It doesn't make for a very productive argument to explain the ideas and concepts of this video to the religiously outspoken. For these individuals faith is just as much a cultural property as it is an ethereal property of spirituality. You process that the universe is expanding and they rebut with a quote from the bible. The logic is I'll-structured from the beginning. It would serve a greater purpose if the folks would make efforts to more readily accept their fellow Christian sects than to at
If distant stars are 15billion light years away, this would state that the universe is larger than 15billion light years, but the universe is younger than 15billion years. So does that mean the early universe expanded faster than the speed of light?
nothing times(X) zero,(or singularity) = bilions and bilions and bilions and bilions and bilions galaxies, or allmost infinitely quantity of mater, eeeeeeee scientess where is the logic here, or u maybe mised something, but u have mised much more than u ever think.
@messi996 The only thing that "confuses" me is how anyone could deny the existence of his Creater and relegate the existence of all the complexities of this universe to mere chance. No one would say that a car or a watch or a building spontaneously appeared from nothing when this probability is MUCH higher. Why wouldn't they? They know that would be stupid; that's why.
@abobjenkins i am on the fence about religion and atheism i honestly have though about both for hours and really i have no idea, but this is what i put to you, isnt it possible that all of this is fully true, and it was god that set it in monition? think about it that would explain been a god and all of this been true, as someone said(i think it was pope john paul the second i may be wrong) science is the quest to find out how it happened , religion is the quest to find out why it happened
@messi996 I believe the Genesis account of creation. Much of that which is called "science" today isn't science at all, just postulation set forth as truth. They use fancy jargon to make what they say sound plausible to the untrained ear. A good example of this is what the call "dark matter" and "dark energy". The have no real proof that either of these things exist. They merely make that claim that they do exist simply because they do not really understand how the universe works.
@messi996 Another example of their double-talk is the "expanding universe" theory. They say that the universe has no center, yet they also say that as they look out, all the galaxies are moving away from us. If we are not at the center, it is not possible for everything to be moving away from us. Something would have to be moving toward us if different parts of the universe are moving at different speeds.
@abobjenkins i lost all respect for you with that sentence not only do you not understand the theory, which i dont mind it is very complex, but you try to use it!. There are many galaxies moving toward us, one of them will soon hit as galaxy, also are is your ego so big, that you think a creator only made live here? how do you know many galaxies dont have life in them? I mean really if i was god id be pretty piss at how the human race turn out seeing that we live in a paradise.
@messi996 Your sentence structure is horrible. Your thoughts are incoherent. Lastly, I don't even know you. Why should I care about your "respect"? pfffft!
@abobjenkins "If we are not at the center, it is not possible for everything to be moving away from us." This is completely false and I refer you to Lawrence Krauss' lecture 'A Universe From Nothing' at minute 8:50...We are not the center of the universe. Watch it before you rebuttal.
@abobjenkins I can't post the link for some reason but just youtube search "A Universe From Nothing Lawrence Krauss"...Its the very first lecture thats provided.
@08jkern Anyone can imagine whatever he/she frames his mind to imagine. The real world, however, does not follow the imaginings of a man. Common experience shows how senseless it is to believe that any physical objects spontaneously appear from nothing by themselves. Nothing acting alone can produce just that - NOTHING.
@abobjenkins Every scientific advancement has come on the whim of the imagination. Through experiments, scientists create a model of the universe. Further experiments will either disprove or validate their previous intuition. So you're right in a way, the real world doesn't follow the imaginings of man, rather, the imaginings of man follow the real world. This view of the universe came about after observations of change over time had occurred.....See thats the difference between scientist and
@abobjenkins Christians. Scientists have questions, create and perform experiments that they think will give them answers to these questions, and then make conclusions. Whereas, Christians have questions, create conclusions, steal scientists experiments and data, and then only use the information that supports their hypothesis......And you're absolutely right. Your common experience isn't conducive to create something from nothing, but in quantum physics and the vacuum of space, particles pop
@abobjenkins in and out of existence from their parent particle all the time. Your common experience is based on living inside a planets gravity and atmospheric pressures at a certain point in space. Your common experience doesn't have any precedence on what is actually happening in the other 99.99999% of the universe. Scientists simply want to observe the universe and discover how it works. When we prove your nonsense of a seven day creation story, get the fuck over it, and just say "well God
@abobjenkins sure does make a complex universe" and get on with your life. Stop clinging to your primitive, shepherds tales of the universe. Never once has the answer to any of life's questions been magic, like your Bible says. Its science. Get use to it.
@08jkern True science is simply this: a study of the universe God created. It is not the lies and deceit concocted by those who are diametrically opposed to the purposes of God.
@abobjenkins No scientist is "diametrically opposed to the purposes of God". The theories they come up with might challenge the archaic thinking proposed by the Bible, but they aren't opposed to God. They simply don't accept an answer like God did it. To demonize scientists like that poses such a barrier for Christians to accept what they have to say, which, unfortunately for Christians, are the only people who can actually help or save any one.
I think that this vacuum fluctuation theory model could be better explained by primordial vacuum decay, quantum tunneling, and this rolling ball model.
@bheadh yes it's a definite assumption...and it sounds like a stretch. But the point is we don't know exactly and we have to base certain things on assumption...until we have enough evidence. Especially the origin of the universe. However, this is what sets science apart from superstition and religion (with their ridiculous beliefs and certitude). Science will admit what they don't know...and try to find out.
"Lets assert that some sort of foam, space-time kind of elements"..??? and this comment is scientific? If that is the best explaination you can give....I can hear the echos of laughter across the world. This is the alternative to God creating everything?..You're gonna have to do alot better than that if you want to reach ANYONE.
Trouble with current science for me is the special types of random,vacuum and reference frame.
Random has no parameters! No-thing cannot be a thing(exist) ! Static/stationary reference frame, really ? I am willing to bet that no thing(reference) is stationary in an expanding environment !
The simple fact of the matter is this: there was no big bang; there is no edge to the universe; the universe as a whole is infinite, with infinite size, infinite mass and infinite energy; and it has always has been here and it will always be here. To prove otherwise is where science fails. In order for science to prove itself reliable it must embrace and understand these facts.
It is a very well made video. Well put together with a good theme, however it is riddled with flaws. I don't blame the film maker for these flaws, for he/she is basing this video on what is being taught. I don't even blame the physicists who teach physics. I blame our modern understanding of physics. Our modern understanding of the model of the universe is seriously flawed. There have been several arguements brought up here that are valid, especially "where's the center of the universe?"
@ewack77 From an observer on earth or anywhere else, any MEASUREMENT of the speed of light in a vacuum will result in about 186,000 mps. Relativity is correct if a reference frame can be defined that two observers agree upon. And matter separating faster than the speed of light because the space between two objects is expanding is NOT the same thing as matter traveling THROUGH space at the speed of separation. ANY actual MEASUREMENT of the speed of light will yield c.
@cassiopeiaproject You are trying to confuse this arguement on purpose. You're getting into the realm of conjecturalism. If I had a ruler 186,000 miles long it would take light 1 sec to travel the lenght of my ruler irregardless of how fast or slow space is expanding. Are you saying that my ruler is expanding or shrinking? (x) distance is always (x) distance relative to my ruler. Light traveling to me from any object in space traveling at any speed will reach eventually reach me. Period.
@cassiopeiaproject I'm gonna make this easy. Any object can be measured to be a certain distance away from any other object. This distance is = (1d). This number can be quantified. For example: 10 shoes, 23 horses, 19 rulers, 100 miles or 1 ly(c). The important thing is that it can be measured. What also can be measured is the speed of light (c) in a vacuum to any observer. It will never change. Never. Therefore, light will travel (1d) in (1t). Where t = time. Therefore t = c/d.
@cassiopeiaproject The only way for light to never reach us here on earth is if d = infinity. Any number less than infinity will result in a known time for it to reach earth. Your theory doesn't work based on 4th grade math.
@cassiopeiaproject Kinda like a paradox cassiopeia, but is it a paradox. Kinda like if I was racing a beam of light going the speed of light, who would win? Would it depend on your point of view? ie. Two different realities? No, there is only one reality. The reality of the paradox is that everthing in front of you would stretch out to infinity the closer you came to the speed of light and everything behind you would become infinitely closer.
