Brian Cox - Why Did The Big Bang Happen? 

Haha that’s facts

There it is

Best thing I’ve ever read! Thanks!

Except in winter.

We all start blowing in one direction at the same time...I think we might get a few more secounds

Yes: the documentaries e has done are great!

simple for simple minds?

@@jnrmack Usually I watch him explain Quantum physics. Nothing simple about that

@@davyjones7177 Quantum physics.a word made up to discribe not knowing what they talk about.

Simple, Definitely. The stupid leading the stupid.

NDT said it and didn't attribute it to Sagan. There's a video of him talking to William shatner about space-time and he says it

Quiet nerds

@@aliensarereal5316 yet your watching .....lol .....and reading the comments ....double lol

@@mikethompson7132 "Nerd" isn't an insult anymore, insecure boomer, and it's funny. Go away troll.

Stupidest reason I have heard for the lack of reasoning.

Brian Cox does not know. He is the 'face' of unknowing.. Currently a very profitable pastime.. But if it is genuine knowing you want to achieve, there are ways.. However, the first requirement is to realise that knowing is its own 'prize'. It does not need to be lavished with capitalist adornments and/or piles of cash.. So here is one of the main problems of understanding.. People 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'. This does not make it a feature of the nature of reality, only a desire from a Human perspective. spaceandmotion

It expanded into the universe as it is now! Plenty there to explore. As for "Where" the single point was, that's a fallacious question if space and time came into existence by that point inflating into what is space and time which didn't exist up until then. No space = no place for the singularity, and no time = no time for it to exist in. Remove the 3 spatial dimensions and the forth one: time, and you are left with a single point of no size, nowhere. It sounds impossible to us as such, but only because we don't know, and cannot access such things as other dimensions, opposite/negative dimensions... all being out of our scope of not just exploration, but existence as we know it altogether, yet possibly existence not much different for a whole other, possibly immeasurable amounts of universes within the same space and time that aren't space and time to each other, and can coexist without interfering with each other, or exist being entwined with each other within the many quantum fields, just on different frequency harmonics than what give our universe mass and energy, and allow interactions between them, even if not apparent. Mind melting I know, but such are very possible truths of theoretical physics.

Exactly, and this is how we know the bbtheory is absolutely correct. 🤯

I think what OP is Saying is that when something is said to expand it is implied that there is a space into which it is expanding. Big bang contained all of space along with all matter, then what space was there for it to possibly expand through? The answer to this question I have always been given is that the universe is not expanding into anything, but rather simply expanding. Growing larger in size. This isn’t exactly an answer to the question but rather a clarification of the meaning of the word expand, or the more specific meaning of it In this context

So my understanding is it’s not expanding into any space but creating the space as it expands

In today’s climate the theory with the least attention is likely to be the closest to truth.. spaceandmotion

You didn’t explain anything

Yes, there was: Glenn Miller, Benny Goodman, and Les Brown

What is we made a deviice in the future ( don't get caught up on how its possible this is just a hypothetical) that sucked the entire universe into one point and then released everything again in the exact same way the big bang happened. If we did that wouldn't the universe play out exactly as it did? And then eventually we would do the same same exact thing and recreate the big bang again and again forever? and if that's the case then the big bang we all know of was potentially created by ourselves in a past version of the universe as well. this would create and infinite paradox but the cyclical nature of this little thought experiment would also explain the absurdity of the Big Bang happening seemingly out of nothing. It would mean the universe has always been happening and time is a circle. And under these conditions we would be our own god of sorts

Yeah and in the past people have said such things before, like the world is flat and if you go over the speed limit of 27 mph you'll suffocate, or this person will never wake up from this coma or this person will never walk again, or it's not possible to reach the stars.. He and all those in his field do not have all the answers. And should not be saying such thing's to answers that do not have. You'd have thought that from just a small amount of thing's i've pointed out here to you, that they'd learn not to be so rash and quick to spout off on thing's that have no knowledge of.

@@patrickdoyle9369 2+2=4 does it not. The scientific method makes it possible for scientists to say we "know" due to observation, measurement and experiment. and it's never just one person, it's a whole community of people, saying we "know". If physics was makebelieve then we wouldn't have, what we have today. Just my opinion.

He actually says, several times « as far as we know » since all theories are open to revision.

@@petyrkowalski9887 yes, and he's very clear on what they don't know, eg. dark matter and dark energy.

Most of the "we know" examples are either loose statements made by individuals or predate scientific method. When he says we know in context of big bang this means what we actually know and have hard data up to 10^-13 seconds after big bang. We know how matter behaves in such conditions based on rewound laws of physics and LHC research.

No you don't

Probably unmeasurably smaller than an atom... because the singularity emanated from a different realm or dimension.

For black hole to form one needs to have gravity gradient. Also, space-time itself was created in big bang.

