The function of hydrogen working inside of us as ordered proves that the entire universe consisting of primarily hydrogen has a very great Maker.
Mutations never order anything and natural selection will only select what has already been ordered so there is no mechanism in all of nature that makes evolution possible.
I always laugh when people talk about judgement day as if I should be afraid. Everyone is afraid of dying, but I know I'll be DEAD, not standing in front of an invisible man with a clipboardl
Funny though not fatal that S.H. uses a sphere to argue there is nothing south of the south pole. GTR does not work for rotational movement. When you travel south on earth you travel along a curve that leads you south. For S.H. to be correct the Universe must be a closed system. You can always continue to travel further along the same southern access it simply takes you off the planet. A closed universe is something he cannot prove or arguably advance at the present state of science.
"The beginnings of the universe would be governed by the laws of science" - Hawking
That's exactly the problem you moron. We still have causality, quantum theory and Einstein's theory of relativity. The "beginning" can't be the actual beginning. Something must have cause the expansion.
first of all time either exist or not. time is only a word to measure decay..if you have no matter to decay you have no time. if there is nothing but dark matter "the black of the universe", then you have nothing to decay nothing to use time for. it would just be a constant no begining no end. time is not allowed to be in an equation if it's pointless to say it was here before matter. because measuring decay will not help us in figureing out how the universe started.
no matter, no decay,no time. it's like trying to tell the weight of a child as an adult before it's concieved. and if we consider that maybe dark matter and anti matter excist. and then if we had the bubbles of dark matter and bubbles of anti dark matter and they came into contact with each other. then wouldn't it be safe to say we would get a big bang even the proverbial "something out of nothing" because of the release of energy that would happen?
Just because you dont understand does not mean it's not real or plausible! it just means you have to be open to the truth and embrace mans achievements! Stop hating nigga!
What a brain do we have humans..read first 4 words and think who did assume the Big Bang theory and was he a Muslim? "Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing Then will they not believe? " so simply ALLAH or the one and only GOD we know talks about it what made the modern Muslims who read and hear about this theory hold there religion...read about Qura'an you will be surprised
@TheDrekie89 1 Uh, sorry, you have that just backwards. In high matter densities and greater gravitational fields, time moves SLOWER, not faster. We've actually measured this with highly accurate clocks, where a clock on Earth ticks very slightly, but measurably, slower than an identical one in space. So a high density universe would evolve at a slower rate relative to a less dense one.
High IQ or not, if Mr Hawking had any brains in his head, he would know nothing can come from nothing all by itself for no reason. He's an educated fool with out a drop of common sense to his credit.
What is in question here is not God's existence-- that is unimportant. His main concern is, as the title suggests, the origin of the universe. The distinctions between sound and valid arguments are also unimportant. This is theoretical. Possibilities. Any argumentation arising out of this lecture should be framed by these borders, not by questions of religion or divine purpose. Heaven is unevidenced, and is not a concern. @TheDrekie89 Yes, it is reasonable.
he said the universes that only last a short time would not have been able to last long anoff to create stars and intelliget life, but time moves faster in high matter and energy densities sot those small high dense universes would move at a faster time there for stars and life could be reasonable created at a faster time, they would explain what the future of our universe? does that seem reasonable?
Stephen Hawking is my intellectual hero! And to anyone who is still confused out there, the question "what happened before the beginning of the universe?" is not well defined. Time and space both began to exist at the moment of creation of our universe, so there was no "time" for anything to happen in before the creation of the universe!
which suggested that there was a time when the universe was infinitesimally small and dense. He discovered that wherever one looked, it appeared that the distant galaxies are moving rapidly away from each other. If this was the case then it indicated that at earlier times objects would have been closer together.
What the Quran says about the creation of the universe
Do not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass, then We opened them out? And We made of water every living thing. Will they not then believe? [21:31]
The above verse clearly agrees with the present day knowledge of the beginning of the universe. No other scripture has this vivid description of the creation of the universe. It was Edwin Hubble’s observations in 1929,
37: 6 We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty (in) the stars,- 7 (For beauty) and for guard against all obstinate rebellious evil spirits, 8 (So) they should not strain their ears in the direction of the Exalted Assembly but be cast away from every side, 9 Repulsed, for they are under a perpetual penalty,
@hich101 : Koooraaan 67:5 And we have, (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with Lamps, and We have made such (Lamps) (as) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones, and have prepared for them the Penalty of the Blazing Fire..... Care to "explain" the "lamps" and how can one determine the lowest "heaven",
@SMMsupporter in arabic it refers to celestial bodies. lowest heaven means the 1st heaven, since we do have 7heavens according to quran, its the layers of different skies which=7 meaning 7 heavens...scientific fact! .celestial bodies are part of 1st heaven
@bozzeed I am quite sure Allah is not man created, but unfortunately Mohammad Abraham Moses and to a certain extend Jesus are branding made by Winners to wrote our History, 4 political "Divide and Control" proposes. A Q, how would any of them do without the Sun? Fruit 4 thoughts....
@AntiChrista4WPeace here is fruit 4 your thoughts, they are all humen and they all need the sun. we all will die then meet God on judgement day. will your divide and control theory help you that day?
PART 2-2. Similar to a bomb exploding the shrapnel moves apart but space-time remains constant. And before the bomb existed, space-time was there. Either the universe will forever expand until its gone. Or dark energy and dark matter play a role we don't fully understand. *Maybe* when d-energy "wins" over d-matter you get the big bang, but d-matter may once again pull everything unto itself. This may be a contract and expand universe. But I think it will expand until the next great bang.
PART 1-2. If I understand him correctly, he is saying that before the beginning of our universe there was no time, or that is was irrelevant. Time is always relevant in that it is nothing but a measurement in (for lack of a better word) time. Gravity may have been irrelevant because matter is needed, but space-time are always there and cannot be extinguished. The expansion of our universe is not an increase in space-time, just an increase in distance between objects.
the way i see it is reality is our reality is based on 5 senses, it is not hard to exept the fat that the human mind as magestic and complex as we perceive it has the abilaty to understand the universe if you want to call it that! as far as religone vs science goes its not a matter of VS but rather how we perceive them. thought is fabric and fabric is reality. we need to turn our eyes into giants to begin to grasp reality indipendent from human conscience. ps i cant spell
Time, start, end, small , big, wrong, right , black, white etc are tools that we use to describe a minuscule fraction of the universe our senses are able to feel/observe. We should not expect existence and universe to comply with our observations.
Who said theories can't be proven? Theories are based on quantifiable data - that is to say, data that can be measured. Using measurable data is the basis of factual evidence. Whether or not that evidence is substantiated is a question of time and further research. The original theory may or may not be found to be true; however, the act of disproving that theory means factual evidence has presented itself to provide an alternative answer or another theory.
