billions of years in the past still exist now is irrelevant to the observation. To be sure, we don't KNOW to a dead certainty that the expansion will continue, but there's no hint in physics of anything that will stop it. We don't KNOW it won't all disappear tomorrow at 3:45 pm, either ...
Thank you so much. You just explained what my text book could not. I suppose you could say that you dumbed it down a little, but I think that's how people learn. Now I can go back to my more complicated text book and learn even more. Also, I don't see why everyone thinks this particularly proves or disproves God. The church I grew up in always said that God does things naturally, through the laws of the universe. There's plenty of room for God AND science.
@rockkong1 I know right? Why do people think that just because one believes in God, it makes them unintelligent? It's not like we go around calling athiests stupid! Why can't we just look past it?
@rockkong1 Thats interesting because if you actually calculate the timeline of births/deaths listed in the bible and then historical events leading at the end of those the bible essentially says the Earth is between 6000-10,000 years old. I hardly think the bible is right, thus the Christian god is most likely non-existent.
@rockkong1 I don't know exactly. Perhaps there are some physics to do with particulate floating in space gathering due to gravitational pull or something similar to that.
@rockkong1 Earth ,On how the earth was formed , Its almost a 100 page or even more bigger explanation ,So think about asking such questions here , Read it in a book , We pretty accurately know how the solar system came up , Science is not negative about anything , It just studies the truth and if religion called something that is true "untrue" Isn't religion the one being wrong ? Evolution is excepted in every country and every education ,Religion denies it ,Why ?
@rockkong1 If you think Science is Atheism ? , your wrong ,Its truth and knowledge that we need to know to live , and to survive , Religion teaches negative things , many times . Science is a necessity whereas religion is not
Sure there's a good argument for it, but scientists/physicists etc have gotten it wrong before. In 100 years there may just be another more convincing theory that explains everything you think demands explanation. One thing is for sure, we won't 'know' in our lifetimes. I love the nature of needing to know, but sometimes it doesn't serve us well. Part of that nature is the thought that 'this is our time and we've got it right'. How can we be wrong?
Just like we can't take theology as absolute truth it would be naive to take a scientific theory as absolute truth. Though this theory is convincing it raises questions just like every theory in science and once we consider the current science as absolute truth thats when we start to end development. If people believe this theory is true they shouldn't blame everyone who don't believe in them to be stupid, and if the people think this theory is wrong they should be convincing and open minded.
@OHHHmar1 Unfortunately it isn't scientists who take science as absolute truth. It's usually theists and those who don't know better who think that scientists do. And those that don't accept something to be true (in the way a scientist means true) are only thought stupid because the either insist upon a ridiculous alternative with little or no evidence to support it (like religion) or because they are stupid.
@OHHHmar1 And truth in a scientific sense can be defined pretty well as 'An assertion for which there is so much evidence that it would be perverse to deny it' (Stephen Gould).
@Orlando2914: The Milky Way and Andromeda (as well as at least a dozen other, smaller galaxies) were all created in close area of space, close enough that gravity overcomes the expansion of the universe ongoing. Since we are all gravitically coupled, eventually all the galaxies in our local group will becoe a single galaxy, and we will also eventually merge with the nearest super-cluster.
The Andromeda Galaxy is a special case that is still close enough to The Milky Way Galaxy, that it still has a gravitational connection to the Milky Way Galaxy, dominating the universe expansion effect.
It is only when we look beyond the local group of galaxies and beyond our supercluster of galaxies, that you see the distant-enough galaxies show Hubble's law with their "lactose intolerance" of the Milky Way Galaxy.
How are the oldest biggest known White dwarfs 13.8 billion years old when the universe is only 13.72 billion years old? Just curious if there was an error...
@MySNsucks923 Notice that I said "AROUND 13.8 billion years old". 13.72 IS "around" 13.8 billion. The various methods of estimating the ages of white dwarves are not going to give accuracy down to TWO decimal places (they are always going to have a margin of error). But white dwarves are "long lived. If the big bang theory is wrong they could have been ANY age (50 billion? 100 billion?). That their age so closely matches theory is close enough to be considered evidence (if not confirmation).
@philhellenes I understand what point youre getting at but I still don't see how the error could lead them to be older than the universe. They had to have had time not only become a star but also die as well. And according to the big bang theory the first stars couldn't have formed for the first ~200 Million years due to the heat and pressure. So if anything they should be no older than 13.5 billions years and that's assuming they became white dwarfs rather quickly. PM to remove character limit?
@philhellenes So I'm just thinking out loud here...but if white dwarfs are 'burned out stars' , that is, stars that have lived their life, how can they only be as old as the universe....don't stars live long lives ? ....like billions of years. Seems to me that the age of the universe must be at least the number of years of a stars life (it's age).. 'before' it became a white dwarf plus the age of the white dwarf.
So if the universe is expanding, at what rate and which direction is the Sun expanding in reference to the nearest star? Or would it be too close to tell a difference.
Gravitational connections dominate the expansion of space at the small-scales of individual stars, individual planetary systems, individual galaxies, and localized groups of galaxies. Not everything is moving apart, only that which is so distant that gravity is totally insignificant.
2 minutes into it and I'm bored. I wish I was more cut out for science. Either way, I trust the scientists with their advanced education more than an old book about a zombie jew.
@theyforcedmetosignup There's a big problem with that. Yes, not everyone is cut out for science (im a writer myself) but in order to achieve personal understanding of life we must look at the evidence and theories we trust. I use to think that the ideas of the big bang and evolution were stupid, but that is because I had theology shoved down my throat as a child. Once I did my personal research, I found them to be quite factual.
You can't trust accept something with out looking into it.
How does time dilation play out in the big bang? Supposing there was an "observer" one millisecond (our time) after the big bang event, wouldn't the high energy state cause them to perceive the universe much older than one millisecond, and much larger than we extrapolate from today's expansion? If so, does this continue forever, effectively making the universe infinitely old?
The frame at 52 seconds in, where is our planet in that model? If the BB happened 13.7 billion years ago, that would have to be in reference to the matter that is farthest away. For us, where we are in reference to the BB must be closer in space and time. Am I thinking about this right?
@alltoorobot: All places in space are where the BB occurred. Look at it this way: all space (and time, but we'll let that go) was concentrated in a point at the moment of the BB, and it expanded to become all space. No one space moved; it simply inflated from the point. So all places in space are equally the center of the Big Bang.
@puncheex well this is an interesting way to think about it. Using the e=mc squared model, which you thought better to leave out and considering what you mentioned, would you say that time was happening at a fast rate, since energy was very compact and high?
@alltoorobot: Dunno. I'm not qualified to answer. I do know that expanding space violates a lot of the constraints that we normally place upon matter, like exceeding the speed of light. Hubble's law demands that the universe far enough away from us recedes from us faster than the SoL, and this is indeed accepted as the case, so I'm not sure how that leaves time dilation in the expansion, but I would suspect that dilation is likewise unaffected by the inflation.
@MrLive2praise Use the "REPLY" button or "PatchesRips" will not know you've replied.
Why don't you EVER "reply" to the people that reply to you. It's ALMOST as if you don't want them to know you "spoke", like you "whisper" your replies so quietly the other person can't hear you (THAT would be pathetic if deliberate). Either that or you're too stupid to figure out what "reply" means.
U r contradicting urself, because as u have shown the universe is extremely cold. Is u were in space, a fire (just as an illustration) couldn't form due to exactly the coldness, and expect ppl to beleive that in the extremely low temperatures in space, there was a hot origin?
@MrLive2praise: The BB started as an ultra-dense point containing all the materials of the universe. Of course it was hot; heat is the vibration of molecules, and it is accentuated when it is squeezed into small volume. As space expanded, the hot gas expanded as well to fill the space, and according to the ideal gas law it also cooled.
