Where Did the Big Bang Happen? 

The Great Attractor sounds like the plot device in a Star Trek episode.

Why? The only thing which attracts masses are masses. So there must be a large mass out there, large enough to attract the "local group" "Virgo cluster" etc.. By what evidence the accumulation of mass has been caused we don't know. There are just a few possibilities, which are capable to accumulate high densities of mass.

But where is the great attractor going?....-;,'....

The “Great attractor?” Hmmmm….🤔 It sounds to me like someone is on the verge of a “Eureka” moment!🙂

Perhaps the universe is not 14 billion years old as mainstream scientists think. I see implausible that so much structure could have formed in such short time especially if the outrageous and extravagant Guth's inflation hypothesis is correct

Ah yes, another quote goes something like "there are those who say it was a big mistake when man came out the trees, there are others who argue our biggest mistake was crawling out of the water "

The amount of angry people before was infinitely smaller!

I bet we're heading towards Millliways. I should probably invest that penny now, hey.

I also think that people like Sabine existed in a previous iteration of the Universe, they did their jobs too well and now we're in a more strange, complicated iteration that replaced it. Sabine et. al. are bringing about understanding this Universe and it'll also be replaced by something even more inexplicably complicated.

@@waynedarronwalls6468 "We never should've started synthesizing RNA. Waste of energy."

LOL..... OMMMMMMM....

@Mike JJJ %%% ???? @@@ #### ?????

Thanks for the suggestion, I will keep this in mind!

@@SabineHossenfelder Yes, I'd love to hear you talk more about it!

@@SabineHossenfelder It was a good tease but I think we can assume it's a Superclusters such as the monster that is the Shapely, which the great attractor itself is moving towards. Or it could be a decillion number of Death Stars :). Thanks again for the content.

Harry Lesch talked about it in an Alpha centauri episode. Only in German

What about the Shapley Supercluster? It has been determined, its much closer and mass richer than the GA.

Liebe auch diesen Kanal 😍

She is indeed a very good science communicator and also keep the things on the right size paying attention not to say gobbledygook like "in entanglement particle interaction is faster than light" or "the highs interaction can be seen as a ball moving in water".

Wait till you watch her make fun of other scientists for doing bad science, haha.

Yea, I only graduated high school but I am deeply in dented to people like her, Degrasse Tyson, Hawkings etc who have helped up my science knowledge tremendously. IF we had more teachers like this, especially at the high school level it would take far more people to higher places thus increasing our knowledge overall.

If a wildman from a time of civilization that dates a few millenia ago can understand what's discussed in a video, then that person is very much a good scientific communicator

Kind of a gigantic assumption purely based on math equations which love using infinity, but we have never observed infinity occur anywhere. Black holes are described as infinitely dense while we have now observed many different sizes of black hole which would point to them being very, very dense certainly, but different in size and structure as their spin velocities change as well. Obviously we are missing a big piece and I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume we are missing an even larger piece when it comes to the big bang singularity theory. Personally I think we are misinterpreting red shift over great distances and the significance of the cosmic microwave background. Not a physicist, just a thinker, could be wrong.

@@Swolecows How would one observe infinity? We can only make a finite number of observations in finite time

It's almost futile to try to dispel the popsci notion that black holes are not actually postulated to be singularities, just an exotic state of matter/energy. Singularities are like trying to divide by 0.

That's one of my biggest gripes with many mainstream physicists. They talk about speculative things that have not been verified by experiments as if they were fact.

This is the "12 law of power" which states "use selective honest to disarm your victim". This lady is not a valid thinker, she is honest in one matter to gain your trust and you think her honesty in one matter is a constant when actually it is a variable. Your trust is now a constant when it should be a variable dependent on the independent circumstances. Check every premise and you will soon find her theories and ideas are based on fluff, sophistry, and verbosity.

I feel you. I can follow along only so far. Usually I cannot keep up. But the more I watch Sabine, the more I realize, when consuming other media, that she has actually taught me some basic principle that I had not previously grasped. She must be a wonderful professor. It IS fun to try to keep up.

@@Sharonmxg Sabine is a wonderful teacher!

Ain't that the truth!!

The Universe is both particle and a Wave. Why do we always speak of it as if it is a particle only.

