Big Bang Briefly (Briefly Ep. 01)

Introducing the Briefly series. Taking theory and presenting it in it's most concise form.
We start with the Big Bang because the theory is important and amazing, but often misunderstood.
This video was produced without any funding from any outside sources. It was put together with donated creative time from a group with a desire to further public cognition of science.
Science has many amazing stories to tell, this is the first. The Big Bang Briefly.
-------------------
Story Teller: Janna Levin
Director: Keith Olwell and Elizabeth Kiehner
Executive Producer: Keith Olwell and Elizabeth Kiehner
Graphic Sequences Directed by: Justin Meredith & Joe Russ
Designers: Justin Meredith, Joe Russ, & Carl Burton
2D Animators: Joe Russ, Ken Thousand Krueger, Carl Burton, Emil Bardh
3D Animators: Joe Russ, John L. Henuki
Score: Co-Pilot
Composer Ravi Krishnaswami
Co-Pilot Executive Producer Jason Menkes
Animation Studio: Thornberg & Forester
Editorial: Proton Studio
Editor: Keith Olwell
DP: Luke Geissbuhler
Color: James Long

TRANSLATION SUBMISSION ENCOURAGED!

theproton.net
thornbergandforester.com
copilotmusic.com/

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Proton
• Thornberg & Forester
• Co-Pilot
• Janna Levin
• Big Bang
• Science
• Theory

[stefmor90]

Belief = something you WISH would exist; Theory = Supported by a LARGE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE getitright.jpg

[sylar150]

@4GodSoLoves believer of shit

[bizzyb1999]

@byungchan123 The Big Bang has nothing to do with Biology. Your objection is nonsensical anyway, no one said that there was an utter absence of existence, what is meant is that the singularity is all existence is comprised of at that point, and it maintains the "potential" to begin expanding.

[bizzyb1999]

@Userunvalid Why is a logical fallacy absurd when speaking in the context of the nature of reality? In fact, the nature of reality is exactly what the fallacy of composition addresses. When you assert that everything is contingent (particularly when there is evidence to the contrary) as the primary premise of an argument, then yes, inductive reason is insufficient. You're passing the buck by making an exception (inexplicable one at that) to your initial assertion that everything is contingent.

[Userunvalid]

@bizzyb1999 The fallacy of composition is it absurd in this case as we are talking about the very nature of reality. Inductive reasoning is insufficient? Just because we can pass philosophical doubt upon something doesn't mean it should be discredited, EVEN more so when there is no evidence to the contrary. And saying I'm passing the buck is also absurd as that would mean the big bang has also been passed the buck.

[bizzyb1999]

@Userunvalid "We can observe that everywhere." This is incorrect, Quantum physics is inclusive of events that are not preceded by a cause.

"The big bang and every last observable and existing thing that followed it was contingent right up to you and me." This is again incorrect, it's based off of inductive reasoning and therefore insufficient evidence. Also, it commits the fallacy of composition.

"God is NOT contingent therefore needs no cause." Perfect example of passing the buck.

[bizzyb1999]

@rmcgov00leeuedu You quoted a portion of what I said, of course the meaning will become distorted. "The universe itself never had an actual cause that brought it into existence", what I was trying to convey was that the universe was not previously non-existent, but that there was an event that caused it to transition states. The study of these events is known as Membrane cosmology, or just brane cosmology. Now I ask you again, please look into this if you're actually interested.

[rmcgov00leeuedu]

@bizzyb1999 I did not quote you out of context, I just quoted you. So this cause that you speak of... what is it?

[bizzyb1999]

@rmcgov00leeuedu Please don't quote me out of context. I said "the universe itself never had an actual cause that brought it into existence" in response to your previous post. There could still be an event that "caused" the universe to transition into what it is today. I do not maintain nor have I ever that the universe came from nothing, I don't maintain that something caused the universe to begin existing, and there remains no reason to substitute a "creator" in anywhere.

[rmcgov00leeuedu]

@bizzyb1999 No. you said "the universe itself never had an actual cause" Quit lying, I can read. And i am already familiar with the string theory.