Try letting the air out of an inflated auto tire; you'll notice that it and the valve stem cools noticeably. This is simple physics, discovered in the 1700s.
When a skater jumps he needs the force to get him spinning, which is moving his body toward the side he wishes to rotate. Now, planets don't have arms to get them spinning according to what u said, and no possible way of getting no kind of force to move it.
Miracles have been observed to happen all over the world, there is no doubt they happen, u can't just close ur eyes and hope they don't happen, they do! British mathematician J. E. Littlewood suggested that individuals should statistically expect one-in-a-million events ("miracles") to happen to them at the rate of about one per month. By Littlewood's definition, seemingly miraculous events are actually commonplace.
If statistically we should see a 1-in-a-million event once per month, that would discredit the belief that they are supernatural in origin... I'm not sure where you were going with that one.
@NDLlama1 on the contrary, it is evidence that supernatural things can happen and r not subject to once in a life time chances. The fact that it happens many times does not mean they aren't supernatural, on the contrary, it means that the aren't subject to just happening once.
@MrLive2praise The definition of a miracle is not something that happens one time in a million... that's simply an event that, while relatively unlikely, can naturally be expected to occur one time in a million such events. The definition of a miracle is, on the other hand, something that NEVER happens; something that has a 0:1 statistical probability -- and, in fact, happens in defiance of the laws of nature. For example, a new planet suddenly appearing in our solar system out of nowhere.
@MrLive2praise If it can be quantified as having a statistical probability; "one-in-a-million events", then they are, by definition, NOT MIRACULOUS. You retard.
In order for a planet to rotate, all the planets rotate, thereby a great force would have needed to be present. It is simple logic. So in order for all of these planets, galaxies and other things to be rotating or spinning the energy which caused the big bang would have had to b spinning as well, wouldnt u agree? The laws r observable science, they apply all over the universe. The theory assumes such a beginning.
@MrLive2praise Watch an ice skater start of with just a slow rotation and then draw in her arms and legs. Notice how fast she spins. A "great force" does NOT need to be present, just a "collapsing" one. You say the theory assumes this and assumes that and each time what follows is wrong.
Go get some software called "Universe Sandbox" ($20) and play with a gravity simulator for yourself. You'll see many gravitational encounters that will impart spin to non-rotating bodies.
@MrLive2praise: Actually, no. The evidence is in the Cosmic Background Radiation, and the map of it built up by the wmap satellite. It shows a roughness, a non-uniformity to the big bang that has a lot of consequences in our current universe. That roughness delineates thicker patches spread among thinner, which can grow into the galaxies and clusters we see today. The non-uniformity also causes multiple different rotational momenta for galaxies and stars as they condense.
And please, what laws r broken by God that r not broken by other things? So u see the galaxies and everything else and assume something created it, but it cant b a God, so u assume an explosion made it and I quote: "How the big bang "formed" is NOT clearly understood. What followed (the formation of stars, galaxies, planets etc) IS explainable just with the 4 forces." u do not understand how, yet u assume the 4 forces r the result of something that no one understands. The forces rnt the proof.
@MrLive2praise Is there enough of your brain left to follow this line of reasoning...
God does miracles. Miracles are by definition "impossible events" that DEFY natural law. Do you see how stupid you are being? You're saying your god isn't a god! If your god CONFORMS to natural law then it is NOT a supernatural being and ergo CANNOT be a god!
AND you're essentially saying you understand physics better than Einstein. Or maybe you think he ignored thermodynamics when he accepted the big bang?
The expansion is not explained either, this expansion would simply expand multiples of the same element that exploded. And even if the laws r century old that does not mean it is wrong. Isaac Newton's laws of gravity r older and they r still laws, unchangeable, as well as those of thermodynamics. There is no evidence the universe ever cooled down in such a way.
@MrLive2praise The big bang theory doesn't TRY to explain the expansion, it merely observes that an expansion has taken place and predicts a hot, dense beginning. The theories that deal with cosmogenesis (what caused the big bang) are mostly quantum mechanical in nature, so thermodynamics is not the problem Hovind tells you it is.
Neither Newton nor thermodynamics are wrong in the circumstances in which the laws apply. They are simply incomplete.
@MrLive2praise "There is no evidence the universe ever cooled down in such a way..."
The microwave radiation proves the Universe was as hot as the theory predicts. So, it WAS hot, unimaginably hot. Now...go up into space and stick your hand out of the window for ten minutes. I think you'd find the frozen hand-shaped block off ice on the end of your arm is evidence of some cooling, yes? :)
Newton's ideas on celestial motion still work on many scales. In fact, that's an important part of scientific hypothesis: making sure that the new idea explains problems previously unexplained by the idea it's replacing.
In this case, Newton's ideas on motion did not work in extreme cases -- quantum physics and general relativity explain some of Newton's inaccuracies at the particle level and at light speed, respectively, while still working in the context of his original ideas.
@MrLive2praise wait, are you saying that there is no evidence that the universe cooled? Cause it simple, the more matter that is cramped together the hotter things are, like the center of stars get so hot from the force of gravity that it will start nuclear fusion. But image the WHOLE universe in a tiny spec, the heat would be amazing. Do you have a better theory? I doubt it but if you do please share
@MrLive2praise No, Newtons laws were, like all scientific theories today, approximations. Approximations of laws are theories that approach the truth. As science grows, the approximations come closer and closer to how things really are. All science and known laws are falsifiable, all science is tentative, meant to be built and improved upon. Newtons laws were right and described things, but since then researchers have dramatically improved upon physics since then.
@MrLive2praise It is so funny when religious people make vain attempts to sound intelligent. They make fools of themselves and provide entertainment for the truly informed and intelligent.
Neither does it explain how all the explosions we see today, don't organize nor create anything. The big bang is subject to natural processes we see today. It was an explosion. Scientists supposedly know how it formed, and the math might b right, I'm not saying it's wrong, but after it's formation, nobody can explain how the rest formed.
It was not an explosion, but an expansion, of spacetime a spacetime "bubble" filled with energy. As the space expanded the energy density dropped (the Universe cooled). If "explosions" were bubbles of spacetime with enough energy, they WOULD internally self-organise, given time. Even your last point was completely wrong. How the big bang "formed" is NOT clearly understood. What followed (the formation of stars, galaxies, planets etc) IS explainable just with the 4 forces.
I agree, it is a very interesting video. But its back to the basics, it does not explain spinning (rotating) planets, galaxies, and other celestial bodies. Nor where the laws came from; and goes against the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Gravitational contraction DOES explain rotation. Thermodynamic laws are 2 centuries old. Quantum mechanics shows some evidence of energy coming out of a pure vacuum (google "virtual particles"). ANYONE can look it up. What's the point of saying ignorant things, pretending to understand what you clearly do not? The scientifically educated know you're wrong. The intelligent and curious can simply check which of us is telling the truth.
So u beleive the energy was never created, because u don't know where it came from. Creationists beleive in creation and beleive God has always been there. Don't tell me urs is science and mine is religion. They r both religion. U beleive, in the beginning energy and I beleive in the beginning God.
@MrLive2praise There is some promising research showing that reality is boiling with subatomic virtual quantum particles which come into existence and out of existence in pairs for very small fractions of time. Here's another video you might find interesting-- watch?v=KQ15kFvUyJg
Basically u beleive everything came from the big bang and that was caused by energy, but u don't know where the energy came from. If I told u I beleive that in the beginning God created everything u will ask, "where did God came from?" I'll say I don't know. So basically I beleive in the beginning God... and u beleive in the beginning energy...
