We watch and listen to dead people on screen and on record and tape all the time. Everyone in 'I Love Lucy' for example, except little Ricky (Keith Thibodeaux), is long dead and buried.
In the beginning there was nothing. Then God said, "Let there be light." ,and there was light. There was still nothing there, but now you could see it.
...and then God breathed the breath of life into man... BURRRrrrRRRrrrRRRP!!! ...and... "OH GOD! THAT STUFF IS BAD ENOUGH TO WAKE THE DEAD!" And God smiled, for he knew that it was good.
Did not tell about the lithium and He problems, neither about the missing antimatter neither about predicted proton decay (never observed) and other maybe 15 issues left open by BB theory.
The worst problem of them all, IMO, is the hard fine tuning problem. Not the one they yammer about on documentaries for children having to do with the physical constants. I'm talking about the one they haven't explained, which is why we have a whole universe and not just a Boltzmann Brain.
Luigi Gorrini Totally agree with your points. Its as if "Answer with Joe" was regurgitating old cliff notes about the Universe. The past 35(?)years of cosmological discoveries which is shaking the unstable foundations of the big bang theory is astounding. The age of the Methuselah stars, the absence of the 3 degree Kelvin backround radiation (check out Dr. P. M. Robitaille's Sky Scholar channel - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-p8lKQMEYYLw.html), the billion dollar Planck satellite's misadventures, excetera-excetera-Excetera!
You rigth... I just checked the video of Erik Lerner ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-3KkhRibBllU.html I think that as happened with Newton's theories, there is a lot of resistance to change their mind, because if the BB never happenes.. then... they have lived in a lie (or half lie)
@@williamburts3114 the expansion of the universe expanded into literally nothing because remember this was the expansion of the fabric of space and time itself. There was no time or dimensions in the void before the Big Bang the was only the presence of energy in a 0 dimensional form.
Todd Willoughby - They should go back and take a very good look at their 'discoveries' and I'm sure they'll find the correct answer that doesn't rely on bogus physics. My personal guess would be that the universe is infinte, flat and without a start or end. Matter is generated and consumed constantly, CMB is probably related to that.
Lemaitre did not propose his theory of the primordial atom in 1927 but in 1931. Hubble did not popularised the term Big Bang in 1927, it was first recorded on a BBC interview to Fred Hoyle in 1949.
Who cares its all bullshit anyway. If you say the world is round, Someone ask you to prove it, well its in the science books duh. If you say the world is flat, someone asks you to prove it, because the bible say so, someone say I don't believe in the bible because man wrote it duh. But wait isn't the science books written by man? Well prove the earth is round, because scientists and nasa say it is look at the animated pictures with the same cloud formations that never change even after 40yrs. Round earther asks Well what if you die and you never get resurrected for judgment because their isn't a god? Bible believer say nothing! Bible believer asks what if you are standing before the most high as a non believer about to be judged? Round earther scratches head what? Bible believer you have hell to pay! We need to figure it out quick before it's to late.
“Who is this that obscures my plans with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Job 38:2-4
Hey Joe Rea, I feel like you overlooked one of the coolest things about science in your list of what it is. You forgot facts. We are talking to each other on magic metal boxes all due to the facts that science reveals. I also agree with you that it is not sacred. It is meant to be improved.
Please, if anyone can help me I would be very grateful, there was a scientist who died (if I'm not mistaken) around the 2000s who did not believe in the big bang, said that he did not explain magnetic monopoles and that he was full of presipositions not proven by the science. If someone can help me I will thank you very much
@@davidbengb8484 ... Maybe you are talking about this scientist: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle Btw, I think the Universe is eternal in time and infinite in space no other option possible.
@@santsuma i kinda think the same thing (abt the universe) except that the one thing u can notice the most abt the universe is the constant change.. in an astronomical time frame, of course, but still change.. nothing just stays as it is "forever".. nothing seems to last.. just kinda makes me wonder if the universe, as a whole, follows this same pattern...
Very close to Fundamentalists. If the universe is only 6,000 years old how can we have light from supernovae that took millions of years to get here? Their answer (not kidding) is God created the universe with the light already on the way. So God created the universe with the light of exploded stars that NEVER EXISTED in transit.
*..because Hubble published a paper two years later that mathematically proved a lot of the concepts that Lemaitre had published in his paper, so he wound up getting all the credit..* Correction Hubble did not take (or "wound up") any amount of credit from anyone's, let alone Lemaitre's. Anyone in Science (Mathematics, Physics, Quantum Physics, Atomic/Nuclear/Particle Physics, Astrophysics, Cosmology/Astronomy) does not hold any level or amount of confusion or misgiving when it comes to the loud and clear fact of who the credit for the Big Bang Theory goes to (Lemaitre). Hubble was the one who came to solidify Lemaitre's work through his own work as Astronomer, in times where our idea of the Universe was confined to just one galaxy, the Milky Way..our galaxy. He observed that what seemed our most "distant stars" were not actually "distant stars" but were in fact galaxies themselves, millions of them that were observable through what was back then the current technology in Astronomy observatories; the Universe suddenly got real huge and was never the same afterwards. Hubble also confirmed the expansion of the Universe by also observing a Doppler Effect in space; the Redshift effect which is a characteristic when in space, moving objects emit a red tinge glow as they move/travel away from an observer's point, something that prompt Einstein to reinstate his modified field equation with his integrated famous cosmological constant; a representing mathematical value of energy density in otherwise empty space, what's more Einstein's General Relativity supports Big Bang Theory. If anything they were all in combined close collaboration one could say. Btw, Lemaitre was not the one naming his work *The Big Bang Theory*; that goes to British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle who was critical of Lemaitre's work and did not accept the premises of Lemaitre's theory; Hoyle in an occasion at a interview or Science seminar (not sure), sarcastically referred to it as "that big bang thing" since there wasn't yet a formal name for it then...that name simply stuck.
@Donald Kasper Nope. Fuck man, call others idiots and you dont have a clue what you're talking about. It's true, red light does refract differently than blue light, and so on and so on. But light traveling perpendicular to a refractive medium, i.e. straight through it from source to observer, does not refract at all. Yet such light still undergoes redshifting and blue shifting. Fucking idiot.
Ratboy I think it also might have something to do with the comment’s “momentum”. If the comment gets a lot of likes in a small amount of time it’ll be closer to the top.
@@zimryu - according to Einstein, Tesla is more intelligent than himself. Yet ... he was (just) being sarcastic when he referred to Tesla as being more intelligent.