So your response to my argument is an ad hominem? What I am arguing is that scientific theories cannot be conclusively proven. Like those that Hawking has created. Sure, his math may be correct. But that math and logic are under ideal circumstances. And Hawking has said that a singularity (from what i interpet a large one) created the universe. Yet this is in violation of the the 1st law of thermidynamics because we must know where the matter orignated. Has it always existed?
Religion versus Science doesn't exist. It's Beliefs vs Beliefs (Theories are like beliefs since they can't be proven). Everything requires some faith. Even science. They have faith that when they ignore the tiniest of doubts that it does not play a role.
@youaintugly : The question 'What was the purpose of time before time is the same way of asking what did God do before he created himself, and it is this similarity that separates Science and Religion, Pope John Paul ii said that it was allowed for us to study the universe to any extent, as long as we did not study the start of the universe, as that was God's greatest achievement. Yet all Physicists work to answer these questions concerning the universe and the start of time.
vast emptyness its so depressing.... its better to belive in in god and live in blissfull ignorance than to go mad knowing that the universe will end in a cold dark and lonely place.
Serious question: If nothing created slower than the speed of light can ever go faster than the speed of light how was the universe created in a fraction of a second?
@leka1622 The speed of light barrier works inside the universe, but "space" itself can expand quicker than light and that does not break any physical laws. Time started when the universe started to expand and was not created in a fraction of a second because it is still expanding today, the expansion has never stopped.
So not to be misunderstood, I'm saying that "START" "BEGAN" these words are sloppy and careless and frankly, non starters.
When people talk of "the beginning of the universe" instantly and without flinch, I understand that they haven't been thinking about it productively for very long.
Maybe in other facets of cosmology they are principle; but not origins...yet.
NOT to say that for fact it didn't have a "beginning?"
This is only to say that we DONT win this prosecution YET.
if God started everything at some point, God had to start its self, so god made Its self which means to make somthing you must begin with thought which means everything exists because of thought which means all enegy is thought an if thats the case then everything is in a constant dream state my guess is thats why we sleep to reconect we most probaly are all god an need love/hate dark/light rich/poor to know what each thing is. my question is why did we createte our selves? for the sake of it?
I never thought of this before, but if there was an inflationary period in the past, then it must have slowed down at one point. Could the current expanding universe be yet another inflation? If so, what causes these inflations? I've heard the explanation from M-theory (branes colliding), but I wonder what else could explain this.
this whole "religion VS science" thing is like an algebra word problem.
"Religion starts off on a donkey in Jerusalem going 5mph. Science starts off in a jet, thousands of years later, going 500mph -- when will science pass religion?
the science in the speed of jet is meaningless without a mind and without religion who started education to understand science. so far as we know, the bible is the earliest text who talks about stars, the meaning "universe, stars, earth, creation, and darwinian evolution " was invented by the people who wrote the bible
It is simply in peoples nature to wonder about these things.
If the bible and other texts claiming to be right and persecuting anyone who said otherwise were never written it would have saved some time for society. Time that might i add still hasn't been made up for.
Your reasoning is really impeccable!! Yeah of course lets say EVERY religion starts off on a donkey. And ignore all of the religions in the world future and past. Lets just say that the donkey is for everything. WRONG. You mean Christianity. And so I ask you, how do you say the universe is created? That is without defying the Laws of Thermodynamics. Let's see if you can. Remember, you must answer scientifically.
@youaintugly # wrote: "Religion starts off on a donkey in Jerusalem going 5mph. Science starts off in a jet, thousands of years later, going 500mph -- when will science pass religion?"
Science overtook religion 400 years ago, when Galileo put science int the fast lane, and religion went into the ditch. Some people seem not to realize that - or actually prefer ignorance to knowledge. But intelligent, educated people have never looked back.
Oh, by the way: Christianity may have started on a donkey in Jerusalem, but the New Testament has it starting about 30 years prior to that, in Bethlehem. And what about the Old Testament? Don't you consider Judaism to be religion? And what about the ancient Sumerian, Greek, Babylonian and Egyptian religions?
Your history is as crappy as your silly thesis that Christianity has all the answers.
@youaintugly Should pass it by the year 2021 :D I think i did the math right. Assuming "thousands of years later" means the year 2000 :) By the time my kids are old enough to know what this is about it will be over :P
I do belive scientists have alot in common with RELIGIOUS OMNIPOTENT believers when it comes to BIG things which can't be tested. If one looks at even small things i.e some reasction on small and large scale ,one can see that there can be differentiation. I think science is NO were near answering such large questions with RELIGIOUS mindedness. Scientists have gone too far of themselves and in most cases as this one;in my view they are Deluded and some how self obessed with BIG things and ideas.
This is why some people have faith in a god, and when they die everything will be answered, to others it makes life seem like and illusion. I have a full lifetime ahead of me to think about itMaybe i should go to china and become a tibetian monk. They meditate all day. Thats alot of thinking time.
One person was saying he understood time began with the big bang, but what happened before it?Do humans have the mental capacity to comprehend such great questions?Maybe we do.wat if its simple answer, like god actually made the universe.then someone could ask who made the god? There will always be more questions. Nothing will ever really be answered.
@KingJoeKong That's the most repeated series of questions in religion, philosophy and science combined. I like Carl Sagan's point -- one I made myself before hearing him -- that if adding a god doesn't answer the question but only extends it, why not just save a step? In other words, cut god out of the equation.
Cosmos represent its initial creation in all way of life with smaller models. Human birth it is the most similar model. We will not be able to explain the creation of big bang since we are not able to explain the first moment of our birth. So it is no mater the size but the ability that we have to caught the start point. We are 'programmed' to understand our existence but not the final points birth-death. Probably God is this kind who birth and death have the same point of ignition..
he is such a moron. big bang started with a MATH POINT!?!?! a point is a small circle which has 2D not 0D!! he's lucky you all are ignorant of a science repression board!
0D black holes!?!?! then it doesnt exist (shape and location)
time is a concept. you cant replace height with time.
PLASMA UNIVERSE! physics will not go quietly into the night!!!!!!!
What are you, a baby? The point he's talking about is not the one you draw on paper with your pen. Geometrically speaking, a point has no dimensions. A small circle. Unbelievable.
0:35 to ask what happened before the beginning of the universe would become a meaningless question ? are you serious ? Thats the reason Im watching this, cause I thought you had an answer for that.