@cassiopeiaproject the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second, in a vacuum though.. would be a hell of a lot faster than that, all light must vibrate every single other atom to its vibration to show it, and through a vacuum its moving all atoms whether they vibrate at its level or not
But there is no possible way to measure the speed of light if the space between two observers is expanding faster than light can travel across that space.
Im glad to see another critical thinker when it comes to physics and cosmology. I hate it when everyone takes what they're taught without question. As to where the center of the universe is, I completely agree. The entire modern big bang theory collapses if Hubbles spacial curvature theory turns out to be wrong, which the WMAP HAS proven to be wrong with a margin of error that is 0.5%. The universe is flat, yet everyone is taught that it is a sphere? Indeed cosmology is flawed.
@u3190 Thank you brother. I agree with you 100% except for the flat universe thing you said. What is it and what do you mean? Cosmology is flawed thanks to our little invention of the antiphysical/dark physical universe. Where there exists anitparticles and dark matter and space that curves, where straight lines curve and go straight at the same time kinda bs. Physics still means the "physical" universe.
The cosmological theory which the big bang is based on is what I'm talking about. Hubble's assumption that spacial curvature accounts for galaxy redshift has been blown out of the water due to measurements provided by the WMAP.
Google "WMAP the shape of the universe" and you will see what I'm talking about.
@u3190 Im sorry but i'm not going to waste my time on googling WMAP. As it appears you people have made physics so impossibly complex that no one can understand any of it. The universe, once explained correctly, is as easy to understand as nonorganic chemistry. Unless proven otherwise, the universe is in plain 3 dimensions and is infinite because this is the most logical and simplest model of the universe. It is not flat, spherical, conical, cylindrical nor any other shape for that matter.
When cosmologists say "flat" they mean 3 dimensions but infinite in extent. You obviously agree with this but didn't know it. The current big bang model is based on a spherical universe. In theory, if you traveled in one direction for long enough, you would end up in the same position at which you started. This is called the cosmological principal
If you googled the WMAP like I asked, you would find out that the universe is flat just like you argue.
@u3190 Yes, there is no reason to believe that if I traveled in a straight line for long enough that I would return to where I started. Is this your belief? I will google WMAP. The main arguement stated in this video is that there is a difference between "expanding of space between two objects" and "if two objects were moving away from each other." My statement is that there is NO difference between these two events and any attempt to prove otherwise is pointless.
@u3190 Sorry u3190, I went to NASA's WMAP website, read about two sentences and had to quit reading because I strongly disagree with the theory that the universe is expanding and the theory of gravity. Watch my vidoes and you'll understand why I disagree and why there is another more logical explanation for these observations. Once again space can not cause a force on an object. Empty space is empty space that contains no energy nor mass therefore no force. E=mc^2.
Let me exlain, wherever an object is in space and whatever it's speed, if it emits light, that light will travel 186,000 miles/per second,in a vacuum, towards me, as measured by me. (Not measured by the light emiter towards me.) Therefore if an object is 186,000 miles away from me, emitting light, and traveling at 1000 x the speed of light. It would take one sec for that light to reach me. It doesn't matter how fast the emitter of the light is going. Light will always travel the speed of iight.
In your video, it has many conflicting statements. In the monolog "Surprisingly the answer to both questions is a resounding YES." and at 9:11 "Due to the faster than light expansion of space...light was actually moving away from us." and at 11:44 "Most objects...are traveling away from us at velocities fast enough that we will never see them." Again cassiopeia, statements #2 and 3 are incorrect.
Wow! You are forgetting one small but important thing. E=mc2 for one thing. Think about. For another I'll give you an example of the speed of light. If I was traveling away from you at the speed of light and I shot a beam of light back towards you, you would see the light. It would not stand still. Which is what you propose.
@ewack77 Even if I was traveling away from you faster than the speed of light and I shined my flashlight towards you, you would still see the light and you would measure it to be traveling at the speed of light. Light travels at the speed of light to all observers at any speed independent of the speed of the light source.
@ewack77 The limits imposed by the speed of light only apply once you have established a reference frame. In the Universe video, there is no reference frame that you can choose where the speed of light limitation has been violated.
@cassiopeiaproject OK, you propose that light from light sources traveling away from earth faster than the speed of light will never reach earth. Is this correct? I am stating that this is false. Like I said before, light has only one speed, that is the speed of light, measured by you on earth. It can not go slower or faster than the speed of light nor can it stand still, It will always travel at 186,000 miles/sec in a vacuum, as measured by you on earth.
@cassiopeiaproject I am trying to understand this arguement, but it is very hard with all the mumbojumbo. I think we have established a reference frame: the earth. My arguement is not whether matter can travel faster than light, it is how fast light travels from an observer on earth. When light leaves any object in space it will travel towards me at a rate of 186,000 earth miles in 1 earth second. Light will not slow down nor speed up when traveling towards me. Is this clear, do you agree or not
@ewack77 That would be true if I were traveling away from you normally through space. What the author of the video is suggesting is that *space itself* is expanding. If space itself expands fast enough, then the effect he describes would be apparent.
@Jafo38506 For one thing. Space expanding? What is this? Space is space, it's a measure of the distance between two objects. That's why they call it "space". When I travel away from you, the space between us is expanding. But space can not push any two objects away from each other. Space does not contain energy nor mass to do this. That's why they call it "space". You need to go back to school. Your idea does not make sense.
@ewack77 I agree, the whole idea of the effects of space expansion are very counter-intuitive. It does sound like madness, eh? Also, it's not *my* idea you're attacking, but that of the author of the video. Also, you have a very creative definition of "space." Very creative indeed. Did you just make it up? Or did they teach that to you at your school? On your advice, I should like to attend such a school.
@Jafo38506 Creative? Hah! I think my definition of space is the most basic of a definition you can get. If you want me to get more technical well then, here it goes. Space is a measure of any three dimensional volume. However, if only two or one dimension is mentioned it is assumed that the other dimensions are non critical or assumed to be of any length. For example: the space between my toes is 1 mm or the space between the U.S. and Europe is the Atlantic ocean or the space I occupy is...
@Jafo38506 Also: space can be used to generalize the area or volume located beyond earths atmosphere, which may contain very little or no matter. Or the area or volume of the entire universe (very general).
@Jafo38506 However, for this arguement, if the space between me and you were to expand or to grow larger then the only logical explanation is that we are moving away from each other. There is no other explanation for this phenomenon. This explanation is the same for me and you as is for all other matter in the universe. If you have another explanation, please I'd like to hear it.
@ewack77 Well, I think the barrier you're encountering is your very rigid definition of space. You see space as you experience it, as three dimensions. Special Relativity describes space as three spatial dimensions and one time dimension. You said, "Space is space, it's a measure of the distance between two objects." But that's exactly the case with spacetime. Spacetime can be bent and warped by gravity. Light passing through a gravitational lens will not follow a straight path.
@Jafo38506 Fuck special relativity. Relativity is a poor excuse for explaining gravity. He might as well have said "God made it happen". This theory either violates his very own (or was it his) summation of E=mc^2 or Newton's 1st Law of Motion. He simply replaced the force which used to pull to objects together with the idea that space was shrinking or that space was curved. "It's not a force pulling those two objects together it's space." Unfortunately, space contains neither mass nor energy.
@Jafo38506 Relativily is so riddled with holes I'm surprised science accepts it. Unfortunately, besides my theory of everything, this is the best explanation science has come up with. If asked whether God made gravity happen or space, I would choose God and I'm an atheist. LOL!
@Jafo38506 Oh, sorry the only other logical explanation to "if space were expanding" besides us moving away from each other is that we could also be shrinking. Which is my explanation for the red shift of galaxies.
@ewack77 Oh, I didn't cite Relativity as an explanation for gravity. I cited it as an example of how distance can increase between to fixed points in space. I mentioned it as an example of how space is not as fixed as you say it is.
@Jafo38506 I still don't understand how relativity is related to space. Space is pretty simple to understand. As a matter of fact space is the most simplest thing we can understand. Don't try to make it more complicated than it is. Since it is "nothingness". For some people I even wonder if they can even comprehend that. Personally, I'm surprised space even has a definition.
@Jafo38506 Space can not shrink, expand, curve or bend. Space does not tell matter that it's moving in a straight line, matter tells space it's moving in a straight line. Space does not tell matter it's spinning only other matter can tell matter it's spinning. Space contains no force, no energy and no mass. It can not tell time or determine velocity. Space, for lack of a better term, is a void. It is nothing, absolutely nothing.