I'm just grateful that my ignorance of these mind-boggling topics doesn't make it more likely that I'll, say, get in a car accident or catch COVID! 🤞😷

Oh, nah ur thinking about the nickname for my pp, the great contractor

the Great Attractor was a nickname giving to a very Fat Dude that we were afraid about adding some grams to his weight because that would tearing down-inside space-time fabrik ... Believe me ( you don't have at all to do it ), Nobody felt attracted to him just some local mass got sucked by inertia ...

@@firstnamesurname6550 That sounds a bit rude.

@@curiodyssey3867 Jeff, King of Amazon, Feudal lord of new age, 200 Billion dollar man and Master of plastic bottles as replacement for WC is that you?

@@firstnamesurname6550 everybody needs some weight to exist otherwise you wouldn't have own atmosphere around yourself. That's my last fat joke. Fatshaming is not cool.

ATTRACTION is dual to REPULSION, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual. If you want attractive forces (gravity) then you are automatically assuming a dual concept. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Forces are responsible for effects. Cause is dual to effect implies correlation of the two (a force). Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. The force of gravity (cause) results in apples falling to the ground (effect) and duality is conserved in this process, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy. Forces have there origin in the conservation of duality -- generalized duality. Monads are units of force -- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz. Monads are units of force which are dual -- monads are dual. "May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi saying. "The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi saying. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork. Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant.

You waited 13.9 billion years.

You're assuming that this process has to stop. Who knows.

ATTRACTION is dual to REPULSION, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual. If you want attractive forces (gravity) then you are automatically assuming a dual concept. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Forces are responsible for effects. Cause is dual to effect implies correlation of the two (a force). Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. The force of gravity (cause) results in apples falling to the ground (effect) and duality is conserved in this process, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy. Forces have there origin in the conservation of duality -- generalized duality. Monads are units of force -- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz. Monads are units of force which are dual -- monads are dual. "May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi saying. "The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi saying. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork. Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant.

Nah, it's the restaurant at the end of the universe.

@@vauchomarx6733 Yeah, Milliways out past the Magrethea turnoff.

Recent research has shown what the 'great attractor' is. It's 'just' another gigantic cluster of galaxies. Can't remember the name they gave it though.

That's probably the most likely answer. We just can't see it is because its obscured by the plane of the Milky Way.

ATTRACTION is dual to REPULSION, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual. If you want attractive forces (gravity) then you are automatically assuming a dual concept. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Forces are responsible for effects. Cause is dual to effect implies correlation of the two (a force). Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. The force of gravity (cause) results in apples falling to the ground (effect) and duality is conserved in this process, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy. Forces have there origin in the conservation of duality -- generalized duality. Monads are units of force -- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz. Monads are units of force which are dual -- monads are dual. "May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi saying. "The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi saying. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork. Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant.

That's what the currently most widely accepted model would predict, yes.

If The Universe is a Wave like the electron is then we just observe a small segment of its propagation.

The galaxy on the edge of our vision might not exist anymore at the present moment, unless you also go to the past. If you limit your travel velocity to the speed of light, you will never get there because space is expanding faster than speed of light.

@@SabineHossenfelder Would CMB look different at that location at the present moment?

If asked where the center of the Universe is located, logic dictates that it is always in the mind of each observer.

Interesting idea. Would that even be possible tho?

If the big-bang were a white hole then time existed before the big bounce. And since the universe is infinite then there is no such thing as no-place.

The big bang is the where

Weak.

Maybe less speculations but massive ones. Because "no science ever defends it's first principles" everything is a speculation.

@@unclekerr4369 If you really dig in the science subject, you may find many inconsistencies. Scientific and proved are other things that are not the same thing. Math, one of the ... robust system we are aware of has also inconsistencies. Godel proved that (in a math way!) through those 2 incompleteness theorems...., which roughly says - any logical system (including math) is at least incomplete or at least wrong.... But, it might be both. I remind you that for a thing to be scientific there must be fulfilled 3 conditions at once: - to predict something - to test it in at least 2 different ways, in a reasonable time - repeating tests, yields the same results. There are a lot of things presented to be scientific but they are not. Note: for a thing to be true it's not necessary to be scientific. I give you an e.g.: My birth is a unique event, but it's not scientific because, it can't be repeated. Nevertheless it is a true event.

@@radupopescu9977 Science is becoming a fantasy.

@@unclekerr4369 It's case by case.

@@radupopescu9977 It must be but it seldom is which is why I say it's a religion.

Oh really? Can you imagine absolute Nothing Null Zero? They know nothing about begining or continuity of the Universe. These models are useless.

@@marianskodowski8337 You need to talk to George Lionon... George where are you?