@@pavel9652 noone really knows that time was created then it's just a theory. I can't imagine literally everything in the universe is cyclical except the formation of it. Imo there is always a rebirth after death it just takes so long that no species will ever know. Stars have cycles, planets,moons, solar systems and galaxies it's pretty naive to think the only exception is the universe.

Here is how it works. Imagine a marshmallow. You pick it up, then squeeze it until is much more compact. That’s all it is. Stuff squeezed into a smaller volume.

@@stt5v2002 I understand it, it is just mind blowing that every star, black hole, dark matter, normal matter and everything else we know of was smaller than an atom.

The great attractor is a gravitational anomaly that affects just some of the superclusters, the effect on Laniakea supercluster being the most visible. It is Not tugging the whole Universe. I may be wrong, though.

Of the 4 fundamental forces (the strong force, the weak force, electromagnetism and gravity), strong is by far the strongest (duh) but has a very short range - on the order of subatomic particles - and the weak force also has a very limited range. That just leaves electromagnetism and gravity able to act over distance. Electromagnetism is much stronger than gravity, but the strongest known magnetic objects are magnetars, neutron stars with massive magnetic fields, so there's nothing we know of that can emit EM force with strength comparable to a supermassive black hole's gravity. Electromagnetism also affects most bodies much less than gravity, as the vast majority of material in an average planet or star is non magnetic. This leaves gravity, which affects everything, as the only force with universe-shaping capabilities.

Not to mention according to theoretical physicists gravity seems to stop the local expansion of space, say between my house nd the local Walgreens.

Misses Hippy Perhaps, just perhaps it's made up 😏

Gravity is weak only when compared to the other stronger forces

i dont believe particles traveling from exploding stars CAN travel at the speed of light. from my understanding of nova and electron degeneracy pressure within stars, it is NOT possible for them to reach the speed of light because they CANNOT travel at the speed of light. As the gravity of stars contract the cores and force the particles to move ever-so quickly, they do not ever reach the speed of light.

Search RU-vid for videos on Special Relativity. Only light travels at the speed of light. Nothing else. Light particles (photons) could not experience time even if they had eyes and a brain. Imagine a photon leaving Earth at the speed of light and as it started it was looking a clock, the time displayed on that clock would never change, no matter how long the photon looked back at that clock as it raced into space. Because new photons showing different times could never catch the Our photon flying away at the speed of light To someone on Earth the clock would continue to work normally. Humans on Earth would experience time normally, protons never experience time.... that's Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity. How we experience time is affected by how fast we travel and how far we are from massive objects. So if you stayed on the International Space Station for a year, time would slow for you compared to someone who stayed on Earth. But the difference would not that much, the Space station is flying fast enough nor its orbit that distant from Earth. On practical problem caused not to work well if adjustments aren't made for the speed of their satellites and how the height of their orbit. So GPS would be impractical if Special Reality was ignored. Crazy as it might seem time passes differently depending on your location and the speed at which you are moving.

'Time' is simply the motions of existence. Humans have invented a measurement system based on their own subjective experience and called it 'time'.. spaceandmotion

@@fluentpiffle Trains played a large part in our standard uniform of time on Earth. The Royal Observatory, Greenwich, provided the standard for 'London time', counting noon from the Sun's zenith over the 0° meridian. In 1852, the timekeepers at Greenwich...

@@catalinacurio That's right, and before that we invented 'sundials'.. All Human inventions, to measure the motions of existence form a purely Human perspective..

Nothing

The void

So here is one of the main problems of understanding.. People 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'. This does not make it a feature of the nature of reality, only a desire from a Human perspective. spaceandmotion

The atom sized universe might have been the size of a grapefruit. However, this only describes the observable universe. If the universe is flat and infinite, then the primordial grapefruit would have floated amongst the cosmos which may or may not have been compressed.

The existentially logical answer is that whatever possibility exists is BOUND to occur at some stage, given that there is an 'eternity' in which to do so.. So it is a question that is also tied to the nature of how things exist, and how we can determine what 'eternity' might mean.. Here is one of the main problems of understanding.. People 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'. This does not make it a feature of the nature of reality, only a desire from a Human perspective.

The Qur'an says that "the heavens and the earth were joined together as one unit, before We clove them asunder" (21:30). Following this big explosion, Allah "turned to the sky, and it had been (as) smoke. He said to it and to the earth: 'Come together, willingly or unwillingly.

Well that may be but their are somethings you have to answer WHY? Why is our place in the universe so specific? Why are we born in specific points if this planets history? What makes one a human ? Why do we exist at all? Their are somethings science does not have the answer to 😐

@@jettmartincicthedragongame3110 That's what I mean. Science answers how, not why.

Why is a philosophical question posed from a human brain. The universe doesn’t think, it’s a natural phenomenon that just does. So, “how” is the relevant question when it comes to the universe and existence. “Why” is unanswerable and unnecessary.