@Jafo38506 "Light passing through a gravitational lens will not follow a straight path". This you have explained is the result of space bending it's path. If I said that "God made it bend" I would not be wrong either untill we actually find the reason for why it bends. Mass can not bend space. There is no proof that it does. What is proven is that mass bends the path of the light. Your explanation where space is curved is like explaining what a white door looks like by calling it bright.
@ewack77 Look, I disagree with you. Can you live with that? Explaining more of your half-assed theories isn't going to make me suddenly see the light. Give it up. I just don't care about what you have to say. I just don't give a shit.
@Jafo38506 OK This is my last post. Relativity either violates E=mc^2 or Newton's 1st law of motion. Take your pick. And don't try to tell me that Newton's law is dependent upon a reference frame and is sometimes correct. If Newton had wanted it to mean something different he would've said something different. Only a force can curve the path of an object. Last time I checked physics meant the physical world. If their theories were correct we should've had a theory of everything by now.
THE big bang? Followed by EXPANSION? I accept that idea. But why? Obviously the Cosmologists find it difficult to SPEAK the reason. They must have a mathematical equation to explain it & what stopped it. Because if we apply a constant expotential expansion, the Universe would now be astronomical. lol. The problem? Infinity is forever in space & TIME. But no THING can last FOREVER unchanged. Else it doesn't REACT. Therefore it does not exist. God = infinity = does NOT EXIST! Simple as PIE/pi.
@listen2meokidoki LIFE like the Universe has a start and an END. We live as a BUBBLE does. Not forever. And the notion WE go the heaven FOREVER is a cruel fate no matter how good it is up there.In time it will become too much of a good thing. And there is no reason all creatures do not go to heaven/hell. But if the Universe starts & ends and THAT IS IT. Then there is no MEANING. God is therefore singing "I'm forever blowing Bubbles". Except he's infinite & is too big to move or change! Confused?
@listen2meokidoki The real reason is that matter is shrinking. Space is not expanding, never did and never will. This stuff they're telling you is mumbo jumbo, in other words they don't have a reason and they don't know. LIke I said before "If I was asked whether God made it happen or use science's explanation, I'd choose "God did it" and I am an atheist." Do you see that in the past they would just say "it was God". They still use the same excuse, but say it differently.
1: @ 8:12 he says first stars were giants that were everywhere, so those just inside our horizon are just visible today. Thus, they were intially 42mil ly away & are now 36bil, being "just inside" 46bil, corrrect? But @ 9:00, "light from earliest stars" WAS emitted from 1.5bil, now 36bil. Eh? Are we talking about the same stars?
2: 9:28, light from galaxies from 5-6bil ly...."were most distant at the time." So at what point in time is that 5-6bil ly from? ty.
@jdgrahamo You're right there. And you wonder why TV companies tend to get someone with a British accent to explain this sort of stuff on their Science stands. I'd sooner listen to Patrick Stewart telling me the Moon's made of Cheese; than listen to one further second of this man's 'adenoids'.
very ignorant to assume we are the centre of existance, what if we are in teh edge of the universe? and what if everything in space is expanding... if space is infact expanding. then imagin the earth.... and what if we are expanding... it would explain the separation of continents and the break up of the earths crust. the sun expands... space does... and so does everything in it. so what if infact nothing is moving away from us but just growing at a rapid pace?
Every time i watch video's about this i think i get it. Then the next day some random scenario involving Hubble'slaw, dark energy etc pops up and i still cant figure it out! Same thing with Einsteins relativity.
Hmmm, if the expansion of the universe is slower than light already, then at a point of a time, photons will start to reach the 'edge' of the universe. So if they reach the 'edge' of the universe, do they escape? And if they escape, what happens?
Why were old large galaxies observed about 12.8 billion light years away? That galaxy was about the same mass as the Milky Way. See Tomotsugu finds galaxy 12.8 billion light years away. Observations defy this theory already.
I don't get one thing. If we can only see a shell around us because everything else beyond that shell is traveling faster than light, where is the center of the universe then? From our point of view is where we live... But surely the universe is expanding from somewhere. Isn't it?
@T0B0KKE Since all of space is expanding, there is no center of expansion. On the other hand, since the expansion is cumulative with distance from a given point, every point, including our own earth, can be considered the center if that's where you are.
@cassiopeiaproject Thank you for the explanation. I have another question: How can we know the age of the universe? The observable universe is 13,5 billion light-years away from us. That gives us the age of the universe or am I wrong? Doesn't the inflation of space's size change this?
@T0B0KKE It is true that basing the age of the Universe solely on estimates of expansion rates and current distances can introduce errors. But that is just one way to estimate the age of the Universe.
@T0B0KKE When refined estimates of that nature are combined with other methods -- like the age of the oldest star clusters and the age of the oldest white dwarf stars and age of radioactive elements in the gas clouds of galaxies and other methods based on the CMBR -- then we think the age estimates are pretty accurate.
@cassiopeiaproject So all of space is expanding at the same rate? I'm struggling to get my head around the whole 'no center of expansion' thing, obviously I'm not suggesting there is necessarily a center and certainly not that if there was it would be where we are, but naturally when you imagine something expanding you visualise a central fixed point with the furthest parts moving away from each other the quickest...
Consider that you are a 2-dimensional person living on the surface of a balloon (remember that you are 2-D, so the "third dimension" is not something you can visualize, just as we cannot visualize a fourth physical dimension). Now add air to the balloon. Your 2-D space is now expanded, but the "center of the expansion" is not within your 2-D space. Also, the distance between you and your next-door neighbor is now farther, though neither of you has taken a step.
@T0B0KKE it is like an expanding balloon where the galaxies are dots on the surface, however the universe is in 4 dimensions or more therefore this 2D anology doesn't give the whole picture.
@sam321b I understand that analogy but I'm afraid it doesn't have anything to do with this subject. If you inflate a balloon the dots are getting inflated too, unless you stick some solid dots on them. If space expands like you describe, then the galaxies themselves expand too, so we wouldn't actually notice that expansion. It like a guy getting fatter and fatter and only realizes that once someone tells him. :D
@sam321b that's the most rediculous explanation i've ever heard. If galaxies were dots on this expanding balloon then wouldn't matter (the dots) be expanding too? This is as incorrect an analogy as saying "since the balloon is white then so are my teeth." I've had enough!!! The truth is space is not expanding. Matter is shrinking. When matter shrinks it appears as if we are moving away from other galaxies and the distances between us grows farther and farther exponentially.
braniest people...you are pretty close to truth which you can never reach as this truth is infinity.i regret really.him which is inside you will never become god.:D:D:D
These videos are wonderful and very informative, but I have a small suggestion.
Your speaking tone in every sentence is exactly the same; it's that 'explanation' tone wherein the middle of the sentence is higher-pitched and the last few words are lowered again. This is fine every now and then, but...
... but you say every sentence that way! Just a teensy bit of variation would be great
@taicleis I know what you mean. When two phrases have the same noun in them but different adjectives, the adjective in the second phrase should be emphasized to show that it is different from the first one.
@Flagamon The Uncertainty Principle allowed the creation of a tiny "seed" of "stuff" out of nothing. Then the expansion of space-time created the rest by absorbing the negative gravitational energy so that matter could be created out of the positive-energy counterbalance. The net energy in the universe is still equal that is the tiny "seed".
How interesting. It appears that the law of the preservation of matter did not exist at that time. Therefore we got a tiny something out of nothing via a doubtful explanation for the uncertainty. I find those who believe in God honest.
PS. A principle or law "allowed the creation" - is a similar expression with the "thought allowed the brain to be created". Laws of the matter are intrinsic values of the matter. They cannot exist each without the other.
What is this bombastic 'Lambda-Cold-Dark-Matter' naming mania on absolute nonsense; this empty speculation of retarded surrogate way of religious thinking trying to impress instead of proving their idiotic ignorant ideas of retards playing bold science? What is this pseudoscientific schizophrenia? Where does it stop?
Question: I believe it was Dr. Dawkins who wrote that there are an estimated 100 billion earth-like (or Goldilocks) planets. I gather from your video that our observable universe is a small fraction of the actual. Would you know whether this estimate of planets which could support life similar to that on Earth is inside the particle horizon or would include the entire universe?
It is interesting to reflect that our type of life may exist in other universes.