Yes, this is what we call "German precision"

@@krakendragonslayer1909 I used the handle "BEOWULF" many years ago when I worked at a major refinery. COOL !

@@marianskodowski8337 no kurwa debil wierzący w duchy...

@John Barber Knocked. Not bandied.

There are no "two dimensions" in space. If the third real spatial dimension is zero then the so-called 2 dimensions in the real space are also zero. It is one thing to just imagine that something non-existent might exist, and a different thing of what exactly and real exists in the material reality of the real Universe.

Perhaps broken symmetry of a singularity comes as an expansion contraction leaving a shell circle event horizon. A drop in dimension, and again if time is used in small line segments, introducing linear motion as quantum fluctuations and breaking the circle. Oddly enough, the drop going from 1D to 2D and 3D, not the other way around. The singularity still there untouched.

@@mikel4879 Until you realize that we each live in an I -Magi -Nation in this UniverseCity.

This analogy only works if the expanding surface has positive curvature (it loops back around to meet itself - and hence is finite). A flat surface or one with negative curvature goes on forever. The analogy I like to use for a flat surface (which seems to be the case for the spacetime we live in) is to imagine a flat plane with grid lines drawn on it. The plane is, by definition, flat and goes on forever in all directions. There is no single point that is the center of the plane. Now, to visualize expansion on this plane, simply imagine the spacing between grid lines to double every second. If you look at the plane at different points, it will look exactly the same. The expansion will always look like it's happening from the center point - even if you move your view to a different center point. And, crucially, we can note that this central point is just the center of our viewing of the plane, and the point does not lie in a third dimension outside of the plane. In fact, there is no need for an extra dimension outside the plane in this analogy to view the expansion.

@@cefarix I think that our Universe is just so large that it looks flat up to the MWBR just like our Earth looks flat up to the Horizon because we are so small compared to the surface we are on. If the multiverse theory is correct you can have the multiverse be infinite but the individual universes in it have to be finite. And, Yes, I know that Cantor proved that some infinities are contained within others but, to me, that's just math not physics.

einsteins general relativity doesen't work in big bang moment my friend, that's why we need quantum gravity

In a black hole the matter falling toward the singularity doesnt actually arive at the singularity until all at once some time in the very very far future

The density of matter tends to infinity with the caveat there is only one place in the universe to be at that moment, so everywhere is a single location.

@Hisham Malik Every model has its limits. So far, no one has been able to devise a model that works beyond the limits of general relativity.

@@BlastinRope and then, boom! The great attractor is reached and it's another blasted big bang.

The center of the universe is outside of our small portion of the visible universe. If you extrapolate back from the vector of dark flow, it will intersect with the center of the universe. This point is equidistant from all points on the holographic surface of the universe.

I have the same question. I am not sure this is true though, otherwise how could no one else mention it but Sabine? Another posiibility is, as we've seen in last few decades, all initial simplisctic assumptions about the Bing Bang theiry seems to be fading away and it soem more scientists like Sabine speak their mind a little more freely, and I mean outside the box.. There are many more questiones begging answers than any one ever answred by this theory. One more fundamental questions I have always thought no one mentionening is how much can the universe possibly be squeezed?

Honestly I've seen even physits doing this (IMO) error all the time saying "the universe" when they actually mean "the observable universe".

@@georgelionon9050 George as smart as you appear to be, it seems English may not be your first language. Saw you spell a word docents for dozens ... and now Physits for Physicists... or is it just laziness or sloppiness? Or is it you simply do not spell very well. In either case, do not sweat it. Throughout history there have been very successful, wealthy , influential people who were poor spellers.

ATTRACTION is dual to REPULSION, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual. If you want attractive forces (gravity) then you are automatically assuming a dual concept. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Forces are responsible for effects. Cause is dual to effect implies correlation of the two (a force). Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. The force of gravity (cause) results in apples falling to the ground (effect) and duality is conserved in this process, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy. Forces have there origin in the conservation of duality -- generalized duality. Monads are units of force -- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz. Monads are units of force which are dual -- monads are dual. "May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi saying. "The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi saying. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork. Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant.

I love her - in a totally sapiosexual way ;)

She's not a genius.

🤭

😂

Isn't West Croydon still about the size of a grapefruit?

Reversing Einstein's equations back to singularity: The Gnab Gib

@@twigsagan3857 "The best explanation we have at the moment, not yet proven wrong."