Haha. Thats the answer you get. Time isn't really something that flows steadily. It can be bended, changed and morphed. That tells you that time itself, that we measure using our clocks and watches starts with the start of the Universe. But you can still ask what happened before that, and no one can answer you. Ever wonder why religion is still around? IT answers these questions with answers that are enough to shut you up and get you satisfied if you will. Not necessarily true though =P
Questions that are not properly answered will never go away. He can't claim that the question "what happened before the big bang" its illegitimate. Why events before the big bang can have no consequences and so should not form part of a scientific model of the universe? should we just cut them out of the model and just say that the big bang was the beginning of time? Obviously questions such as what or who set up the conditions for the big bang are not questions that science addresses.
again as i said u cant talk about a before big bang, time didnt existed, and u know scientists cant afirm things without proof
a well-known technology that aplies einstein general relativity theory (GRT) is the GPS system: corrections are made to their clocks every minute acording to the GRT becoz of gps satelites velocity n gravity at that height.
Exactly, Science its the area of whats observable and by experiment. It says what is in the physical world that we can observe and experiment repeatedly. Outside of that its a belief system, weather is right or not its just a belief system. So they just can't say "Oh thats not a valid question". If according to some people science have all the answers thats an answer you gotta give me.
and this concept about the time is just the same case... people considered "time is relative, not absolute" this concept hard to believe coz one measures 10 seconds here.. and it is 10 seconds in china, france, australia, etc. But actually when you travel at a considerable fraction of speed of light (for example, 90%) while you measure 10 seconds, som1 on earth (travelin at speed of rotation of earth) would actually measure 23 seconds (consider same gravity at both space)
Theres also one famous experiment: they had 2 atomic clock, they put 1 of them into an airplane and set it to fly some hours, after it stopped they realized clocks had differences they shouldnt have
time is not absolute, it depends on the object velocity and the gravity on that space
"TIME IS NOT ABSOLUTE" this concept seems easy to understand but its not
once u understand it u wont say stephen didnt answer properly... now u can only say u didnt understand the answer as u only know basic physics
Im not saying time its absolute, Im saying that every question is valid, and he can't say that what happened before the big bang its a meaningless question.
u claim u know the concept but then u start talkin bout a before big bang again. It is just like claiming u know earth is round.. but then start talking bout what would happen at the edge of the earth...
askin what happens at the edge of the earth is a meaningless question... why? coz theres no edge... and that concept was hard to swallow at 1400.. coz people could actually see "an edge" (the horizon) and there was no airplane and obviously people didnt feel like being steping over somthin round
I dont claim I know anything, Im just criticizing a theory. And a theory its not an absolute truth, and it has always room for doubt. True scientists know that there are many questions without a scientific answer yet. So thats when belief comes in. As soon as you say I think or I believe its not science anymore.
yes thats true, and know that if you want to answer those questions u must have some knowledge of physics. one can keep giving you examples, experiments made, etc but u wont still get the point
the problem stephen hawkin always had he thinks every1 has his level of knowledge, and gives conferences open to public with pictures, jokes, awesom analogies but hes very wrong. anyways it would be boring to give a conference with only mathematical calculations xD
I completely understand that time began with the big bang, and that saying before the big bang it doesnt make sense, since time began with it. The question is why and how time suddenly switch on.
Hawking has said that the existence of god as we think if him is unlikely...so technically I suppose that makes him an Agnostic. I've never heard him say that he does or does not believe in god.
How is he an atheist if he mentions god now and again (yet with a hint of sarcasm)? From what I gather he is more on the scientology side but the sheer fact that god may or may not exist remains in all of our heads.
Scientifically proven? His theory presented in this clip that there was no specific point at which the universe began is merely a theory. There is no scientific proof that his theory is correct.
Hawking is a genius in that he provides fresh perspectives and theories to questions that are seemingly unanswerable. That doesn't mean everything he says should be taken as fact.
Geniuses before him have been proven wrong and no doubt he will be proven wrong sometime in the future as well.
"if nothing is faster than light why does a shadow always surround light wouldnt than mean dark speed is infinite yet it appears nothing cant move haha" Darkness is the absence of light its nothing. light hits you light stops, and in front of where you are is a shadow. its just where the light could not reach.
that wright darkness/space is a constant which is an impossible speed but light is not , if this wasn't true why does light degrade in a radial form from its source ! some fail to interpret the jester of what i say and perceive it as being dumb which humors me
same reason why sound does degrades. the rays of light are dispersed from a single point therfore the rays become faarther and farther from each other. darkenss is a constant becomes if you turn a light bulb off the darkness appears at the speed of light because it comes behind the last ray of light and how fast it is traveling
WE were the ones who created time itself in the first place so i really don't know why they use it unless they have actual evidence that time exists.. I'll go look it up =/
The Universe isn't so much 'Expanding' as it is being pulled apart by other 'Universes' that surround our own. For a universe to begin, it has a start point which is initiated by the gravity of several universes pulling equally at one finite point of spacetime matrix or 'Interstitial' spacetime. The new universe is essentially 'Pulled' into existence, which we describe as the Big Bang. The energy and ultimately the matter that makes up the new Universe is taken from ones that end.
To completely understand our universe, we have to know not that there was a beginning, but how that beginning occurred. Was it white? Black? Nothingness is just that, but, how could something random happen in complete nothingness? In our known universe, random events occur b/c whatever causes these events has other particles and objects to interact with. So, my question to him would be, in complete nothingness, how can a completely random event take place when there's nothing to interact with.
Erm, got it wrong slightly, sorry. It's called M theory, and it has subdivisions such as P-brane, D-brane, etc. Mostly it's used in string theory, but some bright spark tried applying to ten dimensions, and the maths held true.
What it boils down to in layman's terms is that in 10D there are fluctuating membranes, and whenever these membranes touch, they cause a massive spontaneous generation of energy in our 3D, this energy generation being the big bang.
I notice that many co-readers express very interesting opinions. An opinion of mine is that philosophy plays in the game, and maybe where science stops, philosophy begins. So you can put on your spectacles, and start to "suppose", "let's say", "maybe". :-) And remember that the 11 dimentions also play in the game to confuse us more.
Cosmology - How can it be that with a new Telescope we may be able to see back in time to approx Big Bang? Since WE were IN BIG BANG... That would mean that WE have traveled FURTHER than the LIGHT from BIG BANG... and we are waiting for the light to catch up to us?
it is possible to go faster than the speed of light. it is impossible to accelerate to the speed of light. there could be particles moving at the light speed or faster but did not accelerate to that speed they just started at that it. how ever it is possible to go faster than the speed of light by creating a substance (unlikely) or finding substance (also unlikely) that has a refraction index of less than 1 because it would multiply the speed using the formula n1v1=n2v2
if a snail on a light speed vessel moves from back of the ship to the front as it was going light speed wouldnt snail be traveling faster than lightspeed... wait theres more
if nothing is faster than light why does a shadow always surround light wouldnt than mean dark speed is infinite yet it appears nothing cant move haha
nothing can go the speed of light. If we assumed the ship was travelling at the speed of light it would contract to an infinitely small point giving the snail nothing to cross. But again, nothing can go the speed of light.
im sure there will be tech advances which will allow just that as of yet closest we have is plasma mass's but im sure some smarty will figure even more how to manipulate it some day ,just see advance's made with just electric from light bulb to flat screens
This has been flagged as spam show
Don't listen to this fool! ! The universe was created!!! By who???... ZUES OF COURSE! ! Join the church of zues now!!!