And, I don't understand the two different theories of the Big Bang. i've been taught in school that the Big bang of theory is concerning two particles that hit eachother and therefore create the universe, but the Big Bang theory I've seen in videos is concerning the explosion of a single bit of mass.
How, in the beginning of the video, with that single bit of mass, can a universe be created? I mean, That single bit of mass must've been created WHEN the universe was created, since it cannot have existed before the universe was created, since time was created when space was.
@cassiopeiaproject How can something exist before the universe was created if there was no space where it would exist and no time when it would exist?
@magichristo Most modern ideas regarding the beginning of the Universe consider that our universe may not be all that there is. Instead, it may be just one of a large, possibly infinite, number of universes. Taken together, they are sometimes referred to as the multiverse. So time and space for our own universe began with the big bang, but our big bang was not the beginning of everything that might be.
@cassiopeiaproject but if the mass that created our universe was only 1/1000 of a gram and assuming once the universe was created nothing else "came in" where did all the mass we have not come from ?
@derickhaywood You can think of all the rest as a separation between positive energy which resulted in all the matter that you mention and the negative gravitational energy that resulted from the expansion. If we could add these two back together we would end up with zero.
But that one theory of the big bang, the other one is the collition between our universe membrane by another membrane but that's a theory to so I'm not sure,
@Arthur61987 Of course it emits photons. Just because there aren't any retinas to transduce the light signals into electrical signals doesn't mean it automatically stops existing. Humanity's hubris seems to have no bounds, as we seem to believe reality hinges on our perception of it.
@Arthur61987 That's because we have to tranduce everything into our brains. "Our" reality is different from a bat's "reality," but the origin of our respective realities, THE reality, is not an illusion.
Besides, just because Einstein said something, that doesn't mean it's true. In matters of opinion, hardly anyone is right.
Interesting but if the galaxies are moving away from us at the speed of light. The light travels at the speed of light then, relative to us, shouldn't light appear stationary. But special relativity says the light always travels at the sped of light irrespective of the observers motion. Thanks
@Neeraj12345678987654 Since none of the motion described is in ANY observer's inertial frame, none of the tenet's of special relativity are violated. No observer ever overtakes a light beam and all observers measure light locally to be traveling at c. And causality is preserved.
The observation that distant galaxy expand away from us, did any one consider this actully billions years ago not now. For current waht is the actual stituation for distant galaxy is impossibe to get it now. I think the univrse we can observe the light is actually an blake hole related to the outward of our universe. And I beleieve that those blake hole in our universe is also another universe with different physic constant.
Oh god... I'm all for creative thinking, but scientists (especially cosmologists) seem to often ignore the difference between theory and fact. This entire video is built on a cosmological house of cards, and the net result is almost preposterous. Space and time sure seem to bend over backwards to fit your theories, don't they? Dark Energy and Dark Matter - can you produce some for us please? Einstein would be shaking his head in disgust.
I don't like the expansion phase of the universe. It was fudged in to account for the homogeneity that was observed following the observations from the microwave background radiation.
@robertozube so much of our current model is fudged in to make the cosmic microwave background radiation seem to be as important as people want it to be. especially inflation. why the hell does space just randomly expand super fast for a time then slow down again.
... Attempt to repudiate the logos and pathos with mythos.
MrPlaiedes 1 month ago
It doesn't make for a very productive argument to explain the ideas and concepts of this video to the religiously outspoken. For these individuals faith is just as much a cultural property as it is an ethereal property of spirituality. You process that the universe is expanding and they rebut with a quote from the bible. The logic is I'll-structured from the beginning. It would serve a greater purpose if the folks would make efforts to more readily accept their fellow Christian sects than to at
MrPlaiedes 1 month ago
we live in the future.
x5cycling 2 months ago
If distant stars are 15billion light years away, this would state that the universe is larger than 15billion light years, but the universe is younger than 15billion years. So does that mean the early universe expanded faster than the speed of light?
ryanduds 2 months ago
nothing times(X) zero,(or singularity) = bilions and bilions and bilions and bilions and bilions galaxies, or allmost infinitely quantity of mater, eeeeeeee scientess where is the logic here, or u maybe mised something, but u have mised much more than u ever think.
nas19811 3 months ago
anyone else notice the graphical bugs?
SatanFang 3 months ago
This years noble prize winners (physics) found out that the universe was expanding at a accelerate rate, so i guess its only a matter if "time"
01rai01 4 months ago
This has just clarified so much to me
thetaken09 5 months ago
garbage
abobjenkins 5 months ago
@abobjenkins Have you got a theory that renders all of this invalid or did it just confuse you?
messi996 4 months ago
@messi996 The only thing that "confuses" me is how anyone could deny the existence of his Creater and relegate the existence of all the complexities of this universe to mere chance. No one would say that a car or a watch or a building spontaneously appeared from nothing when this probability is MUCH higher. Why wouldn't they? They know that would be stupid; that's why.
abobjenkins 4 months ago
@abobjenkins i am on the fence about religion and atheism i honestly have though about both for hours and really i have no idea, but this is what i put to you, isnt it possible that all of this is fully true, and it was god that set it in monition? think about it that would explain been a god and all of this been true, as someone said(i think it was pope john paul the second i may be wrong) science is the quest to find out how it happened , religion is the quest to find out why it happened
messi996 4 months ago
@messi996 I believe the Genesis account of creation. Much of that which is called "science" today isn't science at all, just postulation set forth as truth. They use fancy jargon to make what they say sound plausible to the untrained ear. A good example of this is what the call "dark matter" and "dark energy". The have no real proof that either of these things exist. They merely make that claim that they do exist simply because they do not really understand how the universe works.
abobjenkins 4 months ago
@messi996 The true answer is simple: He [God] is "upholding all things by the word of his power". Hebrews 1:3
abobjenkins 4 months ago
@messi996 Another example of their double-talk is the "expanding universe" theory. They say that the universe has no center, yet they also say that as they look out, all the galaxies are moving away from us. If we are not at the center, it is not possible for everything to be moving away from us. Something would have to be moving toward us if different parts of the universe are moving at different speeds.
abobjenkins 4 months ago
@abobjenkins i lost all respect for you with that sentence not only do you not understand the theory, which i dont mind it is very complex, but you try to use it!. There are many galaxies moving toward us, one of them will soon hit as galaxy, also are is your ego so big, that you think a creator only made live here? how do you know many galaxies dont have life in them? I mean really if i was god id be pretty piss at how the human race turn out seeing that we live in a paradise.
messi996 4 months ago
@messi996 Your sentence structure is horrible. Your thoughts are incoherent. Lastly, I don't even know you. Why should I care about your "respect"? pfffft!
abobjenkins 4 months ago
@abobjenkins "If we are not at the center, it is not possible for everything to be moving away from us." This is completely false and I refer you to Lawrence Krauss' lecture 'A Universe From Nothing' at minute 8:50...We are not the center of the universe. Watch it before you rebuttal.
08jkern 3 months ago
@abobjenkins I can't post the link for some reason but just youtube search "A Universe From Nothing Lawrence Krauss"...Its the very first lecture thats provided.
08jkern 3 months ago
@08jkern Anyone can imagine whatever he/she frames his mind to imagine. The real world, however, does not follow the imaginings of a man. Common experience shows how senseless it is to believe that any physical objects spontaneously appear from nothing by themselves. Nothing acting alone can produce just that - NOTHING.
abobjenkins 3 months ago
@abobjenkins Every scientific advancement has come on the whim of the imagination. Through experiments, scientists create a model of the universe. Further experiments will either disprove or validate their previous intuition. So you're right in a way, the real world doesn't follow the imaginings of man, rather, the imaginings of man follow the real world. This view of the universe came about after observations of change over time had occurred.....See thats the difference between scientist and
08jkern 3 months ago
@abobjenkins Christians. Scientists have questions, create and perform experiments that they think will give them answers to these questions, and then make conclusions. Whereas, Christians have questions, create conclusions, steal scientists experiments and data, and then only use the information that supports their hypothesis......And you're absolutely right. Your common experience isn't conducive to create something from nothing, but in quantum physics and the vacuum of space, particles pop
08jkern 3 months ago
@abobjenkins in and out of existence from their parent particle all the time. Your common experience is based on living inside a planets gravity and atmospheric pressures at a certain point in space. Your common experience doesn't have any precedence on what is actually happening in the other 99.99999% of the universe. Scientists simply want to observe the universe and discover how it works. When we prove your nonsense of a seven day creation story, get the fuck over it, and just say "well God
08jkern 3 months ago
@abobjenkins sure does make a complex universe" and get on with your life. Stop clinging to your primitive, shepherds tales of the universe. Never once has the answer to any of life's questions been magic, like your Bible says. Its science. Get use to it.