@MrLive2praise Actually as this video /watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo explains a Universe can and will create itself out of nothing, but the term nothing doesn't mean nothing in the traditional sense the video is quite long but will explain in more detail than I can.
Ps not all of the things u mentioned r christian, and btw how do u know they don't work. Its like trying a new food, u don't know if its bad unless u try it. :-D
@MrLive2praise True, the Bible does NOT say it was the first rainbow, but then the Bible was referring to a flood that occurred before the living memory of those in the time the Bible was written. The inference was there. The Bible doesn't say rainbows existed pre-flood. It relies on ignorance. People would see rainbows and see it as proof of God's existence. The writers of the Bible clearly "hijacked" a beautiful, natural phenomenon to deceive people. That's cold, almost sickening manipulation.
Then tell me, what is the observable part? U still have not answered the question, what r the supposed tests done on the supernatural, which u have mentioned earlier. I'll answer when u answer. Finally, u assume there was energy in the BB, but don't know where it came from. U don't know where it came from, but assume it did.
@MrLive2praise The "observable part"? I refer you to the video you just watched (redshifts, background radiation, "baby", amorphous galaxies at distance (as they were only just formed at the time we see them.
"Tests done on the supernatural?" Faith healing, the "power" of prayer, the "power" of holy water, near death experiences, mind-reading, telekinesis, divine prophecy, palm-reading, tarot cards, astrology, the shroud of Turin, plus "God's Covenant" (rainbows).
So let's summarize, matter comes from energy, which no one knows where it came from, and the big bang was run by laws different from the ones we have today. The big bang does not explain the origin of the basics of the universe (time, matter, space). And just because we don't know something does not mean there is not a God. What supernatural claims do u say have been tested? And what were the tests? The big bang is not observable or testable science, it just something ppl beleive.
@MrLive2praise Your last sentence is ridiculous. You don't know what you're talking about. I know it. You might not. This video tells you why and how the big bang IS observable and HAS been tested, and you simply say this is not the case. If this were a comprehension test at school you would not score highly for ignoring all that was said.
Tell me ONE thing in the evidence provided in the video that you think is in error.
Rainbows were supposed to be a miracle from God. They are not.
@MrLive2praise Nobody knows, that is true. There are some theories that impress some physicists and offer possible (we think) explanations, but as physics at that level is beyond me I cannot comment other than to say the ideas exist but are, as yet, untestable. Maybe big bangs are "overflows" from places with different laws of physics. Just because we don't know something doesn't mean we need to posit a god to explain it. No supernatural claim, once testable, EVER passed the test.
If think throughly, the whole universe consist of three basic things: time, space, and matter. The big bang does not explain the origin of space or matter. No one knows exactly from where these things came from. The only thing the big bang explains is the possible origin of time (in some cases). U beleive that at one given time, all the matter in the world was joined together by gravity into a small spinning particle, which then exploded.
@MrLive2praise No. You are quoting an ignorant liar (Kent Hovind). You have been fooled. Don't let him do it to you. There was NO matter in the beginning. Matter forms from energy. Poetically put, matter is "frozen energy". The two are exactly the same thing in different states. Also, there is no such thing as space AND time. There is only spacetime. They are one thing. You cannot stretch space (as the presence of matter/mass does) without also distorting the passage of time in that vicinity.
1. U know where the matter came from, but in point 3 u say that u don't know where the energy came from.
2 & 3. If u don't know how something formed what possible evidence would there be against a supernatural creation.
(I agree that the correct term is not still evolving. Let me refrase it. If what we see around us (earth, animals, etc) evolve, why don't the laws evolve.
2 & 3. We DO know how things form (stars, galaxies, planets, organisms). It's all down to the 4 forces (gravity, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear force). These are natural, constant forces. Nothing "messes with them". So, our best understanding, by not requiring supernatural explanation, suggests the supernatural has no part to play.
Not everything evolves. Colour is a frequency of electromagnetic radiation. You are asking why "blue" doesn't "evolve".
If the big bang really happen and everything evolved afterwards, I have 3 questions: Where did the matter come from? Where did the laws come from? (gravity, centrifugal force, inertia, etc) Where did the energy come from? (and by the way why arent the laws still evolving?)
1. The matter formed from the energy (checkout Einstein's E=MC2).
2. We don't know, but all we know suggests it wasn't via supernatural means.
3. We don't know, but all we know suggests it wasn't via supernatural means.
Asking why physical constants aren't "still evolving" displays a profound lack of scientific knowledge (confusing physics with biology?). They've NEVER changed as far as we know. They are called "constants" for a reason. No fluctuation has ever been observed.
@SoggyPoridge by calculating their make up and heat, a star that is almost all hydrogen and burns blue is younger than a star that has more helium and is burning red or orange, they can calculate how hot a star and how old it is by how much light the star is giving off, look up spectroscopy
Actually, the theory about the origins of the elements, known as the B2FH theory, was developed by the British astronomers Margaret Burbidge, Geoffrey Burbidge, William Fowler and Fred Hoyle in the well-known paper "Synthesis of the Elements in Stars", in Reviews of Modern Physics in 1957, originating what is now the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis, or as Sagan put it, "We are stardust." The Alpher-Bethe-Gamow paper showed what the primordial universe would contain, not how it would evolve.
@SaraCufer: Alpher was Gamow's doctoral student. The Alpher-Bethe-Gamow paper was Alpher's doctoral thesis, and Gamow dragged in Bethe's name strictly for it's pun value, to Alpher's disgust and Bethe's delight.
@SaraCufer: Alpher demonstrated what the primordial universe would contain: 75% hydrogen, 25% helium, traces of lithium, beryllium and boron, as well as deuterium. Nothing else. The B2FH paper showed how all the heavier elements would evolve. In terms of this video, you're right.
@SaraCufer: That's a good question. Alpher was doing his thesis under an adviser; while he is primarily responsible for the work, it's the adviser who brings focus, experience and proper techniques to the research; that is his function. So he certainly shares in the work. To what extent? that is the question, and only answered in individual cases.
@puncheex Thats all baryonic matter. And it only makes up roughly 3.4% or so of the known universe now. We thought the universe was ALL baryonic matter. We were terribly wrong and its absolutely delightful, incredibly fascinating :D Look up dark matter and dark energy when you get some time. Spacerip and Stevebd1 are two excellent channels who also can show you the supporting evidence....and it is giant.
@shkotay: OK, what you say is correct, but to us poor sensually stunted humans, it's a pretty important 3.4%, and it has to be understood anyway, so look at it as a starting point.
@puncheex I also mis-read what you wrote as you spoke of the primodial universe not the current one. I was just in some discussion with friends earlier then this about matter in the universe. And "it's a pretty important 3.4%, and it has to be understood anyway, so look at it as a starting point" is spot on :D Cheers!
Comment removed
40BLASTIN 2 hours ago
I am no scientist. And scientific terms can be difficult for me to understand. But it makes sense, But you still going to have morons, and USA is full of them, "denying" the evidence for the Big Bang. Am I right, Mr Rick Perry of Texas? Am I right, Mr Rush Limbaugh, fat idiot?
Bruno53ification 4 days ago
Wait....whos lukes father?
waslambla 1 week ago
Got to take you on one thing, though, Phil. In the intro you say, "The theory does NOT say the universe comes from nothing...". In fact, that begs the title of the physicist Lawrence Krauss' new book, "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing". The Lambda_CDM theory starts with an empty universe (no space, no time, just the omnipresent quantum foam).
puncheex 1 week ago
... I had just noticed that line; funny how things sometimes just don't register.
puncheex 1 week ago
@puncheex "...just the omnipresent quantum foam." That is not "nothing". :)
philhellenes 1 week ago
@philhellenes: True enough. Yet is is neither matter or energy; it is the substrate that quantum interaction happens against, and I don't know enough to talk about it. Perhaps after I get a copy of Krauss' book. Cheers.
puncheex 1 week ago
I think I just felt that feeling. True brilliance in this video is all I can say.