INMATE2468 3 weeks ago
I prefer CLOUD 9 than BIG BANG!
nickomay30 3 weeks ago
No ID no Entry! No Uniform no Exam!
nickomay30 3 weeks ago
The function of hydrogen working inside of us as ordered proves that the entire universe consisting of primarily hydrogen has a very great Maker.
Mutations never order anything and natural selection will only select what has already been ordered so there is no mechanism in all of nature that makes evolution possible.
watch?v=HoKVVYJ8KJM
JungleJargon 3 months ago
I always laugh when people talk about judgement day as if I should be afraid. Everyone is afraid of dying, but I know I'll be DEAD, not standing in front of an invisible man with a clipboardl
nancy6ify 4 months ago 2
Funny though not fatal that S.H. uses a sphere to argue there is nothing south of the south pole. GTR does not work for rotational movement. When you travel south on earth you travel along a curve that leads you south. For S.H. to be correct the Universe must be a closed system. You can always continue to travel further along the same southern access it simply takes you off the planet. A closed universe is something he cannot prove or arguably advance at the present state of science.
MDM11269 4 months ago
"The beginnings of the universe would be governed by the laws of science" - Hawking
That's exactly the problem you moron. We still have causality, quantum theory and Einstein's theory of relativity. The "beginning" can't be the actual beginning. Something must have cause the expansion.
LibnanGR 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LibnanGR So what caused the magical sky daddy?
GluttonForSex 4 months ago
have you given up, you are not dead yet. are you?
Until then, you have to fight. Are you a negative coward?
AntiChrista4WPeace 5 months ago
certainly not, but it will help for our "that" fateful day, i think. For our time on earth?
AntiChrista4WPeace 5 months ago
time didnt exist before the Big Bang, so there was no time for a creator to create the univers
crisalis12345 5 months ago
Enthropy increase seems a reasonable time scale. Any comments?
ObservadorEducativo 5 months ago in playlist origin-eelt.
first of all time either exist or not. time is only a word to measure decay..if you have no matter to decay you have no time. if there is nothing but dark matter "the black of the universe", then you have nothing to decay nothing to use time for. it would just be a constant no begining no end. time is not allowed to be in an equation if it's pointless to say it was here before matter. because measuring decay will not help us in figureing out how the universe started.
The1Ghost27 6 months ago
no matter, no decay,no time. it's like trying to tell the weight of a child as an adult before it's concieved. and if we consider that maybe dark matter and anti matter excist. and then if we had the bubbles of dark matter and bubbles of anti dark matter and they came into contact with each other. then wouldn't it be safe to say we would get a big bang even the proverbial "something out of nothing" because of the release of energy that would happen?
The1Ghost27 6 months ago
Comment removed
The1Ghost27 6 months ago
7:16 no one laughed at that corny joke but it was pretty funny
kingofae 6 months ago
Just because you dont understand does not mean it's not real or plausible! it just means you have to be open to the truth and embrace mans achievements! Stop hating nigga!
MrMosilli 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What a brain do we have humans..read first 4 words and think who did assume the Big Bang theory and was he a Muslim? "Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing Then will they not believe? " so simply ALLAH or the one and only GOD we know talks about it what made the modern Muslims who read and hear about this theory hold there religion...read about Qura'an you will be surprised
mhbnymn 6 months ago
I think the Universe can do without Earth but can the Earth do without the Universe?
AntiChrista4WPeace 6 months ago
@TheDrekie89 1 Uh, sorry, you have that just backwards. In high matter densities and greater gravitational fields, time moves SLOWER, not faster. We've actually measured this with highly accurate clocks, where a clock on Earth ticks very slightly, but measurably, slower than an identical one in space. So a high density universe would evolve at a slower rate relative to a less dense one.
IRoboSapien 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In the beginning was the word.....And then, those whom deny me will do so ,because they know that they do not belong to me.
TOLTECAAZTECA 7 months ago
Well, good for the savants.
ion010101 8 months ago in playlist IQ - Stephen Hawking
This is quite interesting, if i actually knew a word he was talking about.
brains216 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
High IQ or not, if Mr Hawking had any brains in his head, he would know nothing can come from nothing all by itself for no reason. He's an educated fool with out a drop of common sense to his credit.
mrtadreamer 8 months ago
Comment removed
jdmaigrichon 8 months ago
What is in question here is not God's existence-- that is unimportant. His main concern is, as the title suggests, the origin of the universe. The distinctions between sound and valid arguments are also unimportant. This is theoretical. Possibilities. Any argumentation arising out of this lecture should be framed by these borders, not by questions of religion or divine purpose. Heaven is unevidenced, and is not a concern. @TheDrekie89 Yes, it is reasonable.
jdmaigrichon 8 months ago
he said the universes that only last a short time would not have been able to last long anoff to create stars and intelliget life, but time moves faster in high matter and energy densities sot those small high dense universes would move at a faster time there for stars and life could be reasonable created at a faster time, they would explain what the future of our universe? does that seem reasonable?
TheDrekie89 9 months ago
Religion doesn't "answer" any questions. It instead creates more questions masquerading as answers.
DonJulioBlanco2002 10 months ago 10
@DonJulioBlanco2002 Religion's a Naz!$ masterpiece of making Faith a Bus!ness.
AntiChrista4WPeace 6 months ago
Stephen Hawking is my intellectual hero! And to anyone who is still confused out there, the question "what happened before the beginning of the universe?" is not well defined. Time and space both began to exist at the moment of creation of our universe, so there was no "time" for anything to happen in before the creation of the universe!
shaun2435 11 months ago 2
@shaun2435 im still confused.