@rigel star Hubble's "theory", as far as I know, merely proposed that the relation between luminosity (distance) and redshift for external galaxies is due to the fact that more distant galaxies are receding at higher velocities. Contrary to the implication of Baruch Hashem's comment, acceptance of this conclusion was the basis of BOTH the Big Bang theory and the rival Bondi-Hoyle-Gold Steady State theory.
2:49 I thought CMB was the glimpse from recombination approximately 379,000 years after the big bang? When it cooled enough that photons could move without interruption.
It seems like there are 2 types of people: Those that don't notice background music but subconsciously perceive the video as more professionally produced, and those of us who get annoyed as hell when you mix electric guitars and conversation. Professor at your local community college : Ok class, today we are going to talk about the theory of relativity but first, let me start the background music.
What if the universe is vibrating at an enormous cosmic frequency and we lack the scope, either of space or of time, to see the part where it would seem to be collapsing in on itself. We are an electron on an atom on a molecule on a grain of sand trying to make sense of ocean currents. We simply lack the perspective. This is all unknowable. I'm cosmically agnostic.
What if we all thought of high level brain-think stuff when we completely lacked any real ability to actually think? Then our heads would approach resonance, and our face would shatter. LMAO
I think Holye and Einstein were right, the universe is "steady state" Red shift is a misunderstanding of how light propagates over long periods of time, and the problem of entropy may be solved by black holes vacuuming up the entropy in their neighborhoods and recycling the matter and energy voilently, which would look like a big bang from close up.:)
Hoyle was right and chnaged his mind due to the prevailing 'cancell culture' of the time. Even now you will not get funding if you deny the Big Bang (or climate change).
It occurs to me, and I am a not a very sciencey person, that the question of what caused the big bang or what was before the big bang are not relevant questions because both "Caused" and "Before" are words that describe things to do with time, and since both Time and Space were created in the Big bang the very idea of before and causality are meaningless.
I think a more appropriate question would be "How did the big bang create space and time." In my opinion, that would be even more interesting than finding out what was before it, as you pointed out, due to the absence of both time and space, there could be no "before."
@@ketunky3056 Of course space can be created, what do you think happens as the universe expands? It most certainly doesn’t expand and leave a ‘lack’ of space, does it (the answer is no)? Hence, space definitely IS being being constantly created at ever increasing speeds and in ever increasing amounts, as evidenced by the fact that the rate of expansion is accelerating.
@@THE-X-Force , some people use televisions for computer moniters. Most tv's have a "sound field" or other types of sound adjustments such as "cenema" or"music" which will make the music accompanying any video play much louder. When I use my tv for the internet, I use the "game" setting to get the best voice sound.
The problem with using math as a proof for this type of thing is the insane amount of variables that are not taken into consideration. You can use math to create a ridiculous amount of impossible outcomes, but that doesn't mean that's how the real world actually works. The big bang theory, much like the quantum theory, is in a very infantile stage where we are missing the vast majority of the information we need.
Quantum mechanics is not in a infantile theory. It's the theory with most prediction power in all of science and it has given you lots of technologies already. Like the computer your writing this on or the super faster internet your sending this through.
sumsar01 factually wrong, you can make working computers without any comprehension of quantum physics, particle physics is not a synonym for quantum physics. There’s also a lot we don’t know about quantum physics and macro physics which is why they’re all infantile.
"History abundantly shows that people's views of the universe are bound up with their views of themselves and of their society. The debate in cosmology has implications far beyond the realm of science, for it is a question of how truth is known. How these questions are answered will shape not only the history of science, but the history of humanity." (Eric Lerner, 1992) One of the main reasons 'big bang' is pushed so ferociously is that it has been endorsed by the vatican.. "In fact, it seems that present-day science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to that primordial 'Fiat lux' (Let there be light) uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the particles of the chemical elements split and formed into millions of galaxies ... Hence, creation took place in time, therefore, there is a Creator, God exists!" (Pope Pius XII, 1951) 300 years before this, 'the church' had Giordano Bruno publicly murdered for saying that space is infinite.. You 'do the math'.. NO! Please don't! This is why the erroneous ideas of 'infinity' are used in mathematics, specifically to confuse people into a misunderstanding of what infinitude actually means.. If space is infinite, 'god' cannot be.. People generally have a very poor understanding of what the word 'infinite' actually means.. This is not any kind of 'fault', but just that we have evolved within the confines of what appears to be a finite environment, and we thus try to look at things in finite ways, also justifying those 'finite' thoughts. When I first approached the 'problem' I had the same difficulties, so it takes our minds a lot of effort to reach another perspective of understanding, but it IS achievable.. Firstly, there cannot be more than one 'instance' of infinitude, otherwise a secondary 'thing' would render them both 'finite'. So we are describing a 'oneness'.. Also, it can have no 'beginning' nor 'ending' as these would also necessitate a secondary 'thing' (or the utter nonsense of a 'nothing'!), so we are describing 'eternity' when we apply 'time' concepts. Then, we have to admit that it can only be the one thing that interconnects all other 'things', and we deduce this to be 'Space', necessarily.. All references to 'size' or 'direction' do not apply to the nature of infinitude, and thus have no relevance to our understanding of the true nature of existence. 'Measurement' has limitations.. When we point to any position in Space, we effectively create a 'beginning' to any subsequent forms of measurement, which only has relevance to the entity desiring to understand said 'measurement'. Measuring things does not make them a feature of the nature of reality, only a desire of 'measurement' from a Human perspective. Within infinitude everything appears to be at the 'centre' of that which it finds detectable ('observable').. So, the moment you create the perspective of a 'centre', you become that centre..Here we can find the real problem with using 'mathematics' as a tool for understanding infinite nature. We have to firstly posit the 'points' to be 'measured' in order for the measurement to take place.. And this is why we end up inventing 'things' that do not exist in reality from mathematical constructs that do not describe the truth about nature.. spaceandmotion
I hope someone reads this: What if the microwaves background radiation is an effect of light loosing energy over vast distances? That would mean that the "redshift" though to cause an expansion is not actually real. We just think it is because we do not expect light to redshift over large distances. Has anyone tried to account for this in a simulation and see what would happen?
First bit was cool to think about, but i didn’t understand your point about redshift. In case you’re disagreeing with the existence of redshift, i’ll let you know that redshift definitely is a thing regardless of the origin or even nature of the universe.
I wonder how the universe would look from our perspective if we exist in the gravity well of a black hole? Size and velocity is irrelevant in all cases and so is distance. Existence itself would be relative to the observer.