MaggotKing9 1 month ago
Yup, Penzias & Wilson is a funny story.
They tried everything they could (including removal of pigeon shit) from their radio telescope to eliminate background noise (3K 'noise'). so that they could 'get on' with their work. Meanwhile another team was desperately LOOKING for the 3K which Penzias & Wilson had inadvertently discovered.
Similar to Michelson&Morley looking for Aether and not finding it - but continuing to look - (Einstein: "Hey guys - perhaps its not there.").
myrtlebox 1 month ago
Brilliantly voiced, expertly out together. Thanks for making my lunch break informative. Keep up the good work!
helpmeImbeing 1 month ago
brilliant video, brilliantly explained. good work!
DAVROSS44 1 month ago
Hey guys can anyone tell me how we measure the ages of the white dwarfs? Also how is the temperature of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation Measured?
mikebaxtersc5 1 month ago
@mikebaxtersc5 ok its quite complicated but if you really want to learn - look up Hubble's Law. It involves looking at how much stars and galaxies are red-shifted.
cuckoonest168 2 weeks ago
@mikebaxtersc5: I'm not sure there is a method for determining the age of white dwarfs. In particular, they can spend a long, long time as dwarfs, slowly cooling off.
As for the CMBR, that temperature is directly measurable; in fact, that is exactly what the WMAP satellite does, determining microwave levels and using a black body radiation model to determine the temperatures; it does that very precisely for many, many points in the celestial sphere around it.
puncheex 1 week ago
well what made adam,that made molocules, that made the earth? o_O
moosegod11 1 month ago
"In the Beginning God."
MrHiddin1 2 months ago
Just wandering if there's anything known (or estimated) about what was there prior to the big bang, is there any hypothesis? are there any predictions to be confirmed?
PRJking 2 months ago
@PRJking I'm not a scientist or an expert or anything, but from what I understand there was no "before the big bang." Time and space began with the big bang. At 10^-46 seconds or something there "was." You would have to go to 20^-46 seconds for there to have been a "before" and there wouldn't have been much of it. This is all math of course - I'm terrible with math. So, somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
Ironoclasty 2 months ago
@PRJking There are multiple theories. It may never be known what was before (if there was anything before). There is no consensus or conjecture as to wether there was or wasn't anything before the event which resulted in the formation of this universe (which is commonly called the 'Big Bang', although the Big Bang is not just the starting point (singularity) but also the period afterwards).
Search for 'Timeline Of The Big Bang' on wikipedia.
57worldwide 2 months ago
@57worldwide
I'm aware of the big bang being the best explanation of the expenssion of the universe and that cosmologists knows exactly the results of that event.
Just wandering what do scientists believe about the situation "before" it.
There are also interesting questions about parallel universes or other big bangs but these are just phylosofical issues, there's no solid explanation to that.
PRJking 2 months ago
@PRJking It's all theoretical (when we approach the period before the singularity, wether there was or wasn't a 'before', etc), and it might always be like that.
I'm not sure wether finding out what happened 'before' (or, in the very beginning, depending on how you look at it and what you believe) would give us insight as to what's happening now. It could give us an idea of what may happen in the future, but we would not exist at that time, so I can't see any reason for knowing that, either.
57worldwide 2 months ago
@PRJking: String theorists have some ideas, but that is all they are, is ideas based on requirements of their theory about matter. Very, very tentative.
puncheex 1 week ago
great condensation of info there! thanks.
m4a1rifle 2 months ago
Thank you, I didnt know much about the big bang and I can now say I belive in it. Although that feeling of realisation didnt give me the pre-mentioned euphoria you mentioned =p .
penngbwoiG 3 months ago
@penngbwoiG You must be young. ;)
It's impossible for a 10 minute video to take you from "I didn't know much" to being almost certain. You shouldn't be convinced about ANYTHING by a ten-minute video. It took me several books to get there, several different concepts and the way they inter-relate (you need some atomic understanding too).
Try some books listed in the notes section under the video. I can't guarantee it will "hit" you if you do, but I doubt it can if you don't.
philhellenes 3 months ago 2
@philhellenes yeah, I have to admit that I'm quite new to all of this stuff. While I've been an atheist for years its only in the past month or so that I've began to explore it in depth, and everything only strengthens my philosophical outlooks on life and morals ect. I will take a look at those books and i have some atomic understanding but i plan on improving this as well, thanks for your help. Also I'm 18 =).
penngbwoiG 2 months ago
Excellent video, well done
givemeblowjob69 3 months ago
Comment removed
WeTheFish 3 months ago
Good stuff. Keep it up.
thalohalo 3 months ago
Thank you Mr. Hellenes, although I didn't understand at first, I re-watched it and now it seems crystal clear.
ThePunkAssAtheistKid 3 months ago
Another excellent video...thanks for the information.
mjbailey25 3 months ago
SUBSCRIBED!
zacthebold 3 months ago
white dwarf, lol. nigga dwarf.
5starscream 3 months ago
i watched the whole video
... I still don't get it xD
V00tCruiser 3 months ago
its all because adam ate the apple from the tree of knowleage we no so much today all hale ADAM hehe
gcirc 3 months ago
The hypothetical dark energy field violates one of the best-tested laws of physics--the conservation of energy and matter, since the field produces energy at a titanic rate out of nothingness. To toss aside this basic conservation law in order to preserve the Big Bang theory is something that would never be acceptable in any other field of physics.
bicnarok 4 months ago
@bicnarok
Your conclusion is a bit premature; we don't have any idea of what "dark energy" actually *is* yet. At the present, it's just a name we give to whatever it is that is accelerating the expansion of the Universe. The Universe is expanding; gravity should be slowing down that expansion. But what we observe instead is that the expansion rate is *speeding up*. Why? We don't know, but we call it dark energy. It's too early to claim it "violates the laws of physics".
pseudorandomly 3 months ago
@pseudorandomly So we don´t know what dark matter is although it could constitute 83% of matter in the know universe, we don´t know what or how dark energy works and we don´t know why things are expanding, but we do know that something blew up and started it off:) seems a bit of a simple assumption imo. Maybe all matter floats on a sea of dark matter, with the dark energy flowing through everything gives it lfe in some way, and the expansion and contraction is it breathing. Just as believable:)
bicnarok 3 months ago
@bicnarok
The difference, of course, is that we have observational evidence and extrapolation from known physical law to back up our ideas of dark matter and dark energy. Your "just as believable" story is merely New Age handwaving. Yes, the Big Bang is a simple idea -- the Universe is expanding; therefore it was smaller in the past. Go back in time far enough, and everything meets at a single point. There's no compelling reason to think it was any more complicated than that.
pseudorandomly 3 months ago
@pseudorandomly But maybe the universe is expanding then contracting in a steady way, and wasn´t a singularity in the past. The problem here is the human failure to comprehend eternity. Everything has to have started somewhere, does it? Maybe time doesn´t exist outside our solar system bubble.
bicnarok 3 months ago
@bicnarok
But that's not what the observational evidence says. According to observation, the expansion of the Universe is *speeding up*; there's simply no evidence or physics that points to the possibility of it every contracting again. I don't think there's any failure to comprehend eternity, but how is that relevant? And time most definitely exists outside our solar system; things *change* out there, whether it's binary star orbits or distant supernova explosions.