08jkern 3 months ago
@08jkern True science is simply this: a study of the universe God created. It is not the lies and deceit concocted by those who are diametrically opposed to the purposes of God.
abobjenkins 3 months ago
@abobjenkins No scientist is "diametrically opposed to the purposes of God". The theories they come up with might challenge the archaic thinking proposed by the Bible, but they aren't opposed to God. They simply don't accept an answer like God did it. To demonize scientists like that poses such a barrier for Christians to accept what they have to say, which, unfortunately for Christians, are the only people who can actually help or save any one.
08jkern 3 months ago
I think that this vacuum fluctuation theory model could be better explained by primordial vacuum decay, quantum tunneling, and this rolling ball model.
CreativeVisionary92 6 months ago
@bheadh yes it's a definite assumption...and it sounds like a stretch. But the point is we don't know exactly and we have to base certain things on assumption...until we have enough evidence. Especially the origin of the universe. However, this is what sets science apart from superstition and religion (with their ridiculous beliefs and certitude). Science will admit what they don't know...and try to find out.
bookwormbandit 6 months ago
"Lets assert that some sort of foam, space-time kind of elements"..??? and this comment is scientific? If that is the best explaination you can give....I can hear the echos of laughter across the world. This is the alternative to God creating everything?..You're gonna have to do alot better than that if you want to reach ANYONE.
bheadh 6 months ago
Trouble with current science for me is the special types of random,vacuum and reference frame.
Random has no parameters! No-thing cannot be a thing(exist) ! Static/stationary reference frame, really ? I am willing to bet that no thing(reference) is stationary in an expanding environment !
optionsnone 6 months ago
The simple fact of the matter is this: there was no big bang; there is no edge to the universe; the universe as a whole is infinite, with infinite size, infinite mass and infinite energy; and it has always has been here and it will always be here. To prove otherwise is where science fails. In order for science to prove itself reliable it must embrace and understand these facts.
ewack77 6 months ago
It is a very well made video. Well put together with a good theme, however it is riddled with flaws. I don't blame the film maker for these flaws, for he/she is basing this video on what is being taught. I don't even blame the physicists who teach physics. I blame our modern understanding of physics. Our modern understanding of the model of the universe is seriously flawed. There have been several arguements brought up here that are valid, especially "where's the center of the universe?"
ewack77 6 months ago
@ewack77 From an observer on earth or anywhere else, any MEASUREMENT of the speed of light in a vacuum will result in about 186,000 mps. Relativity is correct if a reference frame can be defined that two observers agree upon. And matter separating faster than the speed of light because the space between two objects is expanding is NOT the same thing as matter traveling THROUGH space at the speed of separation. ANY actual MEASUREMENT of the speed of light will yield c.
cassiopeiaproject 6 months ago 2
@cassiopeiaproject You are trying to confuse this arguement on purpose. You're getting into the realm of conjecturalism. If I had a ruler 186,000 miles long it would take light 1 sec to travel the lenght of my ruler irregardless of how fast or slow space is expanding. Are you saying that my ruler is expanding or shrinking? (x) distance is always (x) distance relative to my ruler. Light traveling to me from any object in space traveling at any speed will reach eventually reach me. Period.
ewack77 6 months ago
@cassiopeiaproject I'm gonna make this easy. Any object can be measured to be a certain distance away from any other object. This distance is = (1d). This number can be quantified. For example: 10 shoes, 23 horses, 19 rulers, 100 miles or 1 ly(c). The important thing is that it can be measured. What also can be measured is the speed of light (c) in a vacuum to any observer. It will never change. Never. Therefore, light will travel (1d) in (1t). Where t = time. Therefore t = c/d.
ewack77 6 months ago
@cassiopeiaproject The only way for light to never reach us here on earth is if d = infinity. Any number less than infinity will result in a known time for it to reach earth. Your theory doesn't work based on 4th grade math.
ewack77 6 months ago
@cassiopeiaproject Kinda like a paradox cassiopeia, but is it a paradox. Kinda like if I was racing a beam of light going the speed of light, who would win? Would it depend on your point of view? ie. Two different realities? No, there is only one reality. The reality of the paradox is that everthing in front of you would stretch out to infinity the closer you came to the speed of light and everything behind you would become infinitely closer.
ewack77 6 months ago
@cassiopeiaproject the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second, in a vacuum though.. would be a hell of a lot faster than that, all light must vibrate every single other atom to its vibration to show it, and through a vacuum its moving all atoms whether they vibrate at its level or not
Devorvan 6 months ago
But there is no possible way to measure the speed of light if the space between two observers is expanding faster than light can travel across that space.
cassiopeiaproject 6 months ago 2
@ewack77
Im glad to see another critical thinker when it comes to physics and cosmology. I hate it when everyone takes what they're taught without question. As to where the center of the universe is, I completely agree. The entire modern big bang theory collapses if Hubbles spacial curvature theory turns out to be wrong, which the WMAP HAS proven to be wrong with a margin of error that is 0.5%. The universe is flat, yet everyone is taught that it is a sphere? Indeed cosmology is flawed.
u3190 6 months ago
@u3190 Thank you brother. I agree with you 100% except for the flat universe thing you said. What is it and what do you mean? Cosmology is flawed thanks to our little invention of the antiphysical/dark physical universe. Where there exists anitparticles and dark matter and space that curves, where straight lines curve and go straight at the same time kinda bs. Physics still means the "physical" universe.
ewack77 6 months ago
@ewack77
The cosmological theory which the big bang is based on is what I'm talking about. Hubble's assumption that spacial curvature accounts for galaxy redshift has been blown out of the water due to measurements provided by the WMAP.
Google "WMAP the shape of the universe" and you will see what I'm talking about.
u3190 6 months ago
@u3190 Im sorry but i'm not going to waste my time on googling WMAP. As it appears you people have made physics so impossibly complex that no one can understand any of it. The universe, once explained correctly, is as easy to understand as nonorganic chemistry. Unless proven otherwise, the universe is in plain 3 dimensions and is infinite because this is the most logical and simplest model of the universe. It is not flat, spherical, conical, cylindrical nor any other shape for that matter.
ewack77 6 months ago
@ewack77
HAHA you think by "flat" I mean 2D.
When cosmologists say "flat" they mean 3 dimensions but infinite in extent. You obviously agree with this but didn't know it. The current big bang model is based on a spherical universe. In theory, if you traveled in one direction for long enough, you would end up in the same position at which you started. This is called the cosmological principal
If you googled the WMAP like I asked, you would find out that the universe is flat just like you argue.
u3190 6 months ago
@u3190 Yes, there is no reason to believe that if I traveled in a straight line for long enough that I would return to where I started. Is this your belief? I will google WMAP. The main arguement stated in this video is that there is a difference between "expanding of space between two objects" and "if two objects were moving away from each other." My statement is that there is NO difference between these two events and any attempt to prove otherwise is pointless.
ewack77 6 months ago
@u3190 Sorry u3190, I went to NASA's WMAP website, read about two sentences and had to quit reading because I strongly disagree with the theory that the universe is expanding and the theory of gravity. Watch my vidoes and you'll understand why I disagree and why there is another more logical explanation for these observations. Once again space can not cause a force on an object. Empty space is empty space that contains no energy nor mass therefore no force. E=mc^2.
ewack77 6 months ago
Let me exlain, wherever an object is in space and whatever it's speed, if it emits light, that light will travel 186,000 miles/per second,in a vacuum, towards me, as measured by me. (Not measured by the light emiter towards me.) Therefore if an object is 186,000 miles away from me, emitting light, and traveling at 1000 x the speed of light. It would take one sec for that light to reach me. It doesn't matter how fast the emitter of the light is going. Light will always travel the speed of iight.
ewack77 6 months ago
In your video, it has many conflicting statements. In the monolog "Surprisingly the answer to both questions is a resounding YES." and at 9:11 "Due to the faster than light expansion of space...light was actually moving away from us." and at 11:44 "Most objects...are traveling away from us at velocities fast enough that we will never see them." Again cassiopeia, statements #2 and 3 are incorrect.
ewack77 6 months ago
Wow! You are forgetting one small but important thing. E=mc2 for one thing. Think about. For another I'll give you an example of the speed of light. If I was traveling away from you at the speed of light and I shot a beam of light back towards you, you would see the light. It would not stand still. Which is what you propose.
ewack77 6 months ago
@ewack77 Even if I was traveling away from you faster than the speed of light and I shined my flashlight towards you, you would still see the light and you would measure it to be traveling at the speed of light. Light travels at the speed of light to all observers at any speed independent of the speed of the light source.
ewack77 6 months ago
@ewack77 The limits imposed by the speed of light only apply once you have established a reference frame. In the Universe video, there is no reference frame that you can choose where the speed of light limitation has been violated.
cassiopeiaproject 6 months ago
@cassiopeiaproject OK, you propose that light from light sources traveling away from earth faster than the speed of light will never reach earth. Is this correct? I am stating that this is false. Like I said before, light has only one speed, that is the speed of light, measured by you on earth. It can not go slower or faster than the speed of light nor can it stand still, It will always travel at 186,000 miles/sec in a vacuum, as measured by you on earth.
ewack77 6 months ago
@cassiopeiaproject I am trying to understand this arguement, but it is very hard with all the mumbojumbo. I think we have established a reference frame: the earth. My arguement is not whether matter can travel faster than light, it is how fast light travels from an observer on earth. When light leaves any object in space it will travel towards me at a rate of 186,000 earth miles in 1 earth second. Light will not slow down nor speed up when traveling towards me. Is this clear, do you agree or not
ewack77 6 months ago
@ewack77 That would be true if I were traveling away from you normally through space. What the author of the video is suggesting is that *space itself* is expanding. If space itself expands fast enough, then the effect he describes would be apparent.
Jafo38506 6 months ago
@Jafo38506 For one thing. Space expanding? What is this? Space is space, it's a measure of the distance between two objects. That's why they call it "space". When I travel away from you, the space between us is expanding. But space can not push any two objects away from each other. Space does not contain energy nor mass to do this. That's why they call it "space". You need to go back to school. Your idea does not make sense.
ewack77 6 months ago
@ewack77 I agree, the whole idea of the effects of space expansion are very counter-intuitive. It does sound like madness, eh? Also, it's not *my* idea you're attacking, but that of the author of the video. Also, you have a very creative definition of "space." Very creative indeed. Did you just make it up? Or did they teach that to you at your school? On your advice, I should like to attend such a school.
Jafo38506 6 months ago
@Jafo38506 Creative? Hah! I think my definition of space is the most basic of a definition you can get. If you want me to get more technical well then, here it goes. Space is a measure of any three dimensional volume. However, if only two or one dimension is mentioned it is assumed that the other dimensions are non critical or assumed to be of any length. For example: the space between my toes is 1 mm or the space between the U.S. and Europe is the Atlantic ocean or the space I occupy is...
ewack77 6 months ago
@Jafo38506 Also: space can be used to generalize the area or volume located beyond earths atmosphere, which may contain very little or no matter. Or the area or volume of the entire universe (very general).
ewack77 6 months ago
@Jafo38506 However, for this arguement, if the space between me and you were to expand or to grow larger then the only logical explanation is that we are moving away from each other. There is no other explanation for this phenomenon. This explanation is the same for me and you as is for all other matter in the universe. If you have another explanation, please I'd like to hear it.
ewack77 6 months ago
@ewack77 Well, I think the barrier you're encountering is your very rigid definition of space. You see space as you experience it, as three dimensions. Special Relativity describes space as three spatial dimensions and one time dimension. You said, "Space is space, it's a measure of the distance between two objects." But that's exactly the case with spacetime. Spacetime can be bent and warped by gravity. Light passing through a gravitational lens will not follow a straight path.
Jafo38506 6 months ago
@Jafo38506 Fuck special relativity. Relativity is a poor excuse for explaining gravity. He might as well have said "God made it happen". This theory either violates his very own (or was it his) summation of E=mc^2 or Newton's 1st Law of Motion. He simply replaced the force which used to pull to objects together with the idea that space was shrinking or that space was curved. "It's not a force pulling those two objects together it's space." Unfortunately, space contains neither mass nor energy.
ewack77 6 months ago
@Jafo38506 Relativily is so riddled with holes I'm surprised science accepts it. Unfortunately, besides my theory of everything, this is the best explanation science has come up with. If asked whether God made gravity happen or space, I would choose God and I'm an atheist. LOL!
ewack77 6 months ago
@Jafo38506 Oh, sorry the only other logical explanation to "if space were expanding" besides us moving away from each other is that we could also be shrinking. Which is my explanation for the red shift of galaxies.
ewack77 6 months ago
@ewack77 Oh, I didn't cite Relativity as an explanation for gravity. I cited it as an example of how distance can increase between to fixed points in space. I mentioned it as an example of how space is not as fixed as you say it is.
Jafo38506 6 months ago
@Jafo38506 I still don't understand how relativity is related to space. Space is pretty simple to understand. As a matter of fact space is the most simplest thing we can understand. Don't try to make it more complicated than it is. Since it is "nothingness". For some people I even wonder if they can even comprehend that. Personally, I'm surprised space even has a definition.
ewack77 6 months ago
@Jafo38506 Space can not shrink, expand, curve or bend. Space does not tell matter that it's moving in a straight line, matter tells space it's moving in a straight line. Space does not tell matter it's spinning only other matter can tell matter it's spinning. Space contains no force, no energy and no mass. It can not tell time or determine velocity. Space, for lack of a better term, is a void. It is nothing, absolutely nothing.
ewack77 6 months ago
@ewack77 I disagree.
Jafo38506 6 months ago
@Jafo38506 "Light passing through a gravitational lens will not follow a straight path". This you have explained is the result of space bending it's path. If I said that "God made it bend" I would not be wrong either untill we actually find the reason for why it bends. Mass can not bend space. There is no proof that it does. What is proven is that mass bends the path of the light. Your explanation where space is curved is like explaining what a white door looks like by calling it bright.
ewack77 6 months ago
@ewack77 Look, I disagree with you. Can you live with that? Explaining more of your half-assed theories isn't going to make me suddenly see the light. Give it up. I just don't care about what you have to say. I just don't give a shit.
Jafo38506 6 months ago
@Jafo38506 OK This is my last post. Relativity either violates E=mc^2 or Newton's 1st law of motion. Take your pick. And don't try to tell me that Newton's law is dependent upon a reference frame and is sometimes correct. If Newton had wanted it to mean something different he would've said something different. Only a force can curve the path of an object. Last time I checked physics meant the physical world. If their theories were correct we should've had a theory of everything by now.
ewack77 6 months ago
THE big bang? Followed by EXPANSION? I accept that idea. But why? Obviously the Cosmologists find it difficult to SPEAK the reason. They must have a mathematical equation to explain it & what stopped it. Because if we apply a constant expotential expansion, the Universe would now be astronomical. lol. The problem? Infinity is forever in space & TIME. But no THING can last FOREVER unchanged. Else it doesn't REACT. Therefore it does not exist. God = infinity = does NOT EXIST! Simple as PIE/pi.
listen2meokidoki 7 months ago
@listen2meokidoki LIFE like the Universe has a start and an END. We live as a BUBBLE does. Not forever. And the notion WE go the heaven FOREVER is a cruel fate no matter how good it is up there.In time it will become too much of a good thing. And there is no reason all creatures do not go to heaven/hell. But if the Universe starts & ends and THAT IS IT. Then there is no MEANING. God is therefore singing "I'm forever blowing Bubbles". Except he's infinite & is too big to move or change! Confused?
listen2meokidoki 7 months ago
@listen2meokidoki The real reason is that matter is shrinking. Space is not expanding, never did and never will. This stuff they're telling you is mumbo jumbo, in other words they don't have a reason and they don't know. LIke I said before "If I was asked whether God made it happen or use science's explanation, I'd choose "God did it" and I am an atheist." Do you see that in the past they would just say "it was God". They still use the same excuse, but say it differently.
ewack77 6 months ago
"due to the faster than light expansion of space..." ehem, I guess this is hard core Star Wars science...:)
fazekaslaszlo 8 months ago
Just blew my mind :D
DJNEKOO 8 months ago
Stars in the Night Sky have Formation.
heartlessvietboy 8 months ago
..so obvious if you ask me..