Well, I think the biggest problem with the BBIT is that it introduces infinities into physical reality. David Hilbert demonstrated why this cannot be done. For instance, it is said that the density of a singularity or black hole approaches infinity. How can anything approach infinity? Half of infinity is infinity. A millionth of infinity is infinity. And so on. It is as if from the very beginning of that approach towards infinity, infinity is already reached. And that is why infinities cannot be introduced into the physical universe.
excellent point... not to mention the quandary that all of the known laws of physics must be discarded to allow for such an abomination. I woke up one day and realized what a cartload of dung we have been fed all of these years,
Michael O'Grady in discrete mathematics infinity or non finite sets of numbers are basically groups of numbers that are uncountable. So infinity can be used to describe the universe because although it is finite, because we can't count everything there we can conclude that it is infinitely large.
"in discrete mathematics infinity or non finite sets of numbers are basically groups of numbers that are uncountable" This is false, coming from a math minor. There are types of infinity, one charistic being countable or uncountable. Countably infinite is like 0 to infinity, you can start at zero, go to 1, then 2, then 3, and keep going forever (including negative numbers is still countable, because you can alternate). Uncountably infinite is like the real numbers. You start at 0, and then **what's the next number**? There is no next number. There is no concept in math like "wow that's a lot of things I don't feel like counting them so let's just say it's infinite". The closest thing would be like in physics, where you could maybe fudge some formulas based on things being "sufficiently large or small" but that's also not really the same thing at all.
Einstein once said some thing like "if you smarter than everyone in the room than you are in the wrong room" I think of that phrase when I feel dumb and not fully understand lol
when your smarter then everyone life is actually very tough because you get very frustrated with peoples ignorance especially when its on something extremely important
THANK YOU for saying it. The only laugh I ever got out of Jim Parsons was when he read that "mean tweet" on Kimmel. Undisputed best mean tweet of all time.
Halton Arp, Edwin Hubbel's chief assistant, found evidence that red shift was quantified and non-uniform which seriously messes with the idea of an expanding Universe being measurable in the way it is measured. His book "Seeing Red" is on Amazon.
and Arp's theories are no longer creditable. Like Lerner's. and Plasma cosmology and the Electric Universe. all in the dust bin. They would be used if they worked. The internet loves these people because they think them mavericks, like all the crap said about Tesla.
@@borisjohnson1944 Why is his observations that red-shift is not reliable indicator of distance? He showed that related objects near to each other have different red shifts. DId someone go over all his observed data and explain it using something else? Is the JWest finding of a 28 red shift galaxy (thereby older than the big bang CMB) just a mistake?
Should do history of CMB measurement and how they "filter" the foreground information of same frequency. also would be interesting to tackle the difference between weak and strong gravitational lensing and how we don't really see much of the weak gravitational lensing happening if at all.
Especially make an explanation of how they can get that tiny CMB signal, by eliminating the vastly stronger signals of al those stars and galaxies. A lot of trickery has been used that is not valid at all, you can not extract such a tiny signal out of those overwhelming signals from all those galaxies. Its like extracting someone whispering a few hundred meters away during a live concert with a crowd that goes bonkers. Its is scientifically not possible to extract such an accurate signal. Once your tiny signal is washed away, you mathematically can not retrieve it.
I have always wondered how we went from infinitely dense point where there are no rules, time, or even definition, to suddenly having defined elements, material structures, and material rules that can't reverse itself. We can't compress a solid back to that point from which it started because rules suddenly apply, we have the upmost struggle breaking an atom or any basic material structure, we can't even find "infinite" density or energy yet. Those are just some gripes that I have with the theory. Of course, this is based on my understanding, which could be incorrect.
DE and Joe S. may I introduce you to my perspective. I am a staunch detractor of this "big bang" theory. besides the purposeful juxtaposition, on religious grounds, of the theory and the "singularity" notion, and the attempt to validate God based on its similarity, there is NO rational reason to believe in the big bang. it is utter hogwash. all of the known laws of physics must be discarded throughout almost the entirety of the process. and then, voila, the laws of physics mysteriously exist again, after God, perhaps, makes it so. in fact all of the computational evidence supporting the theory is done well after the laws regurgitate themselves back onto the universe. one simple proof of its heretical silliness is the notion of the entire universe, wrapped in a hot pocket, and then exploding outward. If this could be possible, then looking the direction directly away from the epicenter should yield, at great enough distances, NOTHING. this however is not the case at all. we see uniform mass concentrations in every direction. and when scientists discovered the universe was expanding with acceleration, well then, chums, let´s invent another force of nature with no physical evidence, no provable science, nothing to support it other than in its absence we must correctly assume the big bang theory to be an utter falsehood, promulgated by the cleverest of con men to an unsuspecting populace. so, not willing to admit the scientific crime that has been committed in plain sight, they do what Trump would do...they double down. Dark energy, dark matter. this theory, once and for all, should be flushed down the historical toilet with all of the other idiotic theories and any other detritus that happens to dwell there. the supposed doppler effect can in no way be assumed to be the only possible reason for the phase shift. why are some star systems actually moving towards us? this would be mathematically impossible with the big bang theory, unless some other unknown force were to be acting on them, oh yeah, dark energy... puh-lease. it is not the theory itself that bothers me the most. theories, incorrect or correct are the basis of scientific discovery. eventually we get it right. but to push this theory, and disregard much more plausible causes, or to not investigate other possible causes is irresponsible, and in fact, scientifically negligent, nay, criminal. thank you for your time.
Michael Speth When does time start or end? How do you define time? Just my curiosity. Infinity is used to define a number that is of ridiculously large (or small) quantity. Infinity is not a concept based only on religion; it was a result of human nature simplifying numbers that are much larger than the capacity to define or understand them, most especially in mathematics. The invention of computing electronics will help resolve this issue of calculating results with overwhelming number of digits... just do not divide by zero if you wish to not see infinity mentioned again.