pseudorandomly 3 months ago
@pseudorandomly There´s a main problem here, we havn´t been about long enough to know whether the expansion contraction is a continues thing so we don´t know. And viewing galaxies and stars who´s light has taken billions of years to get here doesn´t help as they probably no longer even exist. Ok the red shift shows they were moving away then. As for time outside the solar heliosphere, have we been there? Time dilation is weird and we are moving very fast in space, around the galaxy core,sun etc.
bicnarok 3 months ago
@bicnarok
Sigh -- this is getting tiresome. I'm talking physics and observations, and you're talking woo. Time dilation may be "weird", but we understand it perfectly well. Whether the stars observed billions of years in the past still exist now is irrelevant to the observation. To be sure, we don't KNOW to a dead certainty that the expansion will continue, but there's no hint in physics of anything that will stop it. We don't KNOW it won't all disappear tomorrow at 3:45 pm, either ...
pseudorandomly 3 months ago
@pseudorandomly we don´t know sod all really, we just picked up some crumbs and presume they come from bread.
bicnarok 3 months ago
Comment removed
bicnarok 3 months ago
Simply brilliant. However, even if it is "dumbed-down", there will always be those who will prefer to "gravitate" towards the supernatural.
Emaniac69 4 months ago
Thank you so much. You just explained what my text book could not. I suppose you could say that you dumbed it down a little, but I think that's how people learn. Now I can go back to my more complicated text book and learn even more. Also, I don't see why everyone thinks this particularly proves or disproves God. The church I grew up in always said that God does things naturally, through the laws of the universe. There's plenty of room for God AND science.
AdiaKatarina 4 months ago
God created earth
HE MADE THE BIG BANG >_<
rockkong1 4 months ago
@rockkong1 I know right? Why do people think that just because one believes in God, it makes them unintelligent? It's not like we go around calling athiests stupid! Why can't we just look past it?
AudreyAudio 4 months ago
@rockkong1 Thats interesting because if you actually calculate the timeline of births/deaths listed in the bible and then historical events leading at the end of those the bible essentially says the Earth is between 6000-10,000 years old. I hardly think the bible is right, thus the Christian god is most likely non-existent.
CtheWolfe 4 months ago
@CtheWolfe >_< I hate science its so retarded
rockkong1 4 months ago
@rockkong1 Awe cmon science is so cool. there is so much interesting stuff to know!
CtheWolfe 4 months ago
@CtheWolfe Its so negative about god
rockkong1 4 months ago
@rockkong1 Science is not negative about god...... god is just a negative =P
CtheWolfe 4 months ago
@CtheWolfe How do you expect earth exists then -____________-
rockkong1 4 months ago
@rockkong1 I don't know exactly. Perhaps there are some physics to do with particulate floating in space gathering due to gravitational pull or something similar to that.
CtheWolfe 4 months ago
@rockkong1 Earth ,On how the earth was formed , Its almost a 100 page or even more bigger explanation ,So think about asking such questions here , Read it in a book , We pretty accurately know how the solar system came up , Science is not negative about anything , It just studies the truth and if religion called something that is true "untrue" Isn't religion the one being wrong ? Evolution is excepted in every country and every education ,Religion denies it ,Why ?
djay00009 4 months ago
@djay00009 What I don't get is school's are negative about religion and are only aloud to teach atheist crap
rockkong1 4 months ago
@djay00009 What I don't get is school's are negative about religion and are only aloud to teach atheist bull
rockkong1 4 months ago
@rockkong1 If you think Science is Atheism ? , your wrong ,Its truth and knowledge that we need to know to live , and to survive , Religion teaches negative things , many times . Science is a necessity whereas religion is not
djay00009 4 months ago
Sure there's a good argument for it, but scientists/physicists etc have gotten it wrong before. In 100 years there may just be another more convincing theory that explains everything you think demands explanation. One thing is for sure, we won't 'know' in our lifetimes. I love the nature of needing to know, but sometimes it doesn't serve us well. Part of that nature is the thought that 'this is our time and we've got it right'. How can we be wrong?
wavesofenergy 5 months ago
When the video started, and 'A long, long time ago' scrolled up, I sang it in my head to the tune of Don McLeans American Pie.
biggingeryeti 5 months ago
Just like we can't take theology as absolute truth it would be naive to take a scientific theory as absolute truth. Though this theory is convincing it raises questions just like every theory in science and once we consider the current science as absolute truth thats when we start to end development. If people believe this theory is true they shouldn't blame everyone who don't believe in them to be stupid, and if the people think this theory is wrong they should be convincing and open minded.
OHHHmar1 5 months ago
@OHHHmar1 Unfortunately it isn't scientists who take science as absolute truth. It's usually theists and those who don't know better who think that scientists do. And those that don't accept something to be true (in the way a scientist means true) are only thought stupid because the either insist upon a ridiculous alternative with little or no evidence to support it (like religion) or because they are stupid.
biggingeryeti 5 months ago
@OHHHmar1 And truth in a scientific sense can be defined pretty well as 'An assertion for which there is so much evidence that it would be perverse to deny it' (Stephen Gould).
biggingeryeti 5 months ago
where did all the heat and density come from then?
BramWinB 5 months ago
Help explain why Andromeda is moving towards us? Did it get flung out after the expansion then gravity forced it towards us again?
Orlando2914 5 months ago
@Orlando2914: The Milky Way and Andromeda (as well as at least a dozen other, smaller galaxies) were all created in close area of space, close enough that gravity overcomes the expansion of the universe ongoing. Since we are all gravitically coupled, eventually all the galaxies in our local group will becoe a single galaxy, and we will also eventually merge with the nearest super-cluster.
puncheex 5 months ago
@Orlando2914
The Andromeda Galaxy is a special case that is still close enough to The Milky Way Galaxy, that it still has a gravitational connection to the Milky Way Galaxy, dominating the universe expansion effect.
It is only when we look beyond the local group of galaxies and beyond our supercluster of galaxies, that you see the distant-enough galaxies show Hubble's law with their "lactose intolerance" of the Milky Way Galaxy.
carultch 4 months ago
How are the oldest biggest known White dwarfs 13.8 billion years old when the universe is only 13.72 billion years old? Just curious if there was an error...
MySNsucks923 6 months ago
@MySNsucks923 Notice that I said "AROUND 13.8 billion years old". 13.72 IS "around" 13.8 billion. The various methods of estimating the ages of white dwarves are not going to give accuracy down to TWO decimal places (they are always going to have a margin of error). But white dwarves are "long lived. If the big bang theory is wrong they could have been ANY age (50 billion? 100 billion?). That their age so closely matches theory is close enough to be considered evidence (if not confirmation).
philhellenes 6 months ago 13
@philhellenes I understand what point youre getting at but I still don't see how the error could lead them to be older than the universe. They had to have had time not only become a star but also die as well. And according to the big bang theory the first stars couldn't have formed for the first ~200 Million years due to the heat and pressure. So if anything they should be no older than 13.5 billions years and that's assuming they became white dwarfs rather quickly. PM to remove character limit?
MySNsucks923 6 months ago
@philhellenes So I'm just thinking out loud here...but if white dwarfs are 'burned out stars' , that is, stars that have lived their life, how can they only be as old as the universe....don't stars live long lives ? ....like billions of years. Seems to me that the age of the universe must be at least the number of years of a stars life (it's age).. 'before' it became a white dwarf plus the age of the white dwarf.
keythief 1 month ago
Comment removed
MySNsucks923 6 months ago
So if the universe is expanding, at what rate and which direction is the Sun expanding in reference to the nearest star? Or would it be too close to tell a difference.
brizzight 6 months ago
@brizzight The sun wouldn't be expanding from the nearest star. All galaxies in the universe are expanding from each other. Get it?