TimmacTR 8 months ago
Someone, 2 clarifications plz:
1: @ 8:12 he says first stars were giants that were everywhere, so those just inside our horizon are just visible today. Thus, they were intially 42mil ly away & are now 36bil, being "just inside" 46bil, corrrect? But @ 9:00, "light from earliest stars" WAS emitted from 1.5bil, now 36bil. Eh? Are we talking about the same stars?
2: 9:28, light from galaxies from 5-6bil ly...."were most distant at the time." So at what point in time is that 5-6bil ly from? ty.
Sp3ctre18 8 months ago
The commentator's delivery is really annoying. Does he talk like that all the time, or just when he's talking to idiots like us?
jdgrahamo 8 months ago
@jdgrahamo You're right there. And you wonder why TV companies tend to get someone with a British accent to explain this sort of stuff on their Science stands. I'd sooner listen to Patrick Stewart telling me the Moon's made of Cheese; than listen to one further second of this man's 'adenoids'.
IO23777 8 months ago
very ignorant to assume we are the centre of existance, what if we are in teh edge of the universe? and what if everything in space is expanding... if space is infact expanding. then imagin the earth.... and what if we are expanding... it would explain the separation of continents and the break up of the earths crust. the sun expands... space does... and so does everything in it. so what if infact nothing is moving away from us but just growing at a rapid pace?
aussie1990jaime 9 months ago
A quontum fome sort of something. Very scientific lol.
leahcimrac 9 months ago 4
Every time i watch video's about this i think i get it. Then the next day some random scenario involving Hubble'slaw, dark energy etc pops up and i still cant figure it out! Same thing with Einsteins relativity.
DutchNordic 9 months ago
Hmmm, if the expansion of the universe is slower than light already, then at a point of a time, photons will start to reach the 'edge' of the universe. So if they reach the 'edge' of the universe, do they escape? And if they escape, what happens?
SheepBaas 9 months ago
It's crazy that there are events we will never see, but we know happened.
Icix1 10 months ago
God did it. lol
derman077 10 months ago
need subtitles
Azeroak 10 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 10 months ago
Why were old large galaxies observed about 12.8 billion light years away? That galaxy was about the same mass as the Milky Way. See Tomotsugu finds galaxy 12.8 billion light years away. Observations defy this theory already.
GateMessenger 11 months ago
@GateMessenger Those observations do not contradict the ideas depicted in this video -- watch it again!
cassiopeiaproject 11 months ago 4
Way too much speculation for this to be a simple repeating process which continues forever.
GateMessenger 11 months ago
everyone and all videos, that i have seen ,
fail to explain as to why , the vacuum of space exists, what is keeping the vacuum there, what is beyond space, and the universe,
is there a super being , running all of this,as an experiment, and who or what are observing these super beings. and on , and on , and on , and on .
onekeypianoplayer 1 year ago
Re: "The Uncertainty Principle allowed the creation of ..."
The Uncertainty Principle is just the physical interpretation of a mathematical result. It cannot, and did not, create anything.
LeconsdAnalyse 1 year ago
you are stupid
maurd90 1 year ago
I don't get one thing. If we can only see a shell around us because everything else beyond that shell is traveling faster than light, where is the center of the universe then? From our point of view is where we live... But surely the universe is expanding from somewhere. Isn't it?
T0B0KKE 1 year ago
@T0B0KKE Since all of space is expanding, there is no center of expansion. On the other hand, since the expansion is cumulative with distance from a given point, every point, including our own earth, can be considered the center if that's where you are.
cassiopeiaproject 1 year ago 5
@cassiopeiaproject Thank you for the explanation. I have another question: How can we know the age of the universe? The observable universe is 13,5 billion light-years away from us. That gives us the age of the universe or am I wrong? Doesn't the inflation of space's size change this?
T0B0KKE 1 year ago
@T0B0KKE It is true that basing the age of the Universe solely on estimates of expansion rates and current distances can introduce errors. But that is just one way to estimate the age of the Universe.
cassiopeiaproject 1 year ago
@cassiopeiaproject Thank you for the answer. Really helpful.
T0B0KKE 1 year ago
@T0B0KKE When refined estimates of that nature are combined with other methods -- like the age of the oldest star clusters and the age of the oldest white dwarf stars and age of radioactive elements in the gas clouds of galaxies and other methods based on the CMBR -- then we think the age estimates are pretty accurate.
cassiopeiaproject 1 year ago
@T0B0KKE An interesting book you can read is "the Fabric of the cosmos" by Brian Greene
What I remember for sure it's that there is an esteem of the size, which it should be, if I recall it right, between 70 and 100 billions of ly
sym667 8 months ago
@sym667 Thank you for that reference. Although I don't really believe in a finite universe, it should be really worth a read.
T0B0KKE 8 months ago
@cassiopeiaproject
I bet there is some sort of capital, or place of worship, or something, in the center of the universe, i.e. where the big bang occured....
probably holy to some aliens =D
But then again, all motion in space is relative, as you explained, and it's probably impossible to determine where our origin is :p
tarrizzzzzzzzz 1 year ago
@cassiopeiaproject So all of space is expanding at the same rate? I'm struggling to get my head around the whole 'no center of expansion' thing, obviously I'm not suggesting there is necessarily a center and certainly not that if there was it would be where we are, but naturally when you imagine something expanding you visualise a central fixed point with the furthest parts moving away from each other the quickest...
thetaken09 5 months ago in playlist thetaken09's Favorited Videos
@thetaken09
Consider that you are a 2-dimensional person living on the surface of a balloon (remember that you are 2-D, so the "third dimension" is not something you can visualize, just as we cannot visualize a fourth physical dimension). Now add air to the balloon. Your 2-D space is now expanded, but the "center of the expansion" is not within your 2-D space. Also, the distance between you and your next-door neighbor is now farther, though neither of you has taken a step.
pseudorandomly 5 months ago
@T0B0KKE it is like an expanding balloon where the galaxies are dots on the surface, however the universe is in 4 dimensions or more therefore this 2D anology doesn't give the whole picture.
sam321b 10 months ago
@sam321b I understand that analogy but I'm afraid it doesn't have anything to do with this subject. If you inflate a balloon the dots are getting inflated too, unless you stick some solid dots on them. If space expands like you describe, then the galaxies themselves expand too, so we wouldn't actually notice that expansion. It like a guy getting fatter and fatter and only realizes that once someone tells him. :D
T0B0KKE 10 months ago
@sam321b that's the most rediculous explanation i've ever heard. If galaxies were dots on this expanding balloon then wouldn't matter (the dots) be expanding too? This is as incorrect an analogy as saying "since the balloon is white then so are my teeth." I've had enough!!! The truth is space is not expanding. Matter is shrinking. When matter shrinks it appears as if we are moving away from other galaxies and the distances between us grows farther and farther exponentially.
ewack77 6 months ago
braniest people...you are pretty close to truth which you can never reach as this truth is infinity.i regret really.him which is inside you will never become god.:D:D:D
TheDavid1787 1 year ago
or the speed of Time and Gravity?
Rico8458 1 year ago
These videos are wonderful and very informative, but I have a small suggestion.
Your speaking tone in every sentence is exactly the same; it's that 'explanation' tone wherein the middle of the sentence is higher-pitched and the last few words are lowered again. This is fine every now and then, but...
... but you say every sentence that way! Just a teensy bit of variation would be great
taicleis 1 year ago
@taicleis I know what you mean. When two phrases have the same noun in them but different adjectives, the adjective in the second phrase should be emphasized to show that it is different from the first one.
afroman1419 1 year ago
Now that is good.
ErichoTTA 1 year ago
(min.1.46) How does the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg explain the creation of "this much stuff" out of nothing?
Flagamon 1 year ago
@Flagamon The Uncertainty Principle allowed the creation of a tiny "seed" of "stuff" out of nothing. Then the expansion of space-time created the rest by absorbing the negative gravitational energy so that matter could be created out of the positive-energy counterbalance. The net energy in the universe is still equal that is the tiny "seed".
cassiopeiaproject 1 year ago
@cassiopeiaproject
How interesting. It appears that the law of the preservation of matter did not exist at that time. Therefore we got a tiny something out of nothing via a doubtful explanation for the uncertainty. I find those who believe in God honest.