@@richardnelson4112 cosmologists and philosophers have had us questioning what is meant by “nothing” all this time. Now here you come, making me question the meaning of “something”…
@@sosme99 well nothing is only where something can no longer be detected the way you know it, and yet it exists. Here is a way to look at it. If I tell you that I have a piece of glass called a slide, and then I tell you it's full of living organisms, and you look at this slide just with your eyes, you'll tell me there's nothing on there, until you put it under the lense of a microscope. Now what appeared as nothing, now appears as something. All of a sudden you see these organisms. Then I tell you there is actually more on that same slide than what you can see with the aid of that microscope. You say, NO I don't see anything else. So I now give you an electron microscope, and you say wow, there is alot more that I see now. In other words, the existence of something is not determined by what WE can see or detect. An example of that would be what they call dark matter and dark energy. They are claiming that these 2 things exist, not by direct observation and really not by calculation, but by the process of elimination. So what appears as nothing in this case is really something. Where do you draw the line of what exists and what doesn't ? That line is very blurry. The limitations of the senses you possess, is what creates illusions of perception. Does "NOTHING" as what is agreed to, exist or have the possibility to exist ? Most likely not. What is the proof ? The universe exists ! The appearance of NOTHING, is a disguise of SOMETHING. That's why I say they are probably the same thing. That is also why they are unable to figure out how something came out of nothing, when in reality that never could be
@@sosme99 here's another one for you. If someone asks you what nothing is, the instant you describe what nothing is, you've made it into something. It is impossible to describe anything and even nothing, if it isn't something. The only thing you can do is say what properties nothing seems to have. But you CANNOT say what properties it doesn't have since you don't know what those are. Humans seem to think that they can explain everything when they actually can't. It is a form of arrogance that says that nothing is beyond their understanding, and especially when it comes to them thinking that mathematics can answer everything. Even mathematics has its limitations just as anything else has. Mathematics can't even explain itself because if could, it would show you that prime numbers do have a pattern, but it is unable to do so
Good one. Could you do a talk on Penrose's conformal cycling ? A major problem with theoretical physics is the Fine Structure Constant and its explanation. Dirac's Large Number Theory and his work on the ratio relations of constants of nature as well as the relationship of the size of a proton and the inverse of the size of the universe are theoretical considerations which are overlooked. Another major problem with theoretical physics is Group Think.
I just wonder, considering how complex the entire universe is, and how much we don't know yet, if it was something completely different that created the universe?
I suspect a few centuries from now (if somehow we manage to not destroying ourselves before) people will mock some of our current theories, just as the ones from the ancient world seem funny to us now. The Big Bang Theory may seem to explain certain fenomena but in a way is completely ridiculous.
Like what if universes are made in petri dishes like we make bacterial cultures in bio labs for school And we are "God's" projects on how bacteria work Except god is just a middle schooler in a 3rd world country as per the standards in his world But the systems over there are sooo different that we can't comprehend them that easily
"History abundantly shows that people's views of the universe are bound up with their views of themselves and of their society. The debate in cosmology has implications far beyond the realm of science, for it is a question of how truth is known. How these questions are answered will shape not only the history of science, but the history of humanity." (Eric Lerner, 1992) One of the main reasons 'big bang' is pushed so ferociously is that it has been endorsed by the vatican.. "In fact, it seems that present-day science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to that primordial 'Fiat lux' (Let there be light) uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the particles of the chemical elements split and formed into millions of galaxies ... Hence, creation took place in time, therefore, there is a Creator, God exists!" (Pope Pius XII, 1951) 300 years before this, 'the church' had Giordano Bruno publicly murdered for saying that space is infinite.. You 'do the math'.. NO! Please don't! This is why the erroneous ideas of 'infinity' are used in mathematics, specifically to confuse people into a misunderstanding of what infinitude actually means.. If space is infinite, 'god' cannot be.. People generally have a very poor understanding of what the word 'infinite' actually means.. This is not any kind of 'fault', but just that we have evolved within the confines of what appears to be a finite environment, and we thus try to look at things in finite ways, also justifying those 'finite' thoughts. When I first approached the 'problem' I had the same difficulties, so it takes our minds a lot of effort to reach another perspective of understanding, but it IS achievable.. Firstly, there cannot be more than one 'instance' of infinitude, otherwise a secondary 'thing' would render them both 'finite'. So we are describing a 'oneness'.. Also, it can have no 'beginning' nor 'ending' as these would also necessitate a secondary 'thing' (or the utter nonsense of a 'nothing'!), so we are describing 'eternity' when we apply 'time' concepts. Then, we have to admit that it can only be the one thing that interconnects all other 'things', and we deduce this to be 'Space', necessarily.. All references to 'size' or 'direction' do not apply to the nature of infinitude, and thus have no relevance to our understanding of the true nature of existence. 'Measurement' has limitations.. When we point to any position in Space, we effectively create a 'beginning' to any subsequent forms of measurement, which only has relevance to the entity desiring to understand said 'measurement'. Measuring things does not make them a feature of the nature of reality, only a desire of 'measurement' from a Human perspective. Within infinitude everything appears to be at the 'centre' of that which it finds detectable ('observable').. So, the moment you create the perspective of a 'centre', you become that centre..Here we can find the real problem with using 'mathematics' as a tool for understanding infinite nature. We have to firstly posit the 'points' to be 'measured' in order for the measurement to take place.. And this is why we end up inventing 'things' that do not exist in reality from mathematical constructs that do not describe the truth about nature.. spaceandmotion
Yup, think about scientific conservatism. This one focuses on the evidence itself, not just models, but also on other aspects of debunking including theoretical and practical approaches
I really respect your take in considering that other theories other than the establishment may be true. I personally think that the continued big bang cycle theory if you will seems more likely but I also think the regular big bang theory and others should be considered as well. As long as there is the scientific process behind it, we should not behold ourselfs to the dogmatic scientific mainstream that just regurgitates the same theories over and over again without any critical thoughts.
Issue #1 isn't an issue. The big bang does not claim to know where the tiny spec came from, only the events of our universe in it's extreme early life. Not explaining something it doesn't claim to explain nor needs to explain is not an issue. Issue #4 is not an issue either. When the universe was microscopic it was easily able to "communicated with each other". I would guess the other issues are also non issues (like the "flatness of space" perhaps only having a slight curve according to what we can see much like the earth looks flat from our viewpoint on the surface).
What annoys me is how many Scientists (Astrophysicists) use redshift to prove the Big bang. They theorise that redshifting galaxies prove an expanding Universe which is caused by the Big bang. But I have never found an Astrophysicist who will explain to me all the blueshift galaxies. Yes folks, there are many blueshift galaxies which means that the Universe is not actually expanding but moving in all chaotic directions. If you sent all galaxies back in a reverse direction there is no 'centre point of origin'. Whenever they talk of centering galaxies back to a centre of Origin they only use Redshift Galaxies. The other galaxies don't count because it blows their Big Bang Theory, and they can't have that!
@@Ken_James_SVthe vast majority of galaxies are red shift. Only a handfull of local galaxies are blue shift. This site can explain better than me www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae384.cfm
If time and space are really infinite then we most likely do not have enough information to have a true conclusion of how the universe started. We are looking to an atom of a pixel of a picture of a movie. We think that because the atom is in a certain way, we think we know the movie. Let us just admit that there are things out of our reach physically and mentally.
nachobis well mathematical Ian's and physicists are pretty much sure infinity is not a thing at all. I'd go with that consensus given all the stuff that's derived from it.
Pity BB theory hasn't derived anything though. It's been modified to fit with observations, and patched up. It has no scientific value in regards to its ability to predict anything.