Nervousification 6 months ago
@brizzight entire Milky Way is moving, not the Sun independant of it surrounding planets
Louie212121 5 months ago
@brizzight
Gravitational connections dominate the expansion of space at the small-scales of individual stars, individual planetary systems, individual galaxies, and localized groups of galaxies. Not everything is moving apart, only that which is so distant that gravity is totally insignificant.
carultch 4 months ago
Damn, look at the size of that WMAP!
Daemonanyndel 6 months ago
2 minutes into it and I'm bored. I wish I was more cut out for science. Either way, I trust the scientists with their advanced education more than an old book about a zombie jew.
theyforcedmetosignup 6 months ago
@theyforcedmetosignup There's a big problem with that. Yes, not everyone is cut out for science (im a writer myself) but in order to achieve personal understanding of life we must look at the evidence and theories we trust. I use to think that the ideas of the big bang and evolution were stupid, but that is because I had theology shoved down my throat as a child. Once I did my personal research, I found them to be quite factual.
You can't trust accept something with out looking into it.
canesrule96 6 months ago
@canesrule96 Yeah bro, but the fact of the matter is, you don't need to be a scientist to know the Bible is full of shit.
theyforcedmetosignup 6 months ago
thank you, you brilliant man, i will take notes from this and use it in my school inquiry.
boygod747 6 months ago
How does time dilation play out in the big bang? Supposing there was an "observer" one millisecond (our time) after the big bang event, wouldn't the high energy state cause them to perceive the universe much older than one millisecond, and much larger than we extrapolate from today's expansion? If so, does this continue forever, effectively making the universe infinitely old?
sparkloweb 7 months ago
Cool vid, what was there pre-bb?
Elektr0House 7 months ago
The frame at 52 seconds in, where is our planet in that model? If the BB happened 13.7 billion years ago, that would have to be in reference to the matter that is farthest away. For us, where we are in reference to the BB must be closer in space and time. Am I thinking about this right?
alltoorobot 7 months ago
@alltoorobot: All places in space are where the BB occurred. Look at it this way: all space (and time, but we'll let that go) was concentrated in a point at the moment of the BB, and it expanded to become all space. No one space moved; it simply inflated from the point. So all places in space are equally the center of the Big Bang.
puncheex 7 months ago
@puncheex well this is an interesting way to think about it. Using the e=mc squared model, which you thought better to leave out and considering what you mentioned, would you say that time was happening at a fast rate, since energy was very compact and high?
alltoorobot 7 months ago
@alltoorobot: Dunno. I'm not qualified to answer. I do know that expanding space violates a lot of the constraints that we normally place upon matter, like exceeding the speed of light. Hubble's law demands that the universe far enough away from us recedes from us faster than the SoL, and this is indeed accepted as the case, so I'm not sure how that leaves time dilation in the expansion, but I would suspect that dilation is likewise unaffected by the inflation.
puncheex 7 months ago
i have an evolutionist-creationist friend. how the how does that happen!!
1009541074brb 8 months ago
@1009541074brb lol.A much more difficult question.
henryporter101 8 months ago
@henryporter101 yeah, she said that she believes in a creator and that humans evolved from monkeys.
1009541074brb 8 months ago
hh
AmaanRuwaydah 8 months ago
just sub'd you. thanks for your time and sharing knowledge :)
chinamanspeakenlis 8 months ago
I'm on an iPod, u can't do reply on an iPod, I'd use it if I could.
MrLive2praise 8 months ago
According to the dictionary (Merrian-Webster) a miracles is:
1 : an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs
2 : an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment
MrLive2praise 8 months ago
@MrLive2praise Use the "REPLY" button or "PatchesRips" will not know you've replied.
Why don't you EVER "reply" to the people that reply to you. It's ALMOST as if you don't want them to know you "spoke", like you "whisper" your replies so quietly the other person can't hear you (THAT would be pathetic if deliberate). Either that or you're too stupid to figure out what "reply" means.
philhellenes 8 months ago 18
@philhellenes Thank you for your videos. They are remarkable and inspiring. Great great stuff.
Jason29n 8 months ago
@philhellenes haha classic.
chinamanspeakenlis 8 months ago
@philhellenes So basically the Big Bang was a really slow process?
WeTheFish 3 months ago
U r contradicting urself, because as u have shown the universe is extremely cold. Is u were in space, a fire (just as an illustration) couldn't form due to exactly the coldness, and expect ppl to beleive that in the extremely low temperatures in space, there was a hot origin?
MrLive2praise 8 months ago
@MrLive2praise: The BB started as an ultra-dense point containing all the materials of the universe. Of course it was hot; heat is the vibration of molecules, and it is accentuated when it is squeezed into small volume. As space expanded, the hot gas expanded as well to fill the space, and according to the ideal gas law it also cooled.
Try letting the air out of an inflated auto tire; you'll notice that it and the valve stem cools noticeably. This is simple physics, discovered in the 1700s.
puncheex 7 months ago
I simply ask, by what means do ppl explain the rotation or spinning of galaxies and planets?
MrLive2praise 8 months ago
When a skater jumps he needs the force to get him spinning, which is moving his body toward the side he wishes to rotate. Now, planets don't have arms to get them spinning according to what u said, and no possible way of getting no kind of force to move it.
MrLive2praise 8 months ago
Thanks ! Very informative video. Well done.
DrShpilev 8 months ago
Miracles have been observed to happen all over the world, there is no doubt they happen, u can't just close ur eyes and hope they don't happen, they do! British mathematician J. E. Littlewood suggested that individuals should statistically expect one-in-a-million events ("miracles") to happen to them at the rate of about one per month. By Littlewood's definition, seemingly miraculous events are actually commonplace.
MrLive2praise 8 months ago
@MrLive2praise Really?
We're done. If you keep spamming the comments section I'll assume you WANT to be blocked for some bizarre reason.
philhellenes 8 months ago
@MrLive2praise
If statistically we should see a 1-in-a-million event once per month, that would discredit the belief that they are supernatural in origin... I'm not sure where you were going with that one.
NDLlama1 8 months ago
@NDLlama1 on the contrary, it is evidence that supernatural things can happen and r not subject to once in a life time chances. The fact that it happens many times does not mean they aren't supernatural, on the contrary, it means that the aren't subject to just happening once.
MrLive2praise 8 months ago
@MrLive2praise The definition of a miracle is not something that happens one time in a million... that's simply an event that, while relatively unlikely, can naturally be expected to occur one time in a million such events. The definition of a miracle is, on the other hand, something that NEVER happens; something that has a 0:1 statistical probability -- and, in fact, happens in defiance of the laws of nature. For example, a new planet suddenly appearing in our solar system out of nowhere.
PatchesRips 8 months ago
@MrLive2praise If it can be quantified as having a statistical probability; "one-in-a-million events", then they are, by definition, NOT MIRACULOUS. You retard.
ShadowxBoi 2 months ago
In order for a planet to rotate, all the planets rotate, thereby a great force would have needed to be present. It is simple logic. So in order for all of these planets, galaxies and other things to be rotating or spinning the energy which caused the big bang would have had to b spinning as well, wouldnt u agree? The laws r observable science, they apply all over the universe. The theory assumes such a beginning.
MrLive2praise 8 months ago
@MrLive2praise Watch an ice skater start of with just a slow rotation and then draw in her arms and legs. Notice how fast she spins. A "great force" does NOT need to be present, just a "collapsing" one. You say the theory assumes this and assumes that and each time what follows is wrong.