PS. A principle or law "allowed the creation" - is a similar expression with the "thought allowed the brain to be created". Laws of the matter are intrinsic values of the matter. They cannot exist each without the other.
Flagamon 1 year ago
What is this bombastic 'Lambda-Cold-Dark-Matter' naming mania on absolute nonsense; this empty speculation of retarded surrogate way of religious thinking trying to impress instead of proving their idiotic ignorant ideas of retards playing bold science? What is this pseudoscientific schizophrenia? Where does it stop?
TroyIII 1 year ago
@TroyIII i smell a troll
UndeadTheta 1 year ago
Great video.
Question: I believe it was Dr. Dawkins who wrote that there are an estimated 100 billion earth-like (or Goldilocks) planets. I gather from your video that our observable universe is a small fraction of the actual. Would you know whether this estimate of planets which could support life similar to that on Earth is inside the particle horizon or would include the entire universe?
It is interesting to reflect that our type of life may exist in other universes.
daveknow 1 year ago
And, I don't understand the two different theories of the Big Bang. i've been taught in school that the Big bang of theory is concerning two particles that hit eachother and therefore create the universe, but the Big Bang theory I've seen in videos is concerning the explosion of a single bit of mass.
magichristo 1 year ago
@magichristo The truth is we don't know what caused the big bang. More than one theory can account pretty well for the observed aftermath.
We present one of the best in our "Universe" video.
cassiopeiaproject 1 year ago
There are two things that don't make sense:
How, in the beginning of the video, with that single bit of mass, can a universe be created? I mean, That single bit of mass must've been created WHEN the universe was created, since it cannot have existed before the universe was created, since time was created when space was.
magichristo 1 year ago
@magichristo As we stated at the beginning of this video, we assume SOMETHING existed before our own Universe came into existence.
cassiopeiaproject 1 year ago
@cassiopeiaproject How can something exist before the universe was created if there was no space where it would exist and no time when it would exist?
magichristo 1 year ago
@magichristo Most modern ideas regarding the beginning of the Universe consider that our universe may not be all that there is. Instead, it may be just one of a large, possibly infinite, number of universes. Taken together, they are sometimes referred to as the multiverse. So time and space for our own universe began with the big bang, but our big bang was not the beginning of everything that might be.
cassiopeiaproject 1 year ago
@cassiopeiaproject but if the mass that created our universe was only 1/1000 of a gram and assuming once the universe was created nothing else "came in" where did all the mass we have not come from ?
derickhaywood 1 year ago
@derickhaywood You can think of all the rest as a separation between positive energy which resulted in all the matter that you mention and the negative gravitational energy that resulted from the expansion. If we could add these two back together we would end up with zero.
cassiopeiaproject 1 year ago
@cassiopeiaproject oh so when a particle and antiparticle collide thats why they annihilate each other !?
derickhaywood 1 year ago
I find it extremely interesting that space itself can move/grow faster than the speed of light.
AVLACDN 1 year ago
I love hearing stuff About the soler system :D
supersonic1836 1 year ago
But that one theory of the big bang, the other one is the collition between our universe membrane by another membrane but that's a theory to so I'm not sure,
cattarest 1 year ago
wasn't it energy(and not matter) that was created after the big bang? which then condensed into matter, anti-matter and dark matter.
btw I love you channels. would you do some video on super-symmetric extension of the standard model and candidates for dark matter in the future.
Thanks!
muzammilali007 1 year ago
Very well made video. Nice info-graphics and as clear a summary as I've ever seen, considering such a mind-bending subject.
iridescentsquids 1 year ago
that event horizon thing sucks
nickthegrizzly2 1 year ago
If a galaxy shines in the universe and there's no one around to see it, does it emit light?
Arthur61987 1 year ago
@Arthur61987 Of course it emits photons. Just because there aren't any retinas to transduce the light signals into electrical signals doesn't mean it automatically stops existing. Humanity's hubris seems to have no bounds, as we seem to believe reality hinges on our perception of it.
Juxtaroberto 1 year ago
@Juxtaroberto "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Einstein
Arthur61987 1 year ago
@Arthur61987 That's because we have to tranduce everything into our brains. "Our" reality is different from a bat's "reality," but the origin of our respective realities, THE reality, is not an illusion.
Besides, just because Einstein said something, that doesn't mean it's true. In matters of opinion, hardly anyone is right.
Juxtaroberto 1 year ago
I've seen something similar to this on a space science show, but I've seen the part with the track before. This is all extraordinary stuff! ;D
KryptonSoft 1 year ago
Interesting but if the galaxies are moving away from us at the speed of light. The light travels at the speed of light then, relative to us, shouldn't light appear stationary. But special relativity says the light always travels at the sped of light irrespective of the observers motion. Thanks
Neeraj12345678987654 1 year ago
@Neeraj12345678987654 Since none of the motion described is in ANY observer's inertial frame, none of the tenet's of special relativity are violated. No observer ever overtakes a light beam and all observers measure light locally to be traveling at c. And causality is preserved.
cassiopeiaproject 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Neeraj12345678987654
@imanoob4
HOLY SHIT PEOPLE , NEW AMAZING FUCKING DISCOVERY
GO TO YOUTUBE USER : XKUNX
NEW PLANET FOUND SEPTEMBER 30 2010 THAT SCIENTISTS SAY IS NEAR 100% CHANCE TO SUPPORT LIFE
WATER FOUND, TEMPERATURES THE SAME AS EARTH
THUMBS UP TO SUPPORT AND GET AWARENESS OUT THERE
THIS IS HOT STUFF
CzechArtigos 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Neeraj12345678987654
@imanoob4
HOLY SHIT PEOPLE , NEW AMAZING FUCKING DISCOVERY
GO TO YOUTUBE USER : XKUNX
NEW PLANET FOUND SEPTEMBER 30 2010 THAT SCIENTISTS SAY IS NEAR 100% CHANCE TO SUPPORT LIFE
WATER FOUND, TEMPERATURES THE SAME AS EARTH
THUMBS UP TO SUPPORT AND GET AWARENESS OUT THERE
THIS IS HOT STUFF
CzechArtigos 1 year ago
@Neeraj12345678987654
C is observed to be the same in all inertial frames.
Plutoniummatt 1 year ago
that was very interesting
cervtzz 1 year ago
i didnt understand jack
jigglyfidda125 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
so we know nothing
HHamanyy 1 year ago
The observation that distant galaxy expand away from us, did any one consider this actully billions years ago not now. For current waht is the actual stituation for distant galaxy is impossibe to get it now. I think the univrse we can observe the light is actually an blake hole related to the outward of our universe. And I beleieve that those blake hole in our universe is also another universe with different physic constant.
minchien1 1 year ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 1 year ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 1 year ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 1 year ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 1 year ago
Damn interesting! I didnt knew this! :D
oEEEEEb 1 year ago
Oh god... I'm all for creative thinking, but scientists (especially cosmologists) seem to often ignore the difference between theory and fact. This entire video is built on a cosmological house of cards, and the net result is almost preposterous. Space and time sure seem to bend over backwards to fit your theories, don't they? Dark Energy and Dark Matter - can you produce some for us please? Einstein would be shaking his head in disgust.
MazeleyFanClub 1 year ago
@MazeleyFanClub Would Einstein be doing that before or after his jaw would drop after hearing that he in fact was correct about black holes?
dxrocker69 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lady GaGa has more views than this.
i feel bad for humanity.
GooBeyond 1 year ago
infinity*0=universe
billybob1212 1 year ago
164 likes 1 dislike wow what an idiot
2012Video 1 year ago
@2012Video Probably an astrologer or religion monger, or the sort...
T0B0KKE 1 year ago
Thanks for the video. I wish all things science had a layperson video like this one.
ytgrrzer 1 year ago
lol guys asking about the 100m track probably dont have a clue about the rest of the video, good video very informative, and simply explained.. NICE!
s3ns31soldja09 1 year ago
lol red shit
PJSAmancio 1 year ago
I don't like the expansion phase of the universe. It was fudged in to account for the homogeneity that was observed following the observations from the microwave background radiation.
robertozube 1 year ago
@robertozube so much of our current model is fudged in to make the cosmic microwave background radiation seem to be as important as people want it to be. especially inflation. why the hell does space just randomly expand super fast for a time then slow down again.
thatguy431 8 months ago