RdonZOME 7 months ago
which suggested that there was a time when the universe was infinitesimally small and dense. He discovered that wherever one looked, it appeared that the distant galaxies are moving rapidly away from each other. If this was the case then it indicated that at earlier times objects would have been closer together.
hich101 1 year ago
What the Quran says about the creation of the universe
Do not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass, then We opened them out? And We made of water every living thing. Will they not then believe? [21:31]
The above verse clearly agrees with the present day knowledge of the beginning of the universe. No other scripture has this vivid description of the creation of the universe. It was Edwin Hubble’s observations in 1929,
hich101 1 year ago
@hich101
37: 6 We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty (in) the stars,- 7 (For beauty) and for guard against all obstinate rebellious evil spirits, 8 (So) they should not strain their ears in the direction of the Exalted Assembly but be cast away from every side, 9 Repulsed, for they are under a perpetual penalty,
SMMsupporter 1 year ago
@hich101 : Koooraaan 67:5 And we have, (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with Lamps, and We have made such (Lamps) (as) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones, and have prepared for them the Penalty of the Blazing Fire..... Care to "explain" the "lamps" and how can one determine the lowest "heaven",
SMMsupporter 1 year ago
@SMMsupporter in arabic it refers to celestial bodies. lowest heaven means the 1st heaven, since we do have 7heavens according to quran, its the layers of different skies which=7 meaning 7 heavens...scientific fact! .celestial bodies are part of 1st heaven
hich101 1 year ago
@hich101
"scientific fact"
Source please ;)
CyphenPhsyX 1 year ago
@CyphenPhsyX Nasa
hich101 1 year ago
@hich101 NASA
hich101 1 year ago
@SMMsupporter Allah was created by humans, my friend. Not the other way around.
GluttonForSex 1 year ago 37
@GluttonForSex Allah means God almighty who created the universe. how was he created by humans? do you have any proof?
bozzeed 9 months ago
@GluttonForSex Allah means God almighty who created the universe. how was he created by humans? do you have any proof?
bozzeed 9 months ago
@bozzeed I am quite sure Allah is not man created, but unfortunately Mohammad Abraham Moses and to a certain extend Jesus are branding made by Winners to wrote our History, 4 political "Divide and Control" proposes. A Q, how would any of them do without the Sun? Fruit 4 thoughts....
AntiChrista4WPeace 6 months ago
@AntiChrista4WPeace here is fruit 4 your thoughts, they are all humen and they all need the sun. we all will die then meet God on judgement day. will your divide and control theory help you that day?
bozzeed 5 months ago
Comment removed
kirydawg 4 months ago
@GluttonForSex to prove you wrong, he'll shoot you. haha
kirydawg 4 months ago
@kirydawg That won't prove me wrong. :-)
GluttonForSex 4 months ago
Stephen hawking maybe a guineus but maybe a idiot
juns1992 1 year ago
@juns1992 Of you we have no doubt
toobularbells 1 year ago 2
PART 2-2. Similar to a bomb exploding the shrapnel moves apart but space-time remains constant. And before the bomb existed, space-time was there. Either the universe will forever expand until its gone. Or dark energy and dark matter play a role we don't fully understand. *Maybe* when d-energy "wins" over d-matter you get the big bang, but d-matter may once again pull everything unto itself. This may be a contract and expand universe. But I think it will expand until the next great bang.
spenceNARBS 1 year ago
PART 1-2. If I understand him correctly, he is saying that before the beginning of our universe there was no time, or that is was irrelevant. Time is always relevant in that it is nothing but a measurement in (for lack of a better word) time. Gravity may have been irrelevant because matter is needed, but space-time are always there and cannot be extinguished. The expansion of our universe is not an increase in space-time, just an increase in distance between objects.
spenceNARBS 1 year ago
the way i see it is reality is our reality is based on 5 senses, it is not hard to exept the fat that the human mind as magestic and complex as we perceive it has the abilaty to understand the universe if you want to call it that! as far as religone vs science goes its not a matter of VS but rather how we perceive them. thought is fabric and fabric is reality. we need to turn our eyes into giants to begin to grasp reality indipendent from human conscience. ps i cant spell
flatbranch1 1 year ago
@flatbranch1
We have more than 5 senses now to observe our surroundings; we have machines and instruments to "see" what we cannot on our own.
mdiem 9 months ago
"The universe expanded by a factor of a million trillion trillion in a fraction of a second."
Hm. Interesting! I wonder if he's referring to The Big Bang?
karkovice10 1 year ago
God I love Steven's humour.
MusicalSamurai 1 year ago
Time, start, end, small , big, wrong, right , black, white etc are tools that we use to describe a minuscule fraction of the universe our senses are able to feel/observe. We should not expect existence and universe to comply with our observations.
sushanalone 1 year ago 2
@sushanalone Trallagh?
dowling1981 1 year ago
@dowling1981 Trallagh?
sushanalone 1 year ago
@sushanalone Trallagh til they. Do you enjoy Stephen Von Hawking?
dowling1981 1 year ago
Who said theories can't be proven? Theories are based on quantifiable data - that is to say, data that can be measured. Using measurable data is the basis of factual evidence. Whether or not that evidence is substantiated is a question of time and further research. The original theory may or may not be found to be true; however, the act of disproving that theory means factual evidence has presented itself to provide an alternative answer or another theory.
TexasRho83 1 year ago
Greatest philosophers and theoretical physicists are on Youtube
weefeatures 1 year ago
@sumthingsick123
So your response to my argument is an ad hominem? What I am arguing is that scientific theories cannot be conclusively proven. Like those that Hawking has created. Sure, his math may be correct. But that math and logic are under ideal circumstances. And Hawking has said that a singularity (from what i interpet a large one) created the universe. Yet this is in violation of the the 1st law of thermidynamics because we must know where the matter orignated. Has it always existed?
clykdd 1 year ago
i love his wit
be1332 1 year ago
Religion versus Science doesn't exist. It's Beliefs vs Beliefs (Theories are like beliefs since they can't be proven). Everything requires some faith. Even science. They have faith that when they ignore the tiniest of doubts that it does not play a role.
clykdd 1 year ago
dream on friend.
allisoneloveletbe 1 year ago
@youaintugly : The question 'What was the purpose of time before time is the same way of asking what did God do before he created himself, and it is this similarity that separates Science and Religion, Pope John Paul ii said that it was allowed for us to study the universe to any extent, as long as we did not study the start of the universe, as that was God's greatest achievement. Yet all Physicists work to answer these questions concerning the universe and the start of time.
matty1man1 1 year ago
I would like to hear him saying: LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
wynculis12 1 year ago
vast emptyness its so depressing.... its better to belive in in god and live in blissfull ignorance than to go mad knowing that the universe will end in a cold dark and lonely place.
Sonicku 1 year ago
@Sonicku Of course not, is it better to live your life sober or drunk? I would rather be sober and no what's true than believe a lie
JolleyEFC 1 year ago
sounds pretty bulletproof.
EVILTRIPS666 1 year ago
Serious question: If nothing created slower than the speed of light can ever go faster than the speed of light how was the universe created in a fraction of a second?
leka1622 1 year ago
@leka1622 The speed of light barrier works inside the universe, but "space" itself can expand quicker than light and that does not break any physical laws. Time started when the universe started to expand and was not created in a fraction of a second because it is still expanding today, the expansion has never stopped.
KF81 1 year ago
no, no, no. we don't need religion. we only need the socail sciences and the other sciences.
LordofWarMovie 1 year ago
shit
SeethingGreen 1 year ago
at 2:50 he seas that were intelligent.. were not intelligent......were just a bunch of munkeys with hammers... XD
exotrown 1 year ago
The universe does not have an origin. These guys are nuts.
shasha1873 1 year ago
@shasha1873
The universe does not necessarily have an "origin".
In fact, this is quite unlikely.
Finally, some sense.
Thank you for that Sasha.
Start implies PLACE and TIME
Place and time are LOCAL factors that manifest in our CURRENT state
So the universe "started" in a "place" and "time" where place and time havn't yet been established?
This is pressing and obvious.
To address it, you leave everything Hawkins says as a mere "1 in many" theorem. Likely not towards the forefront .
D33veeoss 1 year ago
@D33veeoss Thank you. And I agree with you 100%.
shasha1873 1 year ago
@shasha1873
So not to be misunderstood, I'm saying that "START" "BEGAN" these words are sloppy and careless and frankly, non starters.
When people talk of "the beginning of the universe" instantly and without flinch, I understand that they haven't been thinking about it productively for very long.
Maybe in other facets of cosmology they are principle; but not origins...yet.
NOT to say that for fact it didn't have a "beginning?"
This is only to say that we DONT win this prosecution YET.
D33veeoss 1 year ago
"Theres a hole in my bucket, dear lisa,dear lisa, theres a hole in my bucket dear lisa a hole"
stevebenbob 1 year ago
if God started everything at some point, God had to start its self, so god made Its self which means to make somthing you must begin with thought which means everything exists because of thought which means all enegy is thought an if thats the case then everything is in a constant dream state my guess is thats why we sleep to reconect we most probaly are all god an need love/hate dark/light rich/poor to know what each thing is. my question is why did we createte our selves? for the sake of it?
colinjohnedwards 1 year ago
I never thought of this before, but if there was an inflationary period in the past, then it must have slowed down at one point. Could the current expanding universe be yet another inflation? If so, what causes these inflations? I've heard the explanation from M-theory (branes colliding), but I wonder what else could explain this.
chuckinator0 1 year ago
this whole "religion VS science" thing is like an algebra word problem.
"Religion starts off on a donkey in Jerusalem going 5mph. Science starts off in a jet, thousands of years later, going 500mph -- when will science pass religion?
youaintugly 1 year ago 69
we can only hope.....................
AnakinSkywalker9971 1 year ago
the science in the speed of jet is meaningless without a mind and without religion who started education to understand science. so far as we know, the bible is the earliest text who talks about stars, the meaning "universe, stars, earth, creation, and darwinian evolution " was invented by the people who wrote the bible
Voltar143 1 year ago
@Voltar143
It is simply in peoples nature to wonder about these things.
If the bible and other texts claiming to be right and persecuting anyone who said otherwise were never written it would have saved some time for society. Time that might i add still hasn't been made up for.
ieatbeeshowboutyou 1 year ago 2
@youaintugly
It's interesting that Mr. Einstein never said anything even close to resembling that.
D33veeoss 1 year ago
@youaintugly Theres you answer ! YOu need religion and science together to understand things
eddie191180 1 year ago
@youaintugly that made no sense, i'm an atheist and im saying that made no sense even though it attempts to support my side..
Gunsnroses991 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gunsnroses991 I didn't think so either.
ijustwatchedthat 1 year ago
@youaintugly God humbled himself.
ijustwatchedthat 1 year ago
@youaintugly And it is more than just the speed of a donkey. It's an answer to more than scientific problems.
ijustwatchedthat 1 year ago
@youaintugly
Your reasoning is really impeccable!! Yeah of course lets say EVERY religion starts off on a donkey. And ignore all of the religions in the world future and past. Lets just say that the donkey is for everything. WRONG. You mean Christianity. And so I ask you, how do you say the universe is created? That is without defying the Laws of Thermodynamics. Let's see if you can. Remember, you must answer scientifically.
clykdd 1 year ago
@youaintugly well said.....very well said !!!!!
cpinnago 1 year ago
@youaintugly what directions relatively did science and religion start moving in?
sushanalone 1 year ago
@youaintugly we must know the starting point of each to then solve and figure out
iseedeadhommies 1 year ago
@youaintugly I think the question we should be asking ourselves is: Will science eventually kill God? :)
karkovice10 1 year ago
@youaintugly # wrote: "Religion starts off on a donkey in Jerusalem going 5mph. Science starts off in a jet, thousands of years later, going 500mph -- when will science pass religion?"
Science overtook religion 400 years ago, when Galileo put science int the fast lane, and religion went into the ditch. Some people seem not to realize that - or actually prefer ignorance to knowledge. But intelligent, educated people have never looked back.
DiddleyBoh 1 year ago 5
Oh, by the way: Christianity may have started on a donkey in Jerusalem, but the New Testament has it starting about 30 years prior to that, in Bethlehem. And what about the Old Testament? Don't you consider Judaism to be religion? And what about the ancient Sumerian, Greek, Babylonian and Egyptian religions?
Your history is as crappy as your silly thesis that Christianity has all the answers.
DiddleyBoh 1 year ago 2
@youaintugly
lol,
Assuming by "thousands of years you meant 6,000 years" Science should have passed religion 88.545 days ago.
FreeTunes498 10 months ago
@youaintugly
lol,
Assuming by "thousands of years you meant 6,000 years" Science should have passed religion 88.545 days after you posted that comment.
FreeTunes498 10 months ago
@youaintugly thats awesome~
allamericandiner 9 months ago
@youaintugly In a few seconds from now. Oh... wait. Nevermind, science just developed the rocket engine.
Doomcharger 8 months ago
@youaintugly Should pass it by the year 2021 :D I think i did the math right. Assuming "thousands of years later" means the year 2000 :) By the time my kids are old enough to know what this is about it will be over :P
Hobbes250 5 months ago
I do belive scientists have alot in common with RELIGIOUS OMNIPOTENT believers when it comes to BIG things which can't be tested. If one looks at even small things i.e some reasction on small and large scale ,one can see that there can be differentiation. I think science is NO were near answering such large questions with RELIGIOUS mindedness. Scientists have gone too far of themselves and in most cases as this one;in my view they are Deluded and some how self obessed with BIG things and ideas.
MrKaniyaw 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this pussy sounds like my DOPPLER RADAR lol!
ecwfan02 2 years ago
ignorant same one should put a bullet in your head
chaksa 1 year ago
Hmm, the idea of mini bubbles starting off just seems to push the question of Origin beyond the observable universe, rather than really _answer_ it.
What provides the "medium" or "space" for the expanding bubbles?
oilotnoM 2 years ago
This is why some people have faith in a god, and when they die everything will be answered, to others it makes life seem like and illusion. I have a full lifetime ahead of me to think about itMaybe i should go to china and become a tibetian monk. They meditate all day. Thats alot of thinking time.
KingJoeKong 2 years ago
One person was saying he understood time began with the big bang, but what happened before it?Do humans have the mental capacity to comprehend such great questions?Maybe we do.wat if its simple answer, like god actually made the universe.then someone could ask who made the god? There will always be more questions. Nothing will ever really be answered.
KingJoeKong 2 years ago
in time, (if our racial ineptness allows) we'll figure it all out.
youaintugly 1 year ago
@KingJoeKong That's the most repeated series of questions in religion, philosophy and science combined. I like Carl Sagan's point -- one I made myself before hearing him -- that if adding a god doesn't answer the question but only extends it, why not just save a step? In other words, cut god out of the equation.
bongolongo 1 year ago
Cosmos represent its initial creation in all way of life with smaller models. Human birth it is the most similar model. We will not be able to explain the creation of big bang since we are not able to explain the first moment of our birth. So it is no mater the size but the ability that we have to caught the start point. We are 'programmed' to understand our existence but not the final points birth-death. Probably God is this kind who birth and death have the same point of ignition..
M.D.K
dickXXL 2 years ago
I loved 4:07 ... that comparison with inflation of prices...He's got an astonishingly great sense of humor
goopiks 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
exactly! you cant explain something that exists with something that doesnt exist
phicromnoj 2 years ago
ugh, you just don't understand..
Deadandlivin 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
your impressed by disability not his ability
he is such a moron. big bang started with a MATH POINT!?!?! a point is a small circle which has 2D not 0D!! he's lucky you all are ignorant of a science repression board!
0D black holes!?!?! then it doesnt exist (shape and location)
time is a concept. you cant replace height with time.
PLASMA UNIVERSE! physics will not go quietly into the night!!!!!!!
phicromnoj 2 years ago
What are you, a baby? The point he's talking about is not the one you draw on paper with your pen. Geometrically speaking, a point has no dimensions. A small circle. Unbelievable.
reezlaw 2 years ago 4
Sergio malandro é muito mais esperto que esse cara
Buraco43 2 years ago
0:35 to ask what happened before the beginning of the universe would become a meaningless question ? are you serious ? Thats the reason Im watching this, cause I thought you had an answer for that.
Jordanicolass 2 years ago
Haha. Thats the answer you get. Time isn't really something that flows steadily. It can be bended, changed and morphed. That tells you that time itself, that we measure using our clocks and watches starts with the start of the Universe. But you can still ask what happened before that, and no one can answer you. Ever wonder why religion is still around? IT answers these questions with answers that are enough to shut you up and get you satisfied if you will. Not necessarily true though =P
GuitaristontheFloor 2 years ago 4
thats becoz you didnt understand the meaning of "TIME IS NOT ABSOLUTE"
if theres no time theres no before or after...
mikolandon 2 years ago
Questions that are not properly answered will never go away. He can't claim that the question "what happened before the big bang" its illegitimate. Why events before the big bang can have no consequences and so should not form part of a scientific model of the universe? should we just cut them out of the model and just say that the big bang was the beginning of time? Obviously questions such as what or who set up the conditions for the big bang are not questions that science addresses.
Jordanicolass 2 years ago
again as i said u cant talk about a before big bang, time didnt existed, and u know scientists cant afirm things without proof
a well-known technology that aplies einstein general relativity theory (GRT) is the GPS system: corrections are made to their clocks every minute acording to the GRT becoz of gps satelites velocity n gravity at that height.
mikolandon 2 years ago
Exactly, Science its the area of whats observable and by experiment. It says what is in the physical world that we can observe and experiment repeatedly. Outside of that its a belief system, weather is right or not its just a belief system. So they just can't say "Oh thats not a valid question". If according to some people science have all the answers thats an answer you gotta give me.
Jordanicolass 2 years ago
and this concept about the time is just the same case... people considered "time is relative, not absolute" this concept hard to believe coz one measures 10 seconds here.. and it is 10 seconds in china, france, australia, etc. But actually when you travel at a considerable fraction of speed of light (for example, 90%) while you measure 10 seconds, som1 on earth (travelin at speed of rotation of earth) would actually measure 23 seconds (consider same gravity at both space)
mikolandon 2 years ago
Time stands still, we move in relation to it.
kylep2212 2 years ago
Theres also one famous experiment: they had 2 atomic clock, they put 1 of them into an airplane and set it to fly some hours, after it stopped they realized clocks had differences they shouldnt have
time is not absolute, it depends on the object velocity and the gravity on that space
"TIME IS NOT ABSOLUTE" this concept seems easy to understand but its not
once u understand it u wont say stephen didnt answer properly... now u can only say u didnt understand the answer as u only know basic physics
mikolandon 2 years ago
Im not saying time its absolute, Im saying that every question is valid, and he can't say that what happened before the big bang its a meaningless question.
Jordanicolass 2 years ago
u claim u know the concept but then u start talkin bout a before big bang again. It is just like claiming u know earth is round.. but then start talking bout what would happen at the edge of the earth...
askin what happens at the edge of the earth is a meaningless question... why? coz theres no edge... and that concept was hard to swallow at 1400.. coz people could actually see "an edge" (the horizon) and there was no airplane and obviously people didnt feel like being steping over somthin round
mikolandon 2 years ago
I dont claim I know anything, Im just criticizing a theory. And a theory its not an absolute truth, and it has always room for doubt. True scientists know that there are many questions without a scientific answer yet. So thats when belief comes in. As soon as you say I think or I believe its not science anymore.
Jordanicolass 2 years ago
u must understand a theory to criticize it
mikolandon 2 years ago
When you try to understand something you ask questions, but if you can't even answer them that is a serious problem.
Jordanicolass 2 years ago 3
yes thats true, and know that if you want to answer those questions u must have some knowledge of physics. one can keep giving you examples, experiments made, etc but u wont still get the point
the problem stephen hawkin always had he thinks every1 has his level of knowledge, and gives conferences open to public with pictures, jokes, awesom analogies but hes very wrong. anyways it would be boring to give a conference with only mathematical calculations xD
mikolandon 2 years ago
I completely understand that time began with the big bang, and that saying before the big bang it doesnt make sense, since time began with it. The question is why and how time suddenly switch on.
Jordanicolass 2 years ago
"how" has been answered but "why" i think no one knows xD
mikolandon 2 years ago
if u wanna answer ur questions... study physics!! i recommend u its a beatiful world
mikolandon 2 years ago
Hawking has said that the existence of god as we think if him is unlikely...so technically I suppose that makes him an Agnostic. I've never heard him say that he does or does not believe in god.