Go get some software called "Universe Sandbox" ($20) and play with a gravity simulator for yourself. You'll see many gravitational encounters that will impart spin to non-rotating bodies.
philhellenes 8 months ago 6
@MrLive2praise: Actually, no. The evidence is in the Cosmic Background Radiation, and the map of it built up by the wmap satellite. It shows a roughness, a non-uniformity to the big bang that has a lot of consequences in our current universe. That roughness delineates thicker patches spread among thinner, which can grow into the galaxies and clusters we see today. The non-uniformity also causes multiple different rotational momenta for galaxies and stars as they condense.
puncheex 7 months ago
And please, what laws r broken by God that r not broken by other things? So u see the galaxies and everything else and assume something created it, but it cant b a God, so u assume an explosion made it and I quote: "How the big bang "formed" is NOT clearly understood. What followed (the formation of stars, galaxies, planets etc) IS explainable just with the 4 forces." u do not understand how, yet u assume the 4 forces r the result of something that no one understands. The forces rnt the proof.
MrLive2praise 8 months ago
@MrLive2praise Is there enough of your brain left to follow this line of reasoning...
God does miracles. Miracles are by definition "impossible events" that DEFY natural law. Do you see how stupid you are being? You're saying your god isn't a god! If your god CONFORMS to natural law then it is NOT a supernatural being and ergo CANNOT be a god!
AND you're essentially saying you understand physics better than Einstein. Or maybe you think he ignored thermodynamics when he accepted the big bang?
philhellenes 8 months ago
The expansion is not explained either, this expansion would simply expand multiples of the same element that exploded. And even if the laws r century old that does not mean it is wrong. Isaac Newton's laws of gravity r older and they r still laws, unchangeable, as well as those of thermodynamics. There is no evidence the universe ever cooled down in such a way.
MrLive2praise 8 months ago
@MrLive2praise The big bang theory doesn't TRY to explain the expansion, it merely observes that an expansion has taken place and predicts a hot, dense beginning. The theories that deal with cosmogenesis (what caused the big bang) are mostly quantum mechanical in nature, so thermodynamics is not the problem Hovind tells you it is.
Neither Newton nor thermodynamics are wrong in the circumstances in which the laws apply. They are simply incomplete.
philhellenes 8 months ago
@MrLive2praise "There is no evidence the universe ever cooled down in such a way..."
The microwave radiation proves the Universe was as hot as the theory predicts. So, it WAS hot, unimaginably hot. Now...go up into space and stick your hand out of the window for ten minutes. I think you'd find the frozen hand-shaped block off ice on the end of your arm is evidence of some cooling, yes? :)
philhellenes 8 months ago 19
@MrLive2praise
Newton's ideas on celestial motion still work on many scales. In fact, that's an important part of scientific hypothesis: making sure that the new idea explains problems previously unexplained by the idea it's replacing.
In this case, Newton's ideas on motion did not work in extreme cases -- quantum physics and general relativity explain some of Newton's inaccuracies at the particle level and at light speed, respectively, while still working in the context of his original ideas.
Scurvebeard 8 months ago
@MrLive2praise wait, are you saying that there is no evidence that the universe cooled? Cause it simple, the more matter that is cramped together the hotter things are, like the center of stars get so hot from the force of gravity that it will start nuclear fusion. But image the WHOLE universe in a tiny spec, the heat would be amazing. Do you have a better theory? I doubt it but if you do please share
saxaphonedude 8 months ago
@MrLive2praise No, Newtons laws were, like all scientific theories today, approximations. Approximations of laws are theories that approach the truth. As science grows, the approximations come closer and closer to how things really are. All science and known laws are falsifiable, all science is tentative, meant to be built and improved upon. Newtons laws were right and described things, but since then researchers have dramatically improved upon physics since then.
shkotay 7 months ago
@MrLive2praise It is so funny when religious people make vain attempts to sound intelligent. They make fools of themselves and provide entertainment for the truly informed and intelligent.
uniteordie1 4 months ago 10
Neither does it explain how all the explosions we see today, don't organize nor create anything. The big bang is subject to natural processes we see today. It was an explosion. Scientists supposedly know how it formed, and the math might b right, I'm not saying it's wrong, but after it's formation, nobody can explain how the rest formed.
MrLive2praise 8 months ago
@MrLive2praise
It was not an explosion, but an expansion, of spacetime a spacetime "bubble" filled with energy. As the space expanded the energy density dropped (the Universe cooled). If "explosions" were bubbles of spacetime with enough energy, they WOULD internally self-organise, given time. Even your last point was completely wrong. How the big bang "formed" is NOT clearly understood. What followed (the formation of stars, galaxies, planets etc) IS explainable just with the 4 forces.
philhellenes 8 months ago
I agree, it is a very interesting video. But its back to the basics, it does not explain spinning (rotating) planets, galaxies, and other celestial bodies. Nor where the laws came from; and goes against the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics.
MrLive2praise 8 months ago
@MrLive2praise But God goes against ALL physical law!
Gravitational contraction DOES explain rotation. Thermodynamic laws are 2 centuries old. Quantum mechanics shows some evidence of energy coming out of a pure vacuum (google "virtual particles"). ANYONE can look it up. What's the point of saying ignorant things, pretending to understand what you clearly do not? The scientifically educated know you're wrong. The intelligent and curious can simply check which of us is telling the truth.
philhellenes 8 months ago 2
So u beleive the energy was never created, because u don't know where it came from. Creationists beleive in creation and beleive God has always been there. Don't tell me urs is science and mine is religion. They r both religion. U beleive, in the beginning energy and I beleive in the beginning God.
MrLive2praise 8 months ago
@MrLive2praise There is some promising research showing that reality is boiling with subatomic virtual quantum particles which come into existence and out of existence in pairs for very small fractions of time. Here's another video you might find interesting-- watch?v=KQ15kFvUyJg
hugesinker 8 months ago
Does anyone know the first law of thermodynamics (matter cannot b created or destroyed)
MrLive2praise 8 months ago
Basically u beleive everything came from the big bang and that was caused by energy, but u don't know where the energy came from. If I told u I beleive that in the beginning God created everything u will ask, "where did God came from?" I'll say I don't know. So basically I beleive in the beginning God... and u beleive in the beginning energy...
MrLive2praise 8 months ago
@MrLive2praise Actually as this video /watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo explains a Universe can and will create itself out of nothing, but the term nothing doesn't mean nothing in the traditional sense the video is quite long but will explain in more detail than I can.
ronocko 8 months ago
Ps not all of the things u mentioned r christian, and btw how do u know they don't work. Its like trying a new food, u don't know if its bad unless u try it. :-D
MrLive2praise 8 months ago
It didn't talk bout rainbows before or after the flood, don't mean it didn't happen. Any freshmen law student can tear ur argument apart.
MrLive2praise 8 months ago
Ps the bible never says that was the first rainbow, it simply says it served as the symbol of God's promise to Noah ;-)
MrLive2praise 8 months ago
@MrLive2praise True, the Bible does NOT say it was the first rainbow, but then the Bible was referring to a flood that occurred before the living memory of those in the time the Bible was written. The inference was there. The Bible doesn't say rainbows existed pre-flood. It relies on ignorance. People would see rainbows and see it as proof of God's existence. The writers of the Bible clearly "hijacked" a beautiful, natural phenomenon to deceive people. That's cold, almost sickening manipulation.
philhellenes 8 months ago
Then tell me, what is the observable part? U still have not answered the question, what r the supposed tests done on the supernatural, which u have mentioned earlier. I'll answer when u answer. Finally, u assume there was energy in the BB, but don't know where it came from. U don't know where it came from, but assume it did.
MrLive2praise 8 months ago
@MrLive2praise The "observable part"? I refer you to the video you just watched (redshifts, background radiation, "baby", amorphous galaxies at distance (as they were only just formed at the time we see them.