The term "Big Bang" was originally meant as an insult. But for some reason, the term stuck.

@@twigsagan3857 we need a word that means "the best we have proven so far" so that is clear that we know no better now as proven, but it is not closed completely.

@@twigsagan3857 Karl Popper used the term conjecture. Anybody literate in science should understand that theory equals explanation. It’s technically incorrect to talk of scientific theories being proven; scientific theories can only be corroborated or falsified.

Looks like you got out of that corner where you were all alone ! :-)

There is no answer, at least not in science. Whatever is outside of the skin of the grapefruit never entered in contact with what we can see and will never be, so there no way it affected our observable universe and no way to infer what is there, so we can do any assumption we want. Even if what is outside affected some other point nearer than us to the border of the observable universe, this happened at a time that still makes impossible for us to observe it.

@@ilkov yes!

The universe isn't the stuff in it, it's the place the stuff happens in. The place was always there, expanding, and infinitely large, the stuff is being carried with it and used to be closer together to a degree we cannot model for reasons we do not know. If I understand it right.

What is infinitely large is the third dimension. This is why she mentioned that a one-dimensional line is made up of an infinite number of zero-dimensional points. Every dimension is infinite, even if from the "outside" it would appear to have a border, because it is always made up of an infinite number of points, lines and/or planes. Space can expand forever in an infinite dimension, even though it may occupy the entirety of the dimension. That seems to be a paradox, but, oddly enough, it is only a mental paradox, and not a physical one. The Universe has no edge, anymore than the Earth does, and everyone on Earth finds themselves at the center of this "plane".

The nature of theories is that they are always changing.

"All of modern science was created at the behest of an Angelic entity, the heads at MiT are not talking about that I can assure you." ~T

Interesting how Sabine reframes the sentence ' I don't know;' to 'nobody knows'. If all self declared experts would do this then we all know nothing. But then again, that may actually be the case and even the goal of academia, since we made no progress for 40 years...,

@@RWin-fp5jn She's in no position to claim "nobody knows", quite right. Those who require a reason for everything subvert reason. 🤓

@@EnglishmanB3 When the Hubble telescope and other devices played their powers of magnification on the supposedly youngest of galaxies a mere 500 million years from the Red Shift limit, they found themselves looking at 2nd generation - carbon content stars - in these galaxies. Well folks, that's a far cry from a realm that was predicted to merely consist of primordial beginning-of-the-Big-Bang subatomic primordial ooze. When the Webb Telescope takes a gander with its magnification 20 times more powerful than the Hubble, there's going to be some serious reevaluation...Or will the Big Bangers merely move the goalposts further into the Red Limit?

@@StephenGoodfellow A native American tribesman while high on some hallucinogen mapped out a certain part of the galaxy before any telescope was able to stretch that far because "he'd been there"... 20 years later (ish) ... the telescope folk found it, precisely.

It's not mind blowing, it's just mind expanding! :D

ATTRACTION is dual to REPULSION, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual. If you want attractive forces (gravity) then you are automatically assuming a dual concept. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Forces are responsible for effects. Cause is dual to effect implies correlation of the two (a force). Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. The force of gravity (cause) results in apples falling to the ground (effect) and duality is conserved in this process, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy. Forces have there origin in the conservation of duality -- generalized duality. Monads are units of force -- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz. Monads are units of force which are dual -- monads are dual. "May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi saying. "The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi saying. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork. Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant.

ATTRACTION is dual to REPULSION, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual. If you want attractive forces (gravity) then you are automatically assuming a dual concept. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Forces are responsible for effects. Cause is dual to effect implies correlation of the two (a force). Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. The force of gravity (cause) results in apples falling to the ground (effect) and duality is conserved in this process, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy. Forces have there origin in the conservation of duality -- generalized duality. Monads are units of force -- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz. Monads are units of force which are dual -- monads are dual. "May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi saying. "The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi saying. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork. Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant.

So the Great Attractor = the Restaurant? (at the end of the universe)

It's most likely just another large cluster of galaxies, and we can't see it due to the plain of the milky way getting in the way.

@@megelizabeth9492 plane.

ATTRACTION is dual to REPULSION, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual. If you want attractive forces (gravity) then you are automatically assuming a dual concept. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Forces are responsible for effects. Cause is dual to effect implies correlation of the two (a force). Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. The force of gravity (cause) results in apples falling to the ground (effect) and duality is conserved in this process, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy. Forces have there origin in the conservation of duality -- generalized duality. Monads are units of force -- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz. Monads are units of force which are dual -- monads are dual. "May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi saying. "The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi saying. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork. Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant.