@@Mosern1977 It actually predicted that if you go back far enough in time the entire universe existed in a vastly smaller area. This was confirmed by the uniformity of the CMB. Theories like inflation are based on the bb so i wouldnt say it has no scientific value.
Time and space isnt infinite though. Thats an outdated concept. Space hasnt been considered infinite since the big bang theory. Time hasnt been considered infinite since hawking mathematically proved time had an origin.
They say time was created at the moment of the big bang. How then could the big bang occur if time was not passing from the time of nothingness, to the time of the big bang occurring to create time?
"That’s like asking where were you before you were born, and why don’t you know? - PhysicsGuy1000". Not at all like that. You cannot have a state change without the passage of time. There are a myriad of wild scientific theories that have no more evidence to them than saying god did it. Most imo are similar to "turtles all the way down".
The1stDukeDroklar *It’s only natural to assume that there was a ‘before’ the Big Bang. Cause-and-effect right?* *However, outside of our universe, time has no meaning. And ‘before the Big Bang’ is, by definition, outside of our universe. And without the Big Bang there IS no time, so you can’t really imagine its properties.* *As Neil deGrasse Tyson puts it, “The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you”.*
Except there is absolutely no hard evidence for "outside our universe". Wild theories, regardless of what "big names" believe them. Lots of big names believed many things in the past that turned out to be ridiculous to us today.
Ps- why did you delete your original reply? Anyway, some more thoughts on this issue: "‘before the Big Bang’ is, by definition, outside of our universe - PhysicsGuy1000" Before the Big Bang is not "by definition" outside our universe. The only way it is outside our universe is IF some of the theories are correct and both space and time were also created at the moment of the big bang. I've already pointed out why I think the theory of time being created then is illogical. They claim space was created at the moment as well which I do not believe and there is no hard evidence to support their theory. The reason inflation theory claims space was created then is to fill a glaring hole in the big bang theory caused by observations of the background radiation which did not conform to predictions. The inconsistency was that in order for the uniformity of the radiation to have happened it would've required the expansion of the big bang to have violated the speed of light and so they came up with Inflation Theory to explain it rather than say the big bang theory was majorly flawed. In this "band aid" theory they propose that time and space were created at the moment of the big bang and it was space itself that expanded faster than the speed of light carrying matter and the radiation with it therefore not violating the speed of light. Is it possible? Maybe. Is it definitely the answer based on the extremely flimsy evidence to support it... hell no. Personally, I like my science to be based on testable hard evidence to which inflation theory as well as many current theories has none since they are basically thought experiments. While thought experiments can take you far as Einstein showed and achieved amazing things in this manner, even he made some errors, the "cosmological constant" for example. "As Neil deGrasse Tyson puts it, “The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you - PhysicsGuy1000". When you get into many of these theories that are currently in vogue, it requires as much "faith" based on no evidence as any religion does. That same statement could come from a priest... “God is under no obligation to make sense to you" - (said by any priest... ever). Where's the proof right? Is that not what we proclaim and feel better educated... so superior over those that believe in a religion? The way I see it, when it comes to the highly theoretical aspects of reality, the fundamental subjective experiences that religions are based upon is as valid as many of these high level scientific theories (although most haven't truly achieved scientific theory status yet). What I mean by that is that religions are based on personal religious experiences. Religions are the attempts to explain these experiences and their dogma can be considered extraneous to the root cause of religions. The math used by these scientific theories is also subjective or they would be universally accepted as soon as a new equation was announced. At least with religion the individual can witness the spiritual experience for themselves rather than basing their belief in something completely on someone else's "word for it".
The1stDukeDroklar Ps- why did you delete your original reply? *I accidentally clicked delete when I meant to edit it :P* [Before the Big Bang is not "by definition" outside our universe. The only way it is outside our universe is IF some of the theories are correct and both space and time were also created at the moment of the big bang. I've already pointed out why I think the theory of time being created then is illogical.] *The Big Bang was the birth of time and space, so technically, ‘before the Big Bang’ was outside of time and space as well. So what is your theory of time?* *It may seem illogical but try to remember that the universe at this point is like nothing the human brain can imagine, this we can’t begin to imagine what it was like back then.* [They claim space was created at the moment as well which I do not believe and there is no hard evidence to support their theory.] *There’s a multitude of evidence. Hubble’s Law states that the further a galaxy is away from us, the faster they are moving away from us. That means that at one point, everything must have been very close together.* [Comment regarding inflation... Is it possible? Maybe. Is it definitely the answer based on the extremely flimsy evidence to support it... hell no.] *Spacetime is not expanding with respect to anything outside of itself. That’s why the speed of light is not actually being violated. We know via Dark Energy that the universe is expanding faster and faster, and will continue to do so forever.* [Personally, I like my science to be based on testable hard evidence to which inflation theory as well as many current theories has none since they are basically thought experiments. While thought experiments can take you far as Einstein showed and achieved amazing things in this manner, even he made some errors, the "cosmological constant" for example.] *Except the Big Bang model is based on testable hard evidence. It’s why the universe appears to be the same in all directions, why the CMB is distributed evenly, and why we think the universe is flat.* *Einstein believed in a static universe. He would not suspend his disbelief, even though his own theory was screaming to him that the universe does change over time. Luckily scientists after Einstein were able to figure out the universe was expanding at an accelerated rate and thus were able to adapt the calculation.* [When you get into many of these theories that are currently in vogue, it requires as much "faith" based on no evidence as any religion does. That same statement could come from a priest... “God is under no obligation to make sense to you" - (said by any priest... ever). Where's the proof right? Is that not what we proclaim and feel better educated... so superior over those that believe in a religion?] *The universe is measurable though. We don’t have faith that the Big Bang happened, it’s just the most logical thing to assume based on our understand of how the universe works.* *Did you know the Big Bang theory was actually first proposed by a Belgian priest?*
i just finished watching ur video on quantum entanglement and the "one electron" video, where if both were to be true wouldnt that bring a "solution" for the universe's expansion being "flat" and the issue of horizion problem. My question is (new to this stuff so sorry if i sound dumb) 1) Wouldnt quantum entanglement (although rare) explain why the problem the universe expansion is flat due to the interaction and shared space of matter. and 2) If the "one electron" theory is true wouldnt that explain why quantum entanglement occurs in the first place and (if) all electrons came from one electron wouldnt that explain why the universe is the same temperature on opposite sides and the make communication betweeen matters billion lightyears apart possible?
It's important NOT to forget that the current understanding of the Universe relies on particle physics AND that our understanding of particle physics is based on observations made WITHIN THE DIMENSION OF SPACE IN WHICH WE EXIST .... A dimension that did not exist prior to the expansion of the Universe - IT'S APPLES AND ORANGES almost as pointless as measuring the length of your table using scales. We simply don't possess the tools to measure other dimensions other than Mathematics which - IS FOUNDED ON WHAT WE OBSERVE AROUND US....hence it is flawed from the beginning.
Particle physics doesn't try to explain how particles work outside our universe, so whats your point? The observational data we have shows how particles act in our universe. How they act outside our universe, what created particles, etc are irrelevant questions.
@@falseprophet1024 They're not irrelevant questions; you might as well say that String Theory is irrelevant because it talks about concepts and constructs outside our ability to observe.
Sooo... you're saying that something existex before the universe and science isn't qualified to tell us about it. Isn't that what Creation theory basically gets at?
@@theherald4340 He thought there had to be some principle by which the stars that make up the universe (actually the Galaxy at that time - observed "nebulae" were not yet known to be external galaxies) were prevented from gravitationally collapsing together to form one giant mass. So he introduced his cosmological constant. To my understanding, he was never happy with its ad hoc character. Einstein's cosmological constant has received some renewed attention in the context of the need for "dark energy" (not "dark matter"). But Dewey Larson's Reciprocal System is the only theory that identifies the fundamental force responsible for the accelerated recession of distant galaxies, keeping the stars apart, and holding matter together at the atomic level. Here's a memorandum Larson wrote in 1961 in an attempt to jar practicing scientists from their complacency, in order to pave the way to considering his own theoretical proposals. philpapers.org/rec/LARJHM-3
@@sathearn Thanks for the data and site info. Though I am not very well versed in physics and astronomy.I find the work by those involved today and in the past,quite fascinating.
Actually, the universe was never in an infinitesimally small infinitely dense state. In physics, this is called a singularity, and when a theory predicts the existence of a singularity, it means that it is incomplete, an approximation of a deeper and more accurate theory. General relativity, which mathematically defines our current understanding of the Big bang, is therefore incomplete and a better theory will be needed to have a full understanding of how our universe came into existence.
+ShitYouNot there are those who desperately need to believe in something that can never be proven, to give them confidence& strength to deal with their insecurities. I'm not one of those people. So far as theories go, whether they can all be proven or not, whether it exists or not, is immaterial to me....you & I exist regardless of what we believe, or what is "true". That's one unarguable fact, I'll let others debate the "could be's & what if's". That's my view.
@@Chief2Moon lots of things can't be problem , many others are best guesses and conjecture, but vastly intelligent beings that create things do exist ;)
5:19 It may be because of quantum entangled photons which were in the same spatial position many years ago,it may be a property of entangled particles to have the same temperature in certain conditions or all that we haven't observed
I'm ridiculously excited to finally find someone else who hates that tv show. And the fact that it is someone I like, makes it even better. Thanks Joe. If I wasn't already subscribed, I certainly would now. :)
As a non-scientist, I find your videos wildly entertaining and genuinely educational. But one must really give your intellectual curiosity a big thumb’s up as we note Amy Poehler’s book on your bookshelf. Wisdom comes from so many voices.
"What the hell?" - Exactly. Ever since I was a kid I thought it was bizarre that the laws of conservation of matter and energy didn't seem to matter when it came to the big bang. There was nothing at all then everything, what?? And any time I asked a science teacher or anyone they just acted like they didn't understand my question and I was stupid for asking it. That is probably one of the biggest reasons I remained quite religious for quite a long time. I saw the faith of the scientists in a nonsense theory and thought it is just the same as any other religion.
Spoiler alert. You science teacher didn't understand the question. Also, you are allowed to break energy conservation laws in certain cases. This happens at sub-atomic scales and a big component of particle physics. The reason you can do this is due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and because time and energy do not commute. -> delta(t)*delta(E)>=hbar/2 Or more simply it is impossible to make an infinitely precise measurement of energy over any amount of time. Thus you can break conservation of energy as long as it's done on a short enough timescale. (the larger the energy the smaller the time scale.) If this isn't enough who say you even have to break conservation of energy. as long as the total sum of energy in the universe is zero no symmetry would be broken.
I agree butters, just another religious theory, except it doesn't have an uncaused caused explanation.........and a whole lot of presumptions that its various theories are based on which makes them not really theories at all.
It's possible that the total energy content of the Big Bang is zero. Gravitational potential energy is negative and balances all the positive energy of the matter participating in the Big Bang.
This was one of the issues I always had with the "big bang" theory: Where was this tightly compacted "beginning" area, and if it's all expanding, expanding *where* ?
Don't think of the Big Bang as an explosion happening in an already existing space. Space was created in the Big Bang! There was literally nothing before the Big Bang (which is kind of an oxymoron as time itself was also created in the Big Bang). When we say the galaxy's are flying away from each other it is actually the space between them that is expanding. Think of dots painted on the surface of a ballon. They are stationary. They can't move. But if you blow up the ballon the dots are moving away from each other because the rubber of the ballon is expanding. This is of cause a 2-D example of a 3-D reality. Hope this helps :)
It's the classic nothingness vs. infinity. Philosophically speaking, absolute nothingness is an impossibility. In absolute nothingness nothing can exist, no space, no time, no infinity, no structure. And as (evidently) something exists, there can be no absolute nothingness, therefore there has to be infinity. Even if space was created by the big bang, there has to be an underlying structure on which the space was built upon. Call it hyperspace or whatever...
@@pernouh446 Time cannot be infinite into the past. Therefore there must be a beginning to every natural thing. I agree there cannot be absolute nothingness as something (our universe) cannot arise from nothing. Something must have existed which would be unaffected by time which gave rise to our universe. An uncaused first cause if you like. Do you see where logic and science is leading us?
Many radio amateurs will contest that. The noise is apparent in most sensitive radio receivers, such as those used by radio "hams". A receiver sensitivity of -135dBm can receive the noise when the antenna is directed above the horizon. A TV receiver sensitivity is much worse than -100dBm. In 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were experimenting with a supersensitive, 6 meter (20 ft) horn antenna originally built to detect radio waves bounced off Echo balloon satellites. To measure these faint radio waves, they had to eliminate all recognizable interference from their receiver. They removed the effects of radar and radio broadcasting, and suppressed interference from the heat in the receiver itself. They removed birds nests from the horn, and even scrubbed the bird shit off the parabolic reflector. When Penzias and Wilson reduced their data they found a low, steady, mysterious noise that persisted in their receiver. This residual noise was 100 times (20dB) more intense. At that same time, Robert H. Dicke, Jim Peebles, and David Wilkinson, astrophysicists at Princeton University just 60 km (37 miles) away, were preparing to search for microwave radiation in this region of the spectrum. Dicke and his colleagues reasoned that the Big Bang must have scattered not only the matter that condensed into galaxies but also must have released a tremendous blast of radiation. With the proper instrumentation, this radiation should be detectable, albeit as microwaves, due to a massive redshift. than they had expected, was evenly spread over the sky, and was present day and night. After thoroughly checking their equipment, removing some pigeons shit in the antenna and cleaning out the accumulated droppings, the noise remained. Both concluded that this noise was coming from outside our own galaxy, although they were not aware of any radio source that would account for it. The characteristics of the radiation detected by Penzias and Wilson fit exactly the radiation predicted by Robert H. Dicke and his colleagues at Princeton University. Penzias called Dicke at Princeton, who immediately sent him a copy of the still-unpublished Peebles paper. Penzias read the paper and called Dicke again and invited him to Bell Labs to look at the horn antenna and listen to the background noise. Dicke, Peebles, Wilkinson and P. G. Roll interpreted this radiation as a signature of the Big Bang. In 1978, Penzias and Wilson were awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics for their joint detection. I believe that background radiation is light, slowed down, so that it appears in the radio spectrum. The sub-light energy is IRO 95% of the total "light" mass radiated from stars; ie. no "Big Bang".
@@harrylythall3486 Nice! But I don't get the last sentence. I learned that the background radiation is light that has been stretched. We receive it as microwaves because they have a longer wavelength. I'm not aware that speed has to do with it.
@@harrylythall3486 dude. I didn't say it doesn't exist. I said you cannot "SHOW" it on modern blue screen TV. Need old set with cathode ray to SEE it, not detect it. I'm glad you are well informed
4:56 Perhaps the whatever is beyond the universe is a uniform temperature, and that's why CMB from opposite corners of the universe has leveled out to the same temperature as the other.
There is nothing beyond the universe. The edge of the universe, as you’re calling it, is actually called the observable universe. So the same problem would apply to everything beyond the observable universe.... why is that all the same temperature? How did that “communicate”? (By the way, the answer according to cosmologists is inflation... which he didn’t talk about)
There being nothing beyond the universe does not preclude matter traveling into it. Matter that travels into it takes energy with it, reducing the temperature evenly around the edge of the universe. The OP is onto something.
@@mr.h4267 Actually yes, there is something huge that precludes it--there's nothing to move into. The universe doesn't expand 'into' anything; it is everything. By definition, the universe is all of existence--all of space, time, matter and energy. People have a hard to understanding that the 'big bang' didn't happen somewhere... it happened everywhere.
Maybe our universe is surrounded and expanding into much MUCH larger universes of pure unimaginable energy which just absorb and exchange at the boundaries of our expansion, causing the CBR in the exchange, without consequence to the acceleration UNTIL there's not enough energy or matter in our universe to expand anymore and the pressure of these energy universes push it back into itself. I imagine like a really really REALLY slow motion version of an underwater explosion. Billions of years slower. Kinda revisiting the Big Crunch except with a half-cock "explanation" this time. Yeah, I'm not a scientist and talking completely outta my ass so feel absolutely free to pick my "theory" apart 🤣🤣
HA! Nice. I LOLed then I LOLed again at the idiot who posted right above me. Smh. Melinelials. Not knowing anything a out classic television. Or anything before the year 2k actually...
@@blindbrailleable Whats wrong with what i said?. Why did you call me an idiot with out trying to understand what i said and why i said it?. And what the hell are you talking about? Lol please communicate with your big boy words so i (and everyone else) can understand you.
So what if the universe isn't expanding and everything in it is just shrinking but objects moving towards each others hides that at a relatively small (in a galaxy cluster) level?
People generally have a very poor understanding of what the word 'infinite' actually means.. This is not any kind of 'fault', but just that we have evolved within the confines of what appears to be a finite environment, and we thus try to look at things in finite ways, also justifying those 'finite' thoughts. When I first approached the 'problem' I had the same difficulties, so it takes our minds a lot of effort to reach another perspective of understanding, but it IS achievable.. Firstly, there cannot be more than one 'instance' of infinitude, otherwise a secondary 'thing' would render them both 'finite'. So we are describing a 'oneness'.. Also, it can have no 'beginning' nor 'ending' as these would also necessitate a secondary 'thing' (or the utter nonsense of a 'nothing'!), so we are describing 'eternity' when we apply 'time' concepts. Then, we have to admit that it can only be the one thing that interconnects all other 'things', and we deduce this to be 'Space', necessarily.. All references to 'size' or 'direction' do not apply to the nature of infinitude, and thus have no relevance to our understanding of the true nature of existence. 'Measurement' has limitations.. When we point to any position in Space, we effectively create a 'beginning' to any subsequent forms of measurement, which only has relevance to the entity desiring to understand said 'measurement'. Measuring things does not make them a feature of the nature of reality, only a desire of 'measurement' from a Human perspective. Within infinitude everything appears to be at the 'centre' of that which it finds detectable ('observable').. So, the moment you create the perspective of a 'centre', you become that centre..Here we can find the real problem with using 'mathematics' as a tool for understanding infinite nature. We have to firstly posit the 'points' to be 'measured' in order for the measurement to take place.. And this is why we end up inventing 'things' that do not exist in reality from mathematical constructs that do not describe the truth about nature.. spaceandmotion
Further questions with no meaningful answers. Perhaps in a thousand years today's questions will be answered, but even at that time, there will be new ones!
Master Exploder an infinite universe would mean that everything you see/experience now has always been in existence. how did the sun in the sky you see and feel now come to be ? you say its always been there. how is that possible without a starting point ? we know that the sun exists. we know that we exist. everything that exists around us comes to be by creation. babies, food, cars, thoughts, plants, emotions etc. you were created as a human being. point is - you had a starting point as does everything we have ever known to exist. why would the universe be any different ? if you are arguing against creation you are by definition arguing against existence.
to many people ignore the fact that "dark matter doesn't exist and without it the theory fails. Also the operational definition of "nothing" is different from what people call nothing, so when a scientist ask you to define nothing it is not a joke.
@@kanishkchaturvedi1745 whats your definition of dark matter? Dark matter is not antimatter. Antimatter is the opposite of matter and dark matter is detectable by gravitational pull . People confuse both when they are not the same.
@@vc2702 a substance that interacts gravitationally but does not interact electromagnetically. I am in my senior year of my undergraduate physics program. I haven't taken the particle physics classes where they work with the dirac equation however I am aware of it. But I have taken 2 astro courses and have also completed a research project on dark matter.
@@kanishkchaturvedi1745 Thanks and i was not trying to argue with you about anything although it might look that way i was honestly curious on what he was talking about and, also on what you was talking about. Since i don't see him responding to your questions i thought i would ask you. From some lectures i have seen about matter discribe dark matter in a less detailed way that you have discribed it. I was not expecting that but its good to have a deeper understanding on the subject.
REVISED VERSION (psy phy physics from a sci fi writer.) The student of physics can write how photons made the entire universe in FIVE LINES of script! Background: My suggestion is that soon after the Big Bang Photons produced electron and positron pairs of waves 1. The ELECTRON wave had a negative charge. 2. The POSITRON wave had a positive charge. 3. The NEUTRINO had an electron and positron wave combined and had a neutral charge. 4. The PROTON had a mix of two positrons and one electron combined and had an overall positive charge. 5. The NEUTRON had a mix of two positrons and two electrons combined and had an overall neutral charge. Therefore : Photons made pairs of electrons and positrons. The electrons and positrons mixed together to make neutrinos, protons and neutrons such that: Electron (-) Positron (+) Neutrino (-) (+) Proton (+) (-) (+) Neutron (+) (-) (+) (-) When this production of particles was over, most positrons (anti electrons), didn't exist on their own. They were locked into neutrinos, protons, and neutrons - though conservation of charge was maintained. This may help explain the missing anti matter problem. This period of the Big Bang was probably during the lepton epoch. Though the neutrino and proton are extremely stable. the neutron can be converted back to a proton and electron (with an antineutrino) in beta decay. Protons and electrons can convert to neutrons in neutron stars. So proton + electron = neutrons has already been proven.
Halten Arp was not even mentioned. He discovered that Red shift doesn't always mean expansion. For that discovery his fellow tried to ruin is life. Check out the "Thunderbolts Project" youtube channel.
D McQ the fact with Halton ARP is that Hubble telescope discovered many distant galaxies (billions of years of light away from us) and they have a very high redshift respect to the galaxies of our group. This means that the quasars found from harp are only statistics finds (in his books talk about 1 probability of 1 million). There are billions of billions of galaxies and billions of billions of quasars. There is nothing strange in 1:1000000 found. Redshift then misure the distance. I’m not an astronomer from the lobby or other, I just readed all the theories and point of view and I realised that Harp was probably wrong with quasars and redshift
Please, no one go check out the Thunderbolts Project, it's the fucking stupidest echo chamber of mouth breathers you'll ever have the misfortune of crossing paths with.
I'm kinda curious, so wouldn't the singularity of the universe be a black hole? Also, in another video you said that a penny sized black hole would evaporate within a second and explode with the force of about 80k times the force of the Tzar Bomba, so wouldn't the big bang be more a big bounce? Pretty much the universe would occasionally oscillate over and over, I mean who knows we could be the billionth big bang just in our universe
When I think of the Big Bang, I imagine seeing it happen in front of me, like watching an explosion from a distance. This seems like an impossible perspective though, as nothing outside of that universe, including space, time and the laws of physics, even the seeing of photons, can exist. A universe is expanding as compared to what? How can size (or expansion) even apply, since there is nothing outside? What if it’s always been the same “size”, and the apparent divergence of galaxies is really everything just shrinking relative to each other? Maybe if when we descend into the scale of quantum weirdness bizarre things will occur with greater frequency. Hmm... Maybe we’re already there. The only thing I know for certain, is that the more I learn, the less I know.
Or maybe we should stop overthinking it. The ideas about space-time and such are at such a point that they're flat-out superstition and magic. Maybe, space is just anywhere that isn't occupied by matter and that's all it is. No mumbo jumbo or timey wimey nonsense involved.
The only thing more frustrating than the difficulty in fully appreciating these concepts is reading the idiotic assertions in the comments from people just smart enough to grasp enough of the fringes of a topic to know what to copy and paste from Wikipedia.
@@Arunning66 I understand what you're saying, but that's why comment boards are fun and frustrating sometimes. We all have the right to express our opinions and also to disagree with one another. I know misery loves company and it may sound like we are just bitching, but the big bang theory is really, really bad IMO and I just had to voice about the suckage that this show is and no hard feeling homie. You can love it if you like.
@@Peanutdenver I don't even really like the show myself I watch it occasionally I just don't understand why people have to openly tell everybody what shows they hate. I kind of understand why he brought it up in the video because of the subject but at the same time It had nothing to do with it it's just a title. When something gets very popular the cool thing is to hate it and I don't understand that, you don't have to like it but you don't have to tell everybody that you don't like it.
Wouldn’t the expansion of the universe look exactly the same as time dilation, or the slowing of the speed of light? Distance = velocity * time, so either of the three variables could be changing?
My point exactly. They have a few observations to use post hoc for "the universe must have a beginning" philosophy. Cosmic dust, however, would slow and filter light as well as create a "cosmic background radiation" Essentially, we have no way of confirming that the interpretation of the observations are true.
@@ecocentrichomestead6783 The universe isn't eternal, it was created, thermodynamics is well established and irrefutable at this point, order to chaos is all we have ever observed from sub atomic to the entire universe, at this point I think it's foolish to speculate against the evidence that it had a beginning, cosmic dust and light can't create the microwave background radiation that's absurd as it's not detected under a spectrum of light that can be interfered with by dust and visible light, C'mon bro
@@adamfehr4119 There is no definite evidence because none of the interpretations of the observations can we "ground truth". in other words, we only have extrapolation from our extremely limited observation here on earth. Time and distance puts in factors that are currently impossible for us to verify. Even if the universe was once compressed and is currently expanding, that does not indicate a beginning any more than it indicates a god. As for the order to chaos belief. Ever hear of evolution? That's Chaos to order! So the argument doesn't stand.
I don't understand one thing about it. They say before the bing bang, everything was confined into one dot, or something like that. Low entropy. They also say that the temperature was infinite. In general, if we heat something, it causes motion to the smaller particles inside, it causes motion. So if the temperature was infinite, how was it possible for everything to be restricted in one place?
I'd argue that the concept of temperature would be irrelevant if, in fact, it was a point on the Planck scale. Like many things, temperature is relative. If it was the same at all points, there'd be nothing to compare one area to the area adjacent. It would lose meaning. Ironically, a common way to think is that these would be the conditions of 'heat death' as well.
@@falseprophet1024You only experience temperature because of the uniqueness of it compared to what it is adjacent to. That's pretty relative, I'd say. Think about the concept of heat death
The first issue isn't really an issue because the Big bang theory isn't a theory of the origin of the universe. The problem of something coming from nothing arises when we extrapolate backwards, to t=0, which is beyond the scope of the theory.