"Tests done on the supernatural?" Faith healing, the "power" of prayer, the "power" of holy water, near death experiences, mind-reading, telekinesis, divine prophecy, palm-reading, tarot cards, astrology, the shroud of Turin, plus "God's Covenant" (rainbows).
philhellenes 8 months ago
No energy= no big bang
MrLive2praise 8 months ago
@MrLive2praise But there was energy and there was a big bang. :)
philhellenes 8 months ago
So let's summarize, matter comes from energy, which no one knows where it came from, and the big bang was run by laws different from the ones we have today. The big bang does not explain the origin of the basics of the universe (time, matter, space). And just because we don't know something does not mean there is not a God. What supernatural claims do u say have been tested? And what were the tests? The big bang is not observable or testable science, it just something ppl beleive.
MrLive2praise 8 months ago
@MrLive2praise Your last sentence is ridiculous. You don't know what you're talking about. I know it. You might not. This video tells you why and how the big bang IS observable and HAS been tested, and you simply say this is not the case. If this were a comprehension test at school you would not score highly for ignoring all that was said.
Tell me ONE thing in the evidence provided in the video that you think is in error.
Rainbows were supposed to be a miracle from God. They are not.
philhellenes 8 months ago
And without energy, the big bang could not have taken place. And as u said no one knows where energy came from.
MrLive2praise 8 months ago
@MrLive2praise Nobody knows, that is true. There are some theories that impress some physicists and offer possible (we think) explanations, but as physics at that level is beyond me I cannot comment other than to say the ideas exist but are, as yet, untestable. Maybe big bangs are "overflows" from places with different laws of physics. Just because we don't know something doesn't mean we need to posit a god to explain it. No supernatural claim, once testable, EVER passed the test.
philhellenes 8 months ago
If think throughly, the whole universe consist of three basic things: time, space, and matter. The big bang does not explain the origin of space or matter. No one knows exactly from where these things came from. The only thing the big bang explains is the possible origin of time (in some cases). U beleive that at one given time, all the matter in the world was joined together by gravity into a small spinning particle, which then exploded.
MrLive2praise 8 months ago
@MrLive2praise No. You are quoting an ignorant liar (Kent Hovind). You have been fooled. Don't let him do it to you. There was NO matter in the beginning. Matter forms from energy. Poetically put, matter is "frozen energy". The two are exactly the same thing in different states. Also, there is no such thing as space AND time. There is only spacetime. They are one thing. You cannot stretch space (as the presence of matter/mass does) without also distorting the passage of time in that vicinity.
philhellenes 8 months ago
1. U know where the matter came from, but in point 3 u say that u don't know where the energy came from.
2 & 3. If u don't know how something formed what possible evidence would there be against a supernatural creation.
(I agree that the correct term is not still evolving. Let me refrase it. If what we see around us (earth, animals, etc) evolve, why don't the laws evolve.
MrLive2praise 8 months ago
@MrLive2praise
1. Correct.
2 & 3. We DO know how things form (stars, galaxies, planets, organisms). It's all down to the 4 forces (gravity, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear force). These are natural, constant forces. Nothing "messes with them". So, our best understanding, by not requiring supernatural explanation, suggests the supernatural has no part to play.
Not everything evolves. Colour is a frequency of electromagnetic radiation. You are asking why "blue" doesn't "evolve".
philhellenes 8 months ago
If the big bang really happen and everything evolved afterwards, I have 3 questions: Where did the matter come from? Where did the laws come from? (gravity, centrifugal force, inertia, etc) Where did the energy come from? (and by the way why arent the laws still evolving?)
MrLive2praise 8 months ago
@MrLive2praise
1. The matter formed from the energy (checkout Einstein's E=MC2).
2. We don't know, but all we know suggests it wasn't via supernatural means.
3. We don't know, but all we know suggests it wasn't via supernatural means.
Asking why physical constants aren't "still evolving" displays a profound lack of scientific knowledge (confusing physics with biology?). They've NEVER changed as far as we know. They are called "constants" for a reason. No fluctuation has ever been observed.
philhellenes 8 months ago
Glad to see that this has a 97% like rating. Not everyone on youtube is an idiot.
ichigoku322 9 months ago
most underrated youtuber, right here.
JayDawgRox96 9 months ago
How do scientists measure the age of stars?
SoggyPoridge 9 months ago
@SoggyPoridge 8:50 ?
gimmepassword 9 months ago
@gimmepassword I meant more active stars, I guess. Thanks though :)
SoggyPoridge 9 months ago
@SoggyPoridge by calculating their make up and heat, a star that is almost all hydrogen and burns blue is younger than a star that has more helium and is burning red or orange, they can calculate how hot a star and how old it is by how much light the star is giving off, look up spectroscopy
l3ete1geuse 9 months ago
@l3ete1geuse Ah I see! Thanks :)
SoggyPoridge 9 months ago
Comment removed
Tino81295 9 months ago
Comment removed
gimmepassword 9 months ago
Comment removed
Memoryfull89 9 months ago
Actually, the theory about the origins of the elements, known as the B2FH theory, was developed by the British astronomers Margaret Burbidge, Geoffrey Burbidge, William Fowler and Fred Hoyle in the well-known paper "Synthesis of the Elements in Stars", in Reviews of Modern Physics in 1957, originating what is now the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis, or as Sagan put it, "We are stardust." The Alpher-Bethe-Gamow paper showed what the primordial universe would contain, not how it would evolve.
puncheex 10 months ago
The dude in 3:09 looks alot like Stephan Bonner.
tristanv1 10 months ago
I thought Alpher came up with the origin of elements, not Gamow?
SaraCufer 10 months ago
@SaraCufer: Alpher was Gamow's doctoral student. The Alpher-Bethe-Gamow paper was Alpher's doctoral thesis, and Gamow dragged in Bethe's name strictly for it's pun value, to Alpher's disgust and Bethe's delight.
puncheex 10 months ago
@puncheex I know the story, but wasn't it Alpher who came up with the theory?
SaraCufer 10 months ago
@SaraCufer: Alpher demonstrated what the primordial universe would contain: 75% hydrogen, 25% helium, traces of lithium, beryllium and boron, as well as deuterium. Nothing else. The B2FH paper showed how all the heavier elements would evolve. In terms of this video, you're right.
puncheex 10 months ago
@puncheex Well, yes, that's what I was asking.. Didn't Alpher do the things the video says Gamow did.
SaraCufer 10 months ago
@SaraCufer: That's a good question. Alpher was doing his thesis under an adviser; while he is primarily responsible for the work, it's the adviser who brings focus, experience and proper techniques to the research; that is his function. So he certainly shares in the work. To what extent? that is the question, and only answered in individual cases.
puncheex 9 months ago
@puncheex Thats all baryonic matter. And it only makes up roughly 3.4% or so of the known universe now. We thought the universe was ALL baryonic matter. We were terribly wrong and its absolutely delightful, incredibly fascinating :D Look up dark matter and dark energy when you get some time. Spacerip and Stevebd1 are two excellent channels who also can show you the supporting evidence....and it is giant.
shkotay 9 months ago
@shkotay: OK, what you say is correct, but to us poor sensually stunted humans, it's a pretty important 3.4%, and it has to be understood anyway, so look at it as a starting point.
puncheex 9 months ago
@puncheex I also mis-read what you wrote as you spoke of the primodial universe not the current one. I was just in some discussion with friends earlier then this about matter in the universe. And "it's a pretty important 3.4%, and it has to be understood anyway, so look at it as a starting point" is spot on :D Cheers!
shkotay 9 months ago
Wonderful video.... as usual!
jr14103 10 months ago