NemaToad222 2 years ago
darkness moves the same speed as light.duh
striker0069 2 years ago
It seems Hawking is an atheist, but can anyone confirm this for certainty?
dkman2006 2 years ago
How is he an atheist if he mentions god now and again (yet with a hint of sarcasm)? From what I gather he is more on the scientology side but the sheer fact that god may or may not exist remains in all of our heads.
JuLzYzY 2 years ago
He prefers the term agnostic but his wife and many people who have known him described him as an atheist.
hobodoctor 2 years ago 2
This is where his presentation turned to crap IMO. He's just inventing ideas and trying to convince you of them.
haterdrinkinhaterade 2 years ago
You've got to remember there's a lot of peer reviewed math that supports these theories, this is just layman's terms.
CatharticWeek 2 years ago
If by "inventing ideas" you mean he's already written huge essays on and scientifically proven them long before this speech.
hobodoctor 2 years ago
Scientifically proven? His theory presented in this clip that there was no specific point at which the universe began is merely a theory. There is no scientific proof that his theory is correct.
Hawking is a genius in that he provides fresh perspectives and theories to questions that are seemingly unanswerable. That doesn't mean everything he says should be taken as fact.
Geniuses before him have been proven wrong and no doubt he will be proven wrong sometime in the future as well.
patob91 2 years ago
Maybe proven wasn't the right term, but it's far from him just making stuff up to tell people.
hobodoctor 2 years ago
"if nothing is faster than light why does a shadow always surround light wouldnt than mean dark speed is infinite yet it appears nothing cant move haha" Darkness is the absence of light its nothing. light hits you light stops, and in front of where you are is a shadow. its just where the light could not reach.
fearthepib 2 years ago
true. and that means that this shadow appears at the speed of light. some people are pretty dumb
tennisrules621 2 years ago
that wright darkness/space is a constant which is an impossible speed but light is not , if this wasn't true why does light degrade in a radial form from its source ! some fail to interpret the jester of what i say and perceive it as being dumb which humors me
okuma0kuma 2 years ago
same reason why sound does degrades. the rays of light are dispersed from a single point therfore the rays become faarther and farther from each other. darkenss is a constant becomes if you turn a light bulb off the darkness appears at the speed of light because it comes behind the last ray of light and how fast it is traveling
tennisrules621 2 years ago
the universe is stored on a huge alien computer, the north and south poles of the universe are just the boundaries of the 3d plane.
sharpezor 2 years ago
Yet space surrounds god .Space means nothing.
So nothing is older than god ............................................ but god is not older than nothing didnt realize that one did you. haha
okuma0kuma 2 years ago
Time only exists because we have clocks.
adadanks 2 years ago
thats wright clocks were only created to precieve animation of motion of which we refer to as passed and present time
okuma0kuma 2 years ago
Exactly! I've always thought that..
WE were the ones who created time itself in the first place so i really don't know why they use it unless they have actual evidence that time exists.. I'll go look it up =/
IpwnzAllDay 2 years ago
we didnt create time. we just found a way to represent it
tennisrules621 2 years ago 30
The Universe isn't so much 'Expanding' as it is being pulled apart by other 'Universes' that surround our own. For a universe to begin, it has a start point which is initiated by the gravity of several universes pulling equally at one finite point of spacetime matrix or 'Interstitial' spacetime. The new universe is essentially 'Pulled' into existence, which we describe as the Big Bang. The energy and ultimately the matter that makes up the new Universe is taken from ones that end.
MikeOnTheMac 2 years ago
To completely understand our universe, we have to know not that there was a beginning, but how that beginning occurred. Was it white? Black? Nothingness is just that, but, how could something random happen in complete nothingness? In our known universe, random events occur b/c whatever causes these events has other particles and objects to interact with. So, my question to him would be, in complete nothingness, how can a completely random event take place when there's nothing to interact with.
hiphopbwwsoccer 2 years ago
A possible answer to that is ten dimensional M-brane theory.
QwertyTSecond 2 years ago
.... and what is that exactly?
hiphopbwwsoccer 2 years ago
Erm, got it wrong slightly, sorry. It's called M theory, and it has subdivisions such as P-brane, D-brane, etc. Mostly it's used in string theory, but some bright spark tried applying to ten dimensions, and the maths held true.
What it boils down to in layman's terms is that in 10D there are fluctuating membranes, and whenever these membranes touch, they cause a massive spontaneous generation of energy in our 3D, this energy generation being the big bang.
QwertyTSecond 2 years ago
God created the universe.. Its call the Book of Genesis. Read it.
Just kidding.
neilaso 2 years ago 8
I notice that many co-readers express very interesting opinions. An opinion of mine is that philosophy plays in the game, and maybe where science stops, philosophy begins. So you can put on your spectacles, and start to "suppose", "let's say", "maybe". :-) And remember that the 11 dimentions also play in the game to confuse us more.
hrbear 2 years ago
intreging yet hmmm plausble lmao
oiyoufatty 2 years ago
Cosmology - How can it be that with a new Telescope we may be able to see back in time to approx Big Bang? Since WE were IN BIG BANG... That would mean that WE have traveled FURTHER than the LIGHT from BIG BANG... and we are waiting for the light to catch up to us?
YentaY0 2 years ago 2
No, it comes from the Greek terms uni (one) and versus (to turn). Combined, it means 'All turned into one.'
CypherDxvz 3 years ago
reply to :banana4733
it is possible to go faster than the speed of light. it is impossible to accelerate to the speed of light. there could be particles moving at the light speed or faster but did not accelerate to that speed they just started at that it. how ever it is possible to go faster than the speed of light by creating a substance (unlikely) or finding substance (also unlikely) that has a refraction index of less than 1 because it would multiply the speed using the formula n1v1=n2v2
thisismyname89 3 years ago
ohh jeez i hope i explained that right i learned it from my physics professer
thisismyname89 3 years ago
speed is infinite?
redwaker 2 years ago
Other civilizations have FTL drives; but earth people are too retarded to think up that kind of thing.
ZeroHumans 2 years ago
funny nerd thoughts
if a snail on a light speed vessel moves from back of the ship to the front as it was going light speed wouldnt snail be traveling faster than lightspeed... wait theres more
if nothing is faster than light why does a shadow always surround light wouldnt than mean dark speed is infinite yet it appears nothing cant move haha
okuma0kuma 2 years ago
nothing can go the speed of light. If we assumed the ship was travelling at the speed of light it would contract to an infinitely small point giving the snail nothing to cross. But again, nothing can go the speed of light.
freetoaccelerate 2 years ago
im sure there will be tech advances which will allow just that as of yet closest we have is plasma mass's but im sure some smarty will figure even more how to manipulate it some day ,just see advance's made with just electric from light bulb to flat screens
okuma0kuma 2 years ago