@@augustmoon0004 well we don’t know if the Big Bang model is completely correct 😓after all the CMB is not the entire cosmos 😐we don’t know what lies beyond the CMB 😑also the only reason why the Big Bang makes since is because that’s what our brains understand 😐however the brain does not like infinite 😑our brains make us have limits but looking at it deeper we were all ready dead a long time ago and what I mean by that ? 🧐I mean before you were even born 😑you were nothing that’s why you can’t remember the past 😑and when you die you become nothing again 😑

@@jettmartincicthedragongame3110 There is a lot we don't know and CAN'T know. That condition, however, doesn't justify proposing unfalsifiable claims.

The universe can’t be infinite, it had to have a beginning

@@sinclairj7492 how do you know that? More research needs to be done to find the answers. Until then though, it is entirely possible that our universe has infinitely existed, in one form or another. The big bang might have been a transition, rather than a creation.

@@allstarwatt7246 If the universe was infinite, then the past would be infinite, if the past was infinite then there would be no today and tomorrow would never come

Humans are aspects of existence, so in order to explain we have to be able to think in universal terms, which is possible, but is a step much like that one on the moon.. So here is one of the main problems of understanding.. People 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'. This does not make it a feature of the nature of reality, only a desire from a Human perspective.

It's only humans who give meaning to the known universe, without humans it all meaningless And our human nature doesn't change

I believe our little place in the universe allowed stars and planets to evolve and that because our universe is geometrically flat or almost flat it is trillions of times bigger. I also believe consciousness is fundamental and consciousness is all that exists. This stems from philosophy however rookie presumptions have been made in science such as the reductionist view of what is the base particle or strings ect...science will rectify these mistakes in the near future and discover something about consciousness that is far more incredible than we can currently imagine. Check out Bernardo Kastrup's videos about this.

It’s difficult to wrap your head around the concept of infinity, so perhaps this universe is just another iteration of the last one. Etcetera, etcetera…..for infinity, in both directions (or every direction) in time?

@@dr.jamesolack8504 Yeah. Although I think time is meaningless in a multiverse which goes back to my "place we couldn't begin to understand" point. It is so far removed from our reality in this universe it would be as hopelessly inaccessible to our understanding as quantum mechanics would be to an ant.

Allah is the the lord of all the worlds. He is the most high and he is the creator of the 7 heavens (multiverses) and the earth. I honestly think… and this is just a theory of mine,I think Allah (God) is always creating none stop hence why he is the creator of all things, that he creates space such as the universe almost as a storage for all of his creatures such as US and many other things out there that our minds can’t comprehend! So the universe is some what storage space for fine tuning for existence of life. One day it will all come to an end the Universe and everything in it will come to an end and we all will return back to our lord because the afterlife is the forever life. Choose to believe in it or not it’s going to happen either way.

So here is one of the main problems of understanding.. People 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'. This does not make it a feature of the nature of reality, only a desire from a Human perspective.

No, it’s because there is no definitive answer, like when BC said that the atoms “crystalized” from the energy is a guess, there is no mathematically theory as to how it happened, there is a theory that there was a field that decayed into the quarks and electrons, again no supporting evidence or math. The truth is what BC also said, we just don’t know

No one does.

The math is needed to discribe an event you really understand

@@wdbressl It's not just a guess, it is an educated one backed by evidence. Using colliders like the LHC, they have been able to replicate conditions that existed in the universe shortly after the big bang and are able to see how nature plays out from those conditions. It may not be 100% definitive, but when results from your experiments exactly replicate what your theories predicted, it gives a lot of credibility tot he theory as a whole

@@mattwasilewicz9677 no they haven't. That's as true as people who claim, the experiments have been done that prove abiogenesis

Maybe the entire universe has always been infinite and at time zero was also of infinite density. Stay with me on this one. If our finite observable universe was at time zero, of infinite density then it must have been of zero volume. If the entire universe is currently of infinite volume then even if it were at time zero also of infinite density it may still have been of infinite volume. A finite value divide by an infinite value = zero ( observable universe) An infinite value divided by an infinite values = infinite value, or zero, or 1 or all of the above. Infinities don’t make mathematical sense.

@@mitseraffej5812 Managed to "stay with you", I think!!!!! Interesting enough for me not to comment on it straight away! The way I see it, these 'ideas' have exactly the same merit as the most advanced theories because none of them can be proven at this time, hence the word 'theory' You have an interesting idea!

@@mitseraffej5812 okay, my thoughts on your ideas are more or less agreeable, but if there existed an infinately massive object, would it actually be able to escape itself thereby causing the initial inflation period? Or is it possible that because time did not exist before the inflation, there couldn't be any time dilation occurring which creates the effect that we recognise as gravity? If so, could the strong nuclear attractive force be responsible for everything being in that one "place"?

@@stuartmoulton6426 How, where or when does that one “place” even exist if space-time was not yet a thing? I often think that human intelligence lacks the ability to intuitively understand or visualise such things. I expect that like myself, you find it astounding that most people have not the slightest curiosity about this subject.

@@mitseraffej5812 Not sure about yourself but I didn't get very far with my physics studies at school (a long time ago) because my understanding of advanced mathematics let me down! I was always "up to speed" understanding the theoretical stuff because I have always had the "imagination" required. For this reason, most of the ideas I have are the products of my imagination and nuggets of knowledge that I've picked up along the way that kind of stand up to my own scrutiny, but is not based upon "recognized fact" and unfortunately I don't have access to any major league astrophysicists who would be able to explain to me why I am either right or wrong in my thoughts.... The fact is that I cannot answer the question of how stuff could exist in the absence of time/space. I do however agree with you in the not understanding why more people don't think about this stuff, maybe they start to but once they get too far down the rabbit hole to see the sun they become worried about their own sanity!!!!

Not if there was never a beginning? Also a valid question is 'Why should there be a 'beginning' at all, and why can we not accept reality for what it is when it is all around us? spaceandmotion

@@fluentpiffle you may well be right. We could be living in a cyclic universe. Seeking is human nature and we all are seeking for ultimate answer.

@@immigrationadviser4711 But it is not a question of whether anyone is 'right', it is a question of necessity and plausibility.. We use these to eventually develop an alignment with 'what is'.. With 'seeking', we must realise that it can only be that which actually exists that CAN be sought.. Looking for things that only exist as a mathematical hypothesis is a waste of time...but I suspect the continued 'funding' is good..

In today’s climate the theory with the least attention is likely to be the closest to truth.. spaceandmotion

Leave the weed alone

Time is fascinating until there's a deadline 💀

@@michaelking9818 never during work. Which is when this happened. Sorry, not applicable.

Yep

Dumbest thing I ever heard

Semantics won't solve a singularity

It was infinitely big though. Just the observable universe was small.

@@McSmooth5150 Yes, this is what my primitive brain imagines to be the case. If something of an infinitely large volume ( universe in it’s entirety) was compressed to achieve an infinitely high density it would still have an infinitely large volume. A finite volume ( observable universe) compressed to an infinitely high density would by mathematics be contained in an infinitely small volume. Infinities sure make my head hurt.

And what is behind the worl??!!!...

Space is the absence of...

Space is mostly consisted of dark matter and energy. Little sprinkles of matter and gas drift in space.

@@wolff_tk9421 that's what it consists of...not what it is

Space are the holes in between the string in a net

Yes and No.

The universe is expanding. Look at the red light shift of stars all around us.

Someday real soon! spaceandmotion

Right. Some random person on the Internet who presents exactly ZERO subject matter expertise tells the cosmologists that they've got it all wrong, and we should believe him for NO SPECIFIED REASON. Sure, buddy. I hope that panhandling is working out for you as a lifestyle choice. And don't forget to wear your tinfoil hat because of, you know, the alien rays.

Ron b you play guitar dads name is Robert just passed ? Just wondering if that's you. If so this is ur cousin lol

Easy…dark energy is composed of evil thoughts and missed opportunities that people omit and expels into unexplainable phenomenon…all energy has to go somewhere 🤷🏾‍♂️

Everything has its time. Humans will crack dark energy mystery in the 2305. Till then, have patience my child!

@@Razrman This is why I put the question on the back burner now for 5 yrs. There is so much other more interesting stuff being discovered recently. Can't wait for the JWST.

The universe expands faster than light can travel

The accelerated red shift could be explained by observer contraction if the observer is in the state of contraction the whole universe would appear red shifted, every spiral galaxy has a supermassive black hole at their center, black holes contract and dilate time. The so-called, ultra fast expansion of the early Big bang would have been time dilated by the extreme gravity of all the matter being so close together, so the first micro or nanoseconds of expansion may have taken eons of time to elapse.

Makes sense. Good of you for pointing this out

No evidence whatsoever of this

@@ak52892 well, firstly, there wouldn't be any evidence as any previously existing universe would be completely destroyed, and secondly, it's just an Interesting thought. I never claimed it to be a fact

Brian Cox does not know. He is the 'face' of unknowing.. Currently a very profitable pastime.. But if it is genuine knowing you want to achieve, there are ways.. However, the first requirement is to realise that knowing is its own 'prize'. It does not need to be lavished with capitalist adornments and/or piles of cash.. So here is one of the main problems of understanding.. People 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'. This does not make it a feature of the nature of reality, only a desire from a Human perspective.

@@fluentpiffle YOU ARE THE GREATEST MAN. YOU ARE INFINITELY ELOQUENT, SAVANT!

@@fluentpiffle i think you have a point here

Earth was formless and void ,you can,t have nothing full stop , What exploded and to really understand owt how can explosion exploded in to nothing from nothing , Do these clowns get in a room together and bet each other who can come up with the most stupid things

@@trudealcarpets4511 Sorry mate I have no idea what you’re going on about

yeah its kinda funny for me, the 2 ideas that "something" whatever that may be, has existed for eternity (eternity itself being unfathomable) vs the idea that something just popped into exitance from absolutely nothing.... are equally mind blowing.... as is the idea of a god, but lets not go there lol...

@@trudealcarpets4511 🤣

@@charliedavis8447 why not go there? Everything has a purpose. Why does the universe care that you want to eat in order to survive and live? Why are you programmed for that?

Hubble deep space images show galaxies moving in all directions.. all mixed together.. no prefered direction... as Michaelson and Morely told us in the 1890s in an explosion 💥...there is, necessarily, a preferred direction... multiple direct observations say that is not the case in a finite universe.. there's only so much stuff... WYSIWYG quantum foam was hypothesized in 1957, and experimentally verified in 1964... and my laboratory the past few years... the passage of light through vacuum creates quantum foam.. when there are two sufficiently energetic sources... there's a lot of math... but it's not difficult... it's just 1... 2... 3... the Universe grows one hydrogen atom at a Time.. in an infinite Universe hydrogen atoms have one thing none of the other ones have... duration... they last forever ♾️ that is what creates Time space is the distance between 2 things it requires neither making, nor a beginning or end Time and space.. no magic required the Universe grows along the Fibonacci sequence.. as all populations do it's a non linear growth the next number is the sum of the previous two... like.. 1... 2... 3... (0, 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144... ad infinitum) that's why the Universe grows faster all the Time... because there's more stuff in it.. it's definitely not magic the Planck length is calculated using the golden ratio.. the ratio of two consecutive Fibonacci sequence numbers... it's a variable irrational number between 1.5 and less than 1.7... that ratio is exactly why our lovely Universe is fractal the ratio of protons to neutrons in the plutonium atom are just a bit more than 1.5.. smallest to largest ==>> the Fibonacci sequence is found throughout the natural World.. now you know why

have a great day, y'all Peace ✌️

a brief word about mathematics there are only 9 numbers and zero.. zero is a number.. or a placeholder... there are only 4 operations all the esoteric symbols in math are.. representative of one or more of those 4 operations it's not hard the rest is pure logic

I don't think you ever did complex calculations.

@@laughingbuddha2948 So I am to accept the current theory as being the fact and it is not my place to question the experts. If we all followed you thinking then the human race would still be in the stone age. Yes the calculations that have been done are only as good as the data that is available. I have a feeling that the James Web telescope will solve a few of the questions but inevitably will pose more questions than answers. Rather than you dismiss my questions as being nonsensical it would be more prudent if you would try to dispel my questions with facts. Theories are just that, theories and until they become scientific fact they will be unverified theories.

@@liketoknow6566 You don't discuss the theory of relativity with your plumber. Your post is the living proof of that.

@@laughingbuddha2948 Yes, you are correct I do not discuss the Theory of relativity to my plumber, but as history has shown us what we thought was true has turned out to be incorrect. The difference between you and me, I question everything where as you accept everything. There are many theories, a single big bang multiple big bangs, the universe generates and regenerates itself, a multiverse, the incredible bulk and so on. These theories are so far just as plausible. Your post is the living proof that most humans are sheep and are constantly being lead. Thank you for you UN-informative conversation. You have a good life.

@@drsatan9617 Yes, I already knew that but it still does not validate the Big Bang theory or any of the other theories. The Hubble constant assumes that at the beginning there was zero expansion. What if the expansion of the universe was never at zero.

the only thing to me that would make sense is the theory that the universe expands and contracts, and that dense contracted point of matter at the end of the universe eventually becomes too dense resulting in a repeating Big Bang the process for a possible infinite amount of time…or theres a multiverse

@@aaronbritton2709 An 'infinite amount of time' is described with the word 'eternity', but we must think about what 'infinite' really means.. spaceandmotion

So here is one of the main problems of understanding.. People 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'. This does not make it a feature of the nature of reality, only a desire from a Human perspective.

|\Psi angle = \sum_{s_{z1}} \sum_{s_{z2}}\cdots\sum_{s_{zN}}\int_{V_1}\int_{V_2}\cdots\int_{V_N} \mathrm{d}\mathbf{r}_1\mathrm{d}\mathbf{r}_2\cdots\mathrm{d}\mathbf{r}_N \Psi |\mathbf{r}, \mathbf{s_z} angle

Great explanation sir !! I kind of agree with you !!!

Well thank God that science isnt governed by "gut feelings"

Seems like there is no evidence for this but hey maybe

The communications delay between Earth and Mars is approximately 20 minutes. We're either viewing the light from Mars in the future, Einstein's past dimensions of space-time or in real time, which do you think is more logical? The speed of light according to Einstein's relativity is 186,000 miles per second, but according to physics if two mechanical watches were synchronized on earth and one traveled across the universe and back, there would be no difference in time between the mechanical watches proving the speed of light is instantaneous as the only way a mechanical watch will run slow is if you tighten the main spring :-). Big Bang, Einstein's relativity-time dilation and nearly all of science debunked. There are 7.7 billion people on planet Earth, yet I was the only one who knew I was viewing the light and images of the universe in real time, maybe I should be working for NASA or Elon Musk :-) Light waves can stretch, bend-curve and occupy a state of superposition, whereas the hypothetical Einstein projectile light particle (photon), a particle that has never been observed cannot be both a particle and wave. There are no space-time fantasy unions or gravity waves that can join a particle, wave and time together then bend, curve and stretch them like a rubber band. Neither time nor mass can create itself into nothing, reside in nothing or expand into nothing simply because nothing has no properties. Time and space are independent of each other, not material bodies or fantasy unions that magically stretch time like a rubber band into space-time dimensions. The James Webb Space Telescope is not a time machine, you can’t travel back in time to view the beginning of the universe with telescopes that were made in the future :-). Light and electromagnetic waves are independent of each other. The speed of light can be slowed from 186,000 miles per second down to 38 mph by shooting a laser through extremely cold sodium atoms acting as “optical molasses” If the universe were suddenly destroyed, collapsed or fell into a black hole do you honestly think slowing down the speed of light with sodium atoms would save the earth from being destroyed, giving people on earth time to find another planet to colonize and destroy :-). Using optical clocks, lasers and GPS to prove Einstein's time dilation-space-time curvature is like using a metal detector to find gold at Fort Knox. The closer you are to the electromagnetic fields, mass and gravity of the earth the more light bends aka gravitational lensing. If black holes reside in a region of Einstein's theorized space-time where gravity and mass are so dense that nothing, neither mass-particles nor electromagnetic radiation such as light can escape then how could it be possible for the entire mass of our universe to escape the unimaginable density of the proposed Big Bang? According to general relativity sufficient compact mass-density will deform space-time to form a black hole which obviously debunks both Big Bang theory and relativity! Big Bang theorists rely on red shift to support the hypothesis that the universe is expanding, the very phenomena that supports the hypothesis of a (non-expanding static universe). You can duplicate the ion thruster jets of a black hole in a vacuum using a Tesla coil or build one using high voltage-an array of magnets-a CRT-TV yoke or inductor coil. Black holes are nothing but plasma driven vortex electromagnetic fields expanding electromagnetic waves in space. Since the vortex of black holes are thought to be at the center of all galaxies they might be the very force that created them. Gravitational lensing occurs in all wavelengths of light including (red shift-microwave background radiation). Gravity from huge celestial objects of galaxies bend, curve and expand light giving the appearance of what Einstein wrongly theorized as time dilation-space-time-debunking the big bang. Mass from galaxies, planets and black hole electromagnet fields bend, curve and expand light giving the appearance of what Einstein wrongly theorized as time dilation-space-time dimensions. Light like all electromagnetic radiation and electricity is the result of moving electrons, as moving electrons of charged electromagnetic waves-light travel through the plasma of the universe each lump (or "quanta") of energy in the electromagnetic waves are charged then discharged to the next lump, eventually the energy dissipates causing the delay in radio communications giving the appearance of time dilation - the appearance of longer wavelengths in red shift. Light and electromagnetic waves are independent of each other. If space was curved-warped according to Albert Einstein's curved-warped gravity theory, like a boat in the ocean these same gravity waves would affect time and the perfect balance in solar system orbital mechanics throwing planets off course-out of orbit in a collision course towards the sun where a planets gravity and time would increase and decrease with different velocity rates as they ascend and descend the curves of gravity waves. Using optical clocks and lasers to prove Einstein's time dilation-space-time curvature is like using a metal detector to find gold at Fort Knox. The closer you are to the electromagnetic fields, mass and gravity of the earth the more light bends aka gravitational lensing. If gravity is the result of mass then before the universe came into being gravity couldn't have existed simply because mass was not yet created! Galaxies with massive gravity from the early Big Bang would have been gravitationally bound like the Andromeda galaxy is to the Milky Way galaxy, the sun, moon and planets in all solar systems in the universe yet these early galaxies were able to somehow escape these massive gravitational forces continuing to expand at an increasingly faster rate. Into what, nothing? Nothing has no properties! Neither the atom, universe nor time can be created or destroyed. Albert Einstein an autistic violinist patent clerk that had access to more papers than Suzanne Somers litter box yet creates theories with more bugs than Terminix. “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” a state of superposition where time, and gravity run inwardly, outwardly, in all directions in the same time frame, similar to the electromagnetic field having no beginning and no end. If space was curved-warped according to Albert Einstein's curved-warped gravity theory, like a boat in the ocean these same gravity waves would effect time and the perfect balance in solar system orbital mechanics throwing planets off course-out of orbit in a collision course towards the sun where a planets gravity and time would increase and decrease with different velocity rates as they ascend and descend the curves of gravity waves. Using optical clocks and lasers to prove Einstein's time dilation-space-time curvature is like using a metal detector to find gold at Fort Knox. The closer you are to the electromagnetic fields, mass and gravity of the earth the more light bends aka gravitational lensing. Neither time nor mass can create itself into nothing, reside in nothing or expand into nothing simply because nothing has no properties. Time and space are independent of each other, not material bodies or fantasy unions that magically stretch time like a rubber band into space-time dimensions. Albert Einstein, an autistic violinist patent clerk that had access to more papers than Suzanne Somers litter box yet creates theories with more bugs than Terminix-Magnetron.

The theory of everything according to humans that believe their intellect evolved from a monkeys brain. If the light waves from the sun were 8 minutes and 20 seconds in a past dimension of Einstein's space-time then people on Earth are just imagining the infrared warmth of the sun coming up on the horizon. The communications delay between Earth and Mars is approximately 20 minutes. We're either viewing the light from Mars in the future, Einstein's past dimensions of space-time or in real time, which do you think is more logical? Einstein's relativity is wrong light has no limitation of speed; it cannot be slowed down because it isn't moving. From every vantage point in the universe light is omnidirectional-instantaneously traveling in both directions. Light and electromagnetic waves are independent of each other. According to Einstein's relativity-time dilation's, photos taken of the Earth from the Discovery Space station traveled from the past to the future violating the laws of physics, conservation of energy and common sense :-) The speed of light according to Einstein's relativity is 186,000 miles per second, but according to physics if two mechanical watches were synchronized on earth and one traveled across the universe and back, there would be no difference in time between the mechanical watches proving the speed of light is instantaneous as the only way a mechanical watch will run slow is if you tighten the main spring. Big Bang, Einstein's relativity-time dilation and nearly all of science debunked. Using optical clocks, lasers and GPS to prove Einstein's time dilation-space-time curvature is like using a metal detector to find gold at Fort Knox. The closer you are to the electromagnetic fields, mass and gravity of the earth the more light bends aka gravitational lensing. Light waves can stretch, bend-curve and occupy a state of superposition, whereas the hypothetical Einstein projectile light particle (photon), a particle that has never been observed cannot. Unlike a TV or computer monitor the images we are viewing in the universe are in real time, not a series of frames that create the appearance of a moving image. There are no DCU digital convergence circuits in space yet Einstein's disciples believe the light and moving images they see in the universe aren't really there, they're just video recorded images of the past 13.8 billion years. You could lead a cult to water, but you can't make them think. Neither time, energy nor mass can create itself into nothing, reside in nothing or expand into nothing simply because nothing has no properties. Time and space are independent of each other, not material bodies or fantasy unions that magically stretch Time, energy, and matter like a rubber band into space-time dimensions. Monkey see monkey do, the science of monkeys have brainwashed you. Will the James Webb Telescope view the birth of the first galaxies? Nope, the universe goes on to infinity. Neither time, the atom, energy nor mass can create itself into nothing, reside in nothing or expand into nothing simply because nothing has no properties. The James Webb Space Telescope is not a time machine, you can’t travel back in time to view the beginning of the universe with telescopes that were made in the future :-). Light and electromagnetic waves are independent of each other. If science uses Einstein's wrongly theorized speed of light like an odometer to calculate past dimensions of distance and time, then using that same method to calculate forward dimensions of distance and time would mean the Big Bang was created and expanded in the future before time existed. Unlike a television or computer monitor the images we are viewing in the universe are in real time, not a series of still image frames that hypothetical Einstein projectile light particles photons create to give us the appearance of a moving image :-). The speed of electromagnetic wave is 186,282 miles per second vs Einstein's projectile light particle proton at 186,000 miles per second. Is this a coincidence or did Einstein plagiarize yet another phenomenon to fit the math of relativity? Electromagnetic waves in space can neither slow down or speed up, this is consistent with the law of conservation of energy. If light slowed down, its energy would decrease, thereby violating the law of conservation of energy so the speed of light is instantaneous and cannot travel slower than it does. If Einstein's projectile light (particle photon) had mass it's light could not travel across the universe, high speed particles traveling at 186,000 miles per second would break the Hubble and James Webb telescope mirrors, debunking the speed of light, Big Bang, Einstein's relativity and any science that uses relativity in their theories. Everyone knows cell phone electromagnetic radio waves travel both ways, yet Einstein's disciples believe time energy, mass and light can only travel one way back in time. If you simply run the Big Bang theory in reverse you reveal the insanity of Einstein's relativity and Big Bang theory. If the expansion of the Big Bang were true, time, energy, mass and light would be in the future from the vantage point of an expanding singularity-Big Bang and planet Earth would now reside in a past dimension of Einstein's time dilation (moving clocks run slow) space-time 13.8 billion years ago :-). It's truly amazing how the science and politics of the left are able to keep people denying reality, there are no DCU digital convergence circuits in space, yet Einstein's disciples believe the light and moving images they see in the universe aren't really there, they're just recorded images of the past 13.8 billion years. Pretending not to notice the gross contradictions-pseudoscience in Relativity is typical of Einstein's disciples, devaluing the source of any information that's in contradiction with their beliefs-theories. You could lead a cult to water, but you can't make them think. If the light from the universe travels to past dimensions of time then it's light is also traveling into future dimensions of time (instantaneously). “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” a state of superposition where time and gravity run inwardly, outwardly, in all directions in the same time frame, similar to the electromagnetic field having no beginning and no end. "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End" Revelation 22:13. Disciples, remember thy 1st commandment, thou shalt not question thy lawgiver of relativity for blasphemers are the devil's pawn. Let thee not dwell in dissension of our Lord Albert, shun them, drive them back to their jungle lair amen. Albert Einstein, an autistic violinist patent clerk that had access to more papers than Suzanne Somers litter box yet creates theories with more bugs than Terminix- Magnetron. View my paper on academia (Big Bang, Einstein's Relativity-Time dilation and nearly all of science debunked) You can also find me on Twitter, Facebook, Truth Social and Mewe

most often though, when religious people ask ''why did the big bang happen?'' they are presupposing that some God must have set it in motion. I think this is why Brian Cox prefers to say ''how''.

"Why" can be an unanswerable question. Maybe we don't have access to data that would allow us to answer it. That does not mean that no one has a clue. But don't expect to get latest ideas in any textbook until you're a PhD candidate. Search RU-vid for videos with Roger Penrose is you want a sample. Be prepared to hang onto you hat.

I think Newtons Laws break down long before that don't they?

You have no say in this unless you can do math like Einstein. Which you cant so shut it

Because it is only a theory that does not hold up to genuine scrutiny.. spaceandmotion

@@fluentpiffle you dont know what a theory is. All theories hold up under scrutiny...every one of them. Theory equals fact

@@diane6378 I didn't say scrutiny, I said genuine scrutiny.. If you knew what genuine scrutiny was you would not have made that mistake.. Same with your 'theory' theory.. But you have provided an excellent example (as if Brian Cox were not enough!) of how people like to miss out certain aspects they personally find distasteful, so their 'theories' appear more 'factual'...to them, and anyone they can dupe into listening to them..

I like your idea, and interpret it as expanding spacetime implies time expanding - and time expansion is essentially it's arrow. Hence the 'tick' of time is merely an expansion from frame to frame. Scientists have been really dumb in deciding initially that space was the vaccuum, and then only later finding that the vacuum has energy - essentially because one could not have a construct of space without an energy supporting it. And now they fail to take another leap to realize that time must have energy as well, and is not 'nothing'.

@@gregorysagegreene But tine is relative to space in mathamtical measurement standards..by no means is it a force if so where is time? ...dumb dumb

the universe is expanding into empty space.

@@gregorysagegreene yes this.

So here is one of the main problems of understanding.. People 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'. This does not make it a feature of the nature of reality, only a desire from a Human perspective.

In today’s climate the theory with the least attention is likely to be the closest to truth.. spaceandmotion

Reality is stranger than we can suppose. We used to think the Earth was the center of the universe. We used to think space travel was impossible. Mysteries are endless

The Big Bang Theory doesn’t say something came from nothing. The Big Bang Theory explains what happened after the Big Bang happened.

@@captaingaza2389 Yes ! After is interesting.

as long as an elephant trunk

Nor does it credit Georges Lemaître for theorizing the Hubble-Lemaître law and calculating the Hubble constant 2 years ahead of Hubble himself.

@@duvels86 i was highlighting the nonrecognition of women in science but agree that recognizing Catholic priests is also important

@@ernestbruce I sense a sarcastic tone in that reply. I completely agree that without Henrietta Swan Leavitt the observation of Hubble was not possible. Credit where credit's due though, and Hubble did not theorize the Law named after him. For me, this is an overly anglocentric video. That's my point.

@@duvels86 oh, yes, it is anglocentric; i didnt mean to sound sarcastic; sadly, many, many of these types of videos ignore the contributions of women and scientists from places other than the US and Britain; they feature Einstein and others because, i suppose, the sheer genius and influence of their contributions to science; we need to work to change that

Im interested 😀

I matter

And Nixon had a secret plan to get out of Vietnam

Write a paper.Submit it to physical review letters.

Bullshit

What are you missing? Why matter is stable? It isn't. All of what you see now is just meta-stable and will eventually decay.

Well spotted! In today’s climate the theory with the least attention is likely to be the closest to truth.. spaceandmotion

weed musings.

Space is not a thing. It's the absence of things.

*"LIFE The Real Self" is NOT 'Energy', as "LIFE The Real Self", is Non-Dimensional, and does NOT represent, nor even remotely look anything like any species, including the human species... 'Energy' involves Dimension...*

Baaad programmer!

@@gregorysagegreene well, this breaks any notion of "intelligent" design :-)

I agree, the world of the very large and very small are both equally hard to comprehend.