Nein, I am. Y'all are interesting company though.

@Mike JJJ The center of the universe was on an ant that I crushed a couple of days ago ... that was not my fault, it comes under my shoes without making its presence evident to its nemesis ...

Axis Mundi is the center of All things. Yes we are. We are all seeds in the cosmic garden of Eden (milky way). We are the singularities within the whole. It's worth noting that for a universe or one version it varies yet all are and one in the one. We are at a cross roads in unification. 1 123581321345589144

@Mike JJJ Can we call a truce and pick Sabine? Ronald McDonald freaks me out a bit.

@@333STONE John Wheeler’s Participatory Anthropic Principle??

😏

history of everything

I wonder if Sabine had seen it

@@SaeedNeamati Should've sourced it, like a good science doing person. First thing that came to mind. Thanks fam. Fixed in OP.

Welcome to the UniverseCity wher we become conscious of the I-Magi-Nation.

Space is expanding faster than we’re falling towards the attractor so we’ll never get there

ATTRACTION is dual to REPULSION, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual. If you want attractive forces (gravity) then you are automatically assuming a dual concept. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Forces are responsible for effects. Cause is dual to effect implies correlation of the two (a force). Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. The force of gravity (cause) results in apples falling to the ground (effect) and duality is conserved in this process, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy. Forces have there origin in the conservation of duality -- generalized duality. Monads are units of force -- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz. Monads are units of force which are dual -- monads are dual. "May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi saying. "The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi saying. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork. Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant.

It isn't a "rest-frame", but it's funny that after all there is a reference frame.

@@georgelionon9050 George are you SABINE in disguise or just her sorta "Unofficial Lil' Helper! :-)

@@georgelionon9050 What's the difference between a rest frame and a reference frame? I thought they were synonyms for the "inertial reference frame" concept that special relativity textbooks frequently refer to.

@@AdrianColley I think he's just amused by the word "rest" describing an expanding universe, where everything has relative velocities...

Well, that's one "Theory"....

I think she said that this calculation is based on the unproven assumption that the laws of physics that we know were the same. In other words, nobody knows if that number is correct or not.

@@albertowachsman7878 You would also imagine that in the early universe the first particles were traveling at near relativitisic speeds, so time would not move along at the pace we observe today.

good point, you can still do math though your phd fell through the cracks

If you think it's possible to add infinite zeros and have a result that isn't zero you should perhaps not be practicing math without supervision. You cannot possibly have a PHD in math and actually believe you can do any math operation with infinity as a value. Perhaps with your expertise you might give us the answer to infinity multiplied by two? Should be simple for you.

@@vincemorgan9640 LOL.

Before you criticize basic ideas of analysis, learn what they are.

It is beyond my comprehension that people become so invested in the critique of ideas that they do not understand AT ALL

What's this "walk" you speak of? 😲 Is that an "outside" thing? 😲 I don't do outside, too scary 😱

@@DoctaOsiris Do You know why that is so scary ??

@@firstnamesurname6550 I'm not sure but there's an awful great mess of it out there.

@@CAThompson the thing was ... that the first time that I went for a walk outside ... It was terrifying to watch 'my' body from 'out there ... and the face just makes me return inside-in as inside-in I could ... In the 'inside' place where I can not even watch my self again ... the only stuff that could scare me are the mirrors ... but at least, I will not see my face from all the possible 'out there to in there' perspectives ... Sometimes, just a single time out there is enough to never return to it ...

@@firstnamesurname6550 I'm sure your face isn't that scary, even though looking at all of 'out there to inside-in' does sound rather off-putting.

In the Biblical narrative the universe had a beginning, so it wasn't always large

I the biblical creation something was created “god” before creation. And somehow no one cares to postulate “god’s” creation except those who realize god was created by humans.

@@thomasreedy4751 "God" refers to the beings who run the Universe Simulation Software.

@Sandra G What?

well, it had too, if Einstein's equations are right, then the CMB and the expansion of space-time

The page Nexus of Physics has now given the following two writings the thumbs up on their page. ALSO consider this: E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THE UNIVERSAL AND MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY: Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. SO, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THE SUN AND THE EARTH are described and represented by BOTH F=ma AND E=mc2. F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational (IN BALANCE). Objects fall at the same rate (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS the SPEED OF LIGHT is RELATIVELY CONSTANT AS WELL. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. In fact, the rotation of THE MOON MATCHES it's revolution; AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. So, THE PLANETS (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) are not "falling" in what is "curved SPACE" in RELATION to what is THE SUN. This is nonsense. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY AND FUNDAMENTALLY DERIVED FROM F=ma. This truly explains PERPETUAL MOTION. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), as the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. By Frank DiMeglio EINSTEIN NEVER UNDERSTOOD PHILOSOPHY, MATHEMATICS, AND PHYSICS, AS HE HAS BEEN TOTALLY OUTSMARTED BY SIR FRANK MARTIN DIMEGLIO: The balance of being AND EXPERIENCE is ESSENTIAL. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. THE SELF represents, FORMS, and experiences a COMPREHENSIVE approximation of experience in general by combining conscious and unconscious experience. MOREOVER, the ability of THOUGHT to DESCRIBE OR RECONFIGURE sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which THOUGHT IS SIMILAR TO sensory experience. THOUGHTS ARE INVISIBLE. Dream experience is/involves true/real QUANTUM GRAVITY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. MOST IMPORTANTLY, in dreams, BODILY/VISUAL EXPERIENCE is invisible AND VISIBLE IN BALANCE. IMPORTANTLY, dream experience is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. THE EYE is ALSO the body. Dreams improve upon memory AND UNDERSTANDING. Indeed, there is no outsmarting the GENIUS of dreams. OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/with what is THE EARTH. NOW, get a good LOOK at what is the translucent, SEMI-SPHERICAL, QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL, AND BLUE sky. Excellent. The DOME of a person's EYE is ALSO VISIBLE. THE EARTH IS also BLUE (as water). F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that, why, and how ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, and describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. SO, it is NECESSARILY a matter of precisely how these equations are understood in a BALANCED, EXTENSIVE, AND INTEGRATED fashion in RELATION to/with WHAT IS THOUGHT. The INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), as the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Get a good LOOK at what is THE EYE. POINTS are points. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. OPEN your EYES. NOW, LOOK at what is the FLAT, SETTING, AND ORANGE SUN (with the SPACE around it THEN going invisible AND VISIBLE IN BALANCE). This ORANGE SUN manifests or forms at what is EYE LEVEL/BODY HEIGHT as well. This ORANGE SUN is manifest ON BALANCE as what is NECESSARILY the BODILY/VISUAL EXPERIENCE of THE EARTH/LAVA. The viscosity of LAVA IS BETWEEN what is manifest as WATER AND THE EARTH/GROUND. ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. F=ma AND E=mc2 do provide absolute, BALANCED, THEORETICAL, and CLEAR proof that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THEREFORE, the rotation of THE MOON MATCHES it's revolution. MOREOVER, a given PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out equal areas in equal times; AND this is THEN consistent with/as what is F=ma, E=mc2, AND what is PERPETUAL MOTION; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It ALL makes perfect sense. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. THE PLANETS (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) are NOT "falling" in what is "curved SPACE". In fact, this is nonsense. It is PROVEN. By Frank DiMeglio

That is like being in the center of the earth , their is no gravity.

@@frankdimeglio8216 no hobbies?

Age of the universe is estimated in several ways by direct observation of the universe and they have to be adjusting for Relativity but that getting into stupid hard math to explain to us lay people.

It seems like a reasonable question, really deserves an answer from sabine herself. The key is that there are no reference frames outside of the universe to compare with.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll try to make that happen.

@@SabineHossenfelder While you are about all of that release "I CAN'T FORGET " to the wind and watch it float slowly away!

no surprise, when science is hijack by religious “scientists”, always find easy way to make conclusions. And the most celebrity scientists just regurgitate it in the media

I hear you.

I wonder what that is in units the other 7.5 billion people use.

Someone standing on a planet 13.6 billion light years from earth won't see the edge of the universe nearby. That would mean that the earth is the center of the universe. They'd see more universe.

Big Bang was a local event.

ATTRACTION is dual to REPULSION, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual. If you want attractive forces (gravity) then you are automatically assuming a dual concept. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Forces are responsible for effects. Cause is dual to effect implies correlation of the two (a force). Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. The force of gravity (cause) results in apples falling to the ground (effect) and duality is conserved in this process, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy. Forces have there origin in the conservation of duality -- generalized duality. Monads are units of force -- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz. Monads are units of force which are dual -- monads are dual. "May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi saying. "The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi saying. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork. Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant.