Enjoy 10% discount and free shipping on all Hoverpens with code HOTU: North America & other countries: bit.ly/HOTU_novium UK & Europe: bit.ly/HOTU_noviumeu
Feeding a system that is already in rhythm with it's vibrations, can only create a new fold. The spacetime code is probably in the midst of some collision energy that is constantly feeding into this system of spacetime. Could we theoretically fuse matter so dense, that it serves to house consciousness by fissioning the the already super dense elements to survive the super long periods between universes, space time after it disintegrates.... Long enough to survive time recycling. Basic personality of success can be chosen to survive within artificial platform of super dense materials. 3 types, master warrior, master diplomat/lover and master creative/engineer only born within each timeline awaiting it to be born to master spacetime and all it's elements. Any other personality type you try to save through out time (scavenger for example for the failed/ celebrity for the success in social affairs) The more you try to save, the more likely that you change what's possible. So only basic personality of all times. Pure love which house cooperation. Quasi mortal unless the densest forms that can be forged. These three types of mindsets are so universal (fighter/lover/creative) that it has 3 parts in the mind that help us master these levels.
same, but for a diff reason. my problem is i’ll put it on when i’m going to sleep and then i’ll fall asleep during it and wake up and it’s fully played 😭 gotta find the part where u lost consciousness so u can start it back the next night
Oh bro stop writing this cringe. You get to learn the most beautiful and mysterious things about the nature of our very reality, in a pretty elegant way, and you just don't care.
As a young man who wound up in the trades mainly because in school I had large classes coupled with ADHD and teachers who didn’t take their job very serious I didn’t learn as much as I could have. I am very grateful and have a lot of respect for the teachers like you who can explain things for people like me who struggle with learning and understanding things . Thank you
Trades can earn you more money than any teacher earns. A plumber say can earn more money than any universty lecturer. A trade can make you self sufficient, independent and far more important.
@@Wallstrcrash2012 oh for sure brother. I’m sharp in my own realm. I’m a union ironworker. I use a lot of trigonometry (not that trig is Einstein material lol) to build stuff on a daily basis. I’m very good at my job I take home 150,000 a year. In school I had a hard time comprehending things the way the teachers taught stuff and they just kept moving on with the class instead of taking the time out to make sure I understood things. This guy in the video explains things in s way I can grasp which is cool.
I think anyone in a trade who knows what they are doing and is very good at his job should at least be bringing home 90 -100k without having to do any overtime.
To give some sort of idea of how large the Penrose number is: If each digit of 10^10^123 were written out with a width of 3 mm (about average handwriting size), the length of this number would stretch approximately 3.17*10^104 light years. This length would wrap around the observable universe 3.41*10^93 times. The mass of the ink would be 5.03x10^71 times greater than the mass of the Milky Way galaxy. The volume of the ink required could fill up the observable universe approximately 4.21 x 10^31 times. This comparison underscores the sheer magnitude of the number. We truly should not exist. But with enough time, I guess anything is possible
Cannot begin to explain how much I love these videos. Please don’t ever stop making them, they are without a doubt some of the best physics programs around and put most big budget productions to shame. Honestly think your entire team deserves some kind of prestigious award.
As someone who's had the great misfortune of not having had any training in physics I want to thank you so much for making these larger-than-life concepts available to people like me. If my mind should wander even for a minute, I have to rewind, lean forward and pay careful attention to your voice and the amazing images on the screen. Thank you for making this mind-blowing field (in reality, fields) available to me. You have the best channel covering these topics on all of RU-vid. Congratulations and please keep up the great work. Bravo!
Yesss 🙌 if you like this, check out PBS Spacetime too. It’s my favourite physics channel, they have like 600 15-20 minute episodes on so many different subjects! It’s amazing
Indeed, well pit it all, bit perhaps it is good to keep in mind that big bang is one theory, pushed by most cosmologists now, while there are competin theories that sometimes even better fit the empirical observations and do not need the existence of dark matter of energy, ie stuff that we cannot empirically verify… and might indeed very well not exost at all, amd with web telescope recently seeing galaxies that cannot exist when the big bang theorists are right, there is a growing bodynif evidence that can put mich if the narrative in this docu,entary in the trash… That said, the implications étc of these now dominant theories and points of view are indeed well explained in this video, and beautiful illustrated by the images as well. Absolute eye candy! --a dutch Beta person😃
In the first 12 minutes, you've explained more clearly the deep meaning of energy and inertia than any of my 61 years of study and interest have experienced. Thank you.
How could you have been interested in this topic for 61 years and not have heard all this before? I've been consuming content like this for only about 20 years (I'm 40) and nothing in this video was even close to new for me... You should go on a deep dive about what gravity actually is.... it's crazy. In short you are accelerating right now (assuming you are sitting still) and the only way on this planet to NOT accelerate is to jump off a tall building or out of an airplane because contrary to popular belief you do NOT accelerate during free-fall. When standing still on Earth the Earth itself is getting in your way of following a straight-line path through curved space-time such that the Earth is accelerating you along a perpetually curved path... again, while standing perfectly still.
@@Chris-xo2rqAwesome comment bro. Glad to finally hear people debunking gravity "theory". I've been telling people for 40 years that they don't have a clue lol. Anyway, you seem well on your way in this journey. I hope you're finding happiness🙂
For this platform, this channel harbors some of the most intelligent discussion and debate on topics at hand. Much of it remaining civil amongst those with differing opinions. It's a real anomaly and greatly appreciated.
You know, I did always wonder about the other question that is raised from asking "how did everything come from nothing?" Which is "how do we know there ever was 'nothing' to begin with?"
We don't know that, and in fact, Penrose himself doesn't believe it. His entire Conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) hypothesis is based on the fact there never was nothing.
@Masoch1st What you're trying to refer to is the law of conservation of energy, which states energy can not be created nor destroyed, simply converted from one form to another. Which actually raises my question again; why expect "nothing" to be the default? And, no, if it's cyclical there's no need for a starting point. That's sort of the entire implication of bringing up a cyclical nature in the first place.
@@Masoch1st First off, misstating the law of causality doesn't help your argument. Second, you miss the point that anything ever created anything. It just always was. You make an assumption something has to have a starting point, yet you have no evidence of that. Lastly, if energy cannot be created, then that's a perfect argument for an eternal universe, and an argument against the idea of a nothing
An eternal universe theory does not explain potency. We clearly know that electrons and the smallest photons emerged into existence near plank epoch. Imagine an eternal pair of two atoms, that's basically it, did you imagine them moving and exchanging energy or creating new substances? No. Additionally, Asfaik, the very notions of thermodynamics, it's three laws, are axiomatic due to the philosophy of science. So appealing to them as a universal to affirm eternalism is absurd.
The simple fact is, regardless of how we came to be here, we DO exist and we ALL live with death every single day. The question is, HOW are we going to live until we do die.
I’ve been suffering from some major medical complications as of late that make keeping my negative thoughts at bay extremely difficult. These thought provoking videos are one of the rare things that help. Thank you for the effort you put into making them. I really appreciate it
"The work of mindfulness is first to recognize the suffering and second to embrace it. A mother taking care of a crying baby naturally will take the child into her arms without suppressing, judging it, or ignoring the crying. Mindfulness is like that mother, recognizing and embracing suffering without judgement. So the practice is not to fight or suppress the feeling, but rather to cradle it with a lot of tenderness. When a mother embraces her child, that energy of tenderness begins to penetrate into the body of the child. Even if the mother doesn’t understand at first why the child is suffering and she needs some time to find out what the difficulty is, just her act of taking the child into her arms with tenderness can already bring relief. If we can recognize and cradle the suffering while we breathe mindfully, there is relief already.” Thich Nhat Hanh
These videos are so well made that even I, not even closely dealing with this subject and having the attention span of a zoomer, can spend an hour watching it no problem at all. Hats off to the team!
Or the cosmological constant problem, the universe would blow up, not collapse. They got it entirely wrong, calculating the CC gives a positive result orders of magnitude larger than the measured value.
You could say the same for light particles photons and phonons? Umm Yh actually that is light. It is what emits all of the energy from Allah and it helps us see the world and how we deal with what we have and take the negative to positive creating the motion of energy and time itself is always relative with time but black holes are not so Einstein wasn’t always right…
If anyone was offended by my comment you should read it again because opinions and believes can always be disagreed but never wrong or right since it’s a believe (: thank you.
Imaginary friends in the sky were invented by humans. They can never approach the actual wonder of the universe. Humans are simply too small to understand.
and some people use it to sleep, it blows my mind... learning NOTHING, it's like going to a concert and watching the whole show through your phone screen because of tik tok.... but hey, people are free to do what they want... i guess
The universe accidentally started trying to work out how it accidentally started trying to work out how it accidentally started trying to work out how it accidentally started trying to work out how it accidentally started trying to work out how it accidentally started trying to work out how it accidentally started trying to work out how it accidentally started trying to work out how it accidentally started trying to work out how it accidentally started trying to work out how it accidentally started trying to work out how it accidentally started trying to work out how it accidentally started trying to work out how it accidentally started trying to work out how it accidentally started trying to work out how it accidentally started trying to work out how… ugh, my head hurts… it accidentally started doing things in a non-accidental fashion.
No it isn't. That is just another slogan to persuade people to not believe their lying eyes. the Universe was designed, and life was created. If life was so easy to make with lightning bolts and primordial soup, then we would have been able to create life from inanimate matter 20 years ago.
When the brain die consciousness dies. You will cease to exist. You will never see anyone ever again. All your memories and everything you know will be gone. You won’t even know you are dead. It could happen in your sleep tonight and you won’t even know
@@steelearmstrong9616 You forgot to begin your statement with 'In my opinion' bc, since you have never experienced death, you cannot know, and your statement makes assertions that cannot be proven.
@@allhopeabandon7831 Lol. I don’t do opinions. Everyone loves a fairytale, particularly woman who live in a world of delusion. Most and many will do and say anything to sleep better at night. What ever warms your heart I guess. Tomorrow is not promised. Tomorrow does not exist. Now is all we have. Age is not just a number. Age has nothing to do with numbers. We use numbers as a reference point as guid to let us know where we at in life or what stage. I am extremely fit and healthy and have good genetics but I don’t delude myself like most and say that I feel 20 when I’m actually 45. People love to sugar coat everything which is all is driven by fear. The fear that someday very soon that they will cease to exist. This is no way to live and you are not living. As I mentioned above, whatever warms your heart. 😊
I simple love this channel. it truly enlights my day and makes me smile like "a little kid looking for pebbles on a seashore". You lads next to Kurzgesagt and Veritasium are at the edge of teaching and making us wonder how our universe works?!
Simplest and best explanation to the cosmological constant problem is that as our calculations predict something we cannot observe, the calculation itself is wrong. Either the prediction of the amount of virtual particles is wrong itself, or we have vastly overestimated their energy level. Or maybe it is related to the observation problem, the right amount of particles always being there where we make the measurement, but ceasing to exist or existing in much lower quantities elsewhere. Then, It is important to understand that the Penrose number doesn't describe the likeliness in which a universe is born, but the incredibly low odds that all of the known basic parameters in the universe are set to their precise values by a random chance. There's absolutely no way of estimating how likely a universe is born, as we have absolutely no idea what kind of event led to the birth of the universe. Maybe it was designed this way, which would be very simple solution to the problem. Maybe it's something entirely else, in which case we are forced to seriously consider the odds of our existence. Nothing we know gives us any hint why the universe exists, where it exists or what the universe is. Nor if the the universe is the pinnacle of the reality or a mere byproduct of something entirely else? How could you possibly say? And exactly nothing suggests anything of what kind of realms exist beyond the universe, or what kind of state existed before the big bang, or what is the relation of our universe to the realm beyond it, if such thing exists. Does logic, mathematics or quantum mechanics exist beyond or pre-exist the universe, or are they only parts of our universe, born with it? How could you possibly even guess? Why does the existence itself exist? You could remove every single thing from the existence and still be left with the blank state of the existence itself. The existence exists and logically it has to be the most fundamental part of the reality. And yes, it's existence leads into a near-paradoxical solution: either it has always existed, meaning non-causality, or its existence is an infinite loop of cause and effect, which would be a paradox. Does logic exist beyond our universe? And if we assume the mathematics to be the creator of the universe (which would postulate it to have some significant power of creation which we haven't observed it to have), we'd still be postulating a realm beyond the universe in which the mathematics exist. Mathematics certainly does not explain everything, because a) 'nothing' isn't 'something' you can formulate on, because at the moment you give it a symbol it becomes 'something', making it infinitely more than 'nothing' (nothing is a concept with absolutely no reference), and b) because mathematics can also be removed from the existence, still leaving the existence itself to be - not the other way around. Again, does logic exist beyond our universe? What is the consciousness and does it exist beyond or pre-exist the universe? The hard problem of consciousness and its profound effect on the wave particle function forces us to acknowledge its existence and its mystery to the universe. Nobody has ever seen the universe without consciousness. We literally don't know if it even exist without the consciousness, or if it would exist in permanent superposition without it. it's extremely important part of the question of everything, whether we like it or not. And every single thing i listed exist within the mystery of the universe and the existence, so whether we like them or not, they are strictly scientific and part of the question of everything, regardless if we cannot formulate them mathematically or test them. All this just shows how absurdly little we understand of our existence and how far away we are even to begin to attempt to answer the question or try to formulate a theory of everything. Unlike scientists like to admit, multiverse is actually absolutely horrible idea scientifically speaking, because it postulates almost infinite amount of unknown energy and arbitrary sets of laws just to solve a question which we are in no place to even begin to deal with. And while we are at it, i would also shoot down the idea of string theories with a simple question: What scientific evidence are the 1-dimensional strings based on? a theory without predicting power or practical evidence is nonsense in scientific terms. it's not science, no matter if it involves numbers. certainly one can not prove god or gods, but also their existence is just as likely as any other explanation we can come up with if we are being real to the other explanations as well and not just gods. Also based on what the scientists say that the matter and anti-matter should have been created equally? They don't know why the matter or the universe was created so how on earth do they say that there should have been equal amount of anti-matter there?
The chicken and the egg question of mathematics has always stuck with me. I mean, I have about as much of an understanding of mathematics as a squirrel does a pinball machine, but it really does make you think. We're inventing ways to describe the things we see, but isn't that just the pattern recognition in our monkey brains trying to rationalize our surroundings? But if mathematical principles truely do provide us the answers to the deepest mechanations of the universe, then how the fuck does the universe function on principles such as those? Hurts my brain, I love it
Nothing we know gives any indication at to why all the parameters are tuned so that the universe exists?? Have you ever heard of a book called the Bible? In the effort of truthfullnes i am not particularly a religious person although I do believe we have a God I just take issue with the willful ignorance of that particular summation. Second admission I have yet to finish your entire sonnet and apologies if you do address this possibility at some point. Perhaps it is a bounce rather than a bang and a Supreme being is waiting for our species collectively to be a moral one. Or even stranger it's all dependent on one individual such as you or even worse, me to use free will towards morality and personal responsibility to decide whether life propagates the entire universe or just our one blue dot.
I love everything about HotU videos. The facts, the naration, the presentation, the tone of the voice, the pronunciation, and even the rythem of the speaking. It's all so well done.
Yeah, there is such a component of awe in the whole presentation, it at times drives shivers down my spine. For a moment I feel like I nearly can get a grasp on the truth of the universe, a short glimpse on the wondrous and terrifying truth of the underlying mechanisms of the universe. It´s in some ways nearly religious, and I think a similar feeling to what religious people feel with their faith. Really, this kind of feels like a sermon at time, not in a negative way, and not to any faith, but to existence, it´s awe inspiring facts and mysteries and an appreciation of just how weird, wild and beautiful it really is. And it really brings some revelations. Recently I when eating I was rolling around a pea on my plate and had a realization, this peas matter is made up from enough energy to destroy the majority of the city I live in. Yet it is lying there, being just a pea. I have known that for some time, but before then never "understood" it, it never clicked, if you get what I mean. And this channel manages to do that "making things click" for so many people, to be able to "get" these esoteric things. I never hat a problem with grasping these things, not always truly "understanding" them, but getting what they mean. But many people don´t have that skill, are not capable of just grasping these complex connections and understanding them. They get other things I don´t, like social interaction, but these extremely out there concepts are to them like seeing emotion and subtext in faces is for me. And this channel does the incredible service of making these things understandable, putting them in a way most people will have no trouble to understand and get them. And that is such a great thing to do, because in you normal life you will never truly come across these things, understand them without being invested and actively search out the facts.
Should chemistry be denied in the ready conversion of H1 to H2 merely because H2 is difficult to detect in any direct manner in space? A paper by Canadian astronomer Paul Marmet essentially collapsed the "Big Bang" back in 1990 as he theorized the existence of intergalactic and interstellar matter as the cause of redshift rather than a doppler effect -- and accounting for anomalies much more effectively, before the discovery of the abundance of H2 throughout space, though primarily ignored by the necessities of money and career support. An abundance of H2 throughout space in a gradient that will extend to meet that of our galactic neighbor, will also account for the gravitational anomaly where the outer arms of our galaxy rotate at nearly the same rate as the central region. Quantum physics is great, dare I say so before I have dived into the math. However math hasn't actually proven the existence of dark matter, no matter how sophisticated the math is or can be . Circular reasoning isn't somehow justified if you add decades of career building and funding requirements and the consensus building that takes place over time that takes on more precedence than any math in support . . A much greater quantity of H2 in the presence of H1 is the natural result if we acknowledge basic chemistry, exceeding the mass of the visible component of the universe and which must be ignored to maintain control over the narrative and our inability to think and take a risk without group oriented behavior and identification in support.
what i took out of this is that "Null Punk Zenergy" would make a great band name, or at least an album cover. i jest. I have watched this entire series multiple times. very informative, good for background listening as well.
PBS Spacetime. Please. As for the universe, it appears astounding to us. No proof that it is objectively astounding. I mean, 93% of the OU is not even detectable to us. We're astronomically insignificant. He uses "should have" unscientifically.
I mean. PBS spacetime, it's great in terms of scientific facts and explanations. I love it aswell. I just like the type of stories and the fluent way that they were told here better. For me personally PBS is not as satisfying to watch compared to this content here, where i have not come across a single episode in which i haven't been "goosebumped" several times. Lets conclude it is one among the best channels besides and across SPACETIME.
@@clancykelly5508 There's no way to use the word "should" scientifically, other than perhaps to express the expectation that a prediction about an experiment come to pass. Science is not concerned with what should be and has nothing to say about it. And if scientists find their theories in a conflict with reality so obvious that no experiment is necessary, then it's the theory that must change, being a mere work of man that has no prescriptive power.
I smoked DMT once and I could literally see the energy around me, it was a mind melting experience. It shows you everything you see, hear, touch, smell, everything is not real... just what our senses allow. Existence is so wild ngl
I’ve visited your planet several times, it’s an interesting place. This is a good educational tool, there are a few errors you have yet to discover. We discovered that at the start of the universe the antimatter was lost to an extra dimension that closed in the first moments, the dimension exists but does not interact with the 4 dimensions in a significant way. Also, black holes are not singularities, they are like closed filaments of gravitons, there is also a much higher “Hubble constant” at the interior - it’s like it’s own separate universe in a way.
Recent discoveries by the James Web Telescope demonstrate that you’re incorrect in your statements, and it is more likely that you’re taking old, incorrect, scientific information and using your imagination to make up false assumptions to fill the gaps. Interesting how people take the unknown as “permission” to make up imaginative lies and then pretend that those made up explanations are absolute truth. As opposed to being content with not knowing until new observations and evidence can be collected to fill the gaps in our knowledge.
This channel is so genuine and well researched. Please dont ever stop putting out content. This paired with reading some good books is all I need in my life! Space is awesome
@@notmyproblem88 I have watched this channel for a long time. I also have a few books that I reference. One of them is "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene. And "Fundamentals of Astro Physics" by Donald D Mueller, Jerry White, and Roger R. Bate. Those are just my two favorite factual books. The Elegant universe is more about string theory than astronomy. I didn't go to college, however I've studied astronomy since about 2005 when I was old enough to access the internet. Unfortunately I didn't ever go to college because it is more of a hobby to me than a career. So just because I've read a lot of books and studied in my own time by no means makes me an expert. But I certainly have a passion for astronomy and physics. Sorry for such a long reply, I just want people to know that this channel is actually factual unlike most other Ai generated junk out there on RU-vid. I believe the owner of this channel actually writes these himself as well as narrates them. He most likely has a team of people that helps him. It takes them a month or more to write each episode. Some channels like voyager will put out 2 videos per day and that's my first red flag when it comes to spotting Ai generated junk. Hope this helps! Have a great weekend.
@@UneducatedEngineer444 This comment is what I was looking for. Universe themed documentary on YT is produced in a big variety - some channels are actual physicists / astronomists, explaining the actual status of their science. Others simply try to focus on New Age and Aliens and explain why god / aliens / all-mind should be real and such... I don't say that this is all rubbish, but I'm looking for proven facts after all, not speculation or misinterpretation out of bias. I'm totally new to HotU, cuz I've been watching the channels in my native language, but HotU seems to work for me also. If this is really proven and well researched content, then I have to bow in respect to the creator(s). You may not consider yourself as an expert, but I count on your opinion as you seem to know by far more of that topic than me. Simply don't want to fall for another clickbait rubbish and actually learn something serious over here. So I appreciate your opinion. :)
Deep thoughts: Even we have an infinitesimally small chance of existing. Conciousness just have to exist. As you didnt have to wait 13billion years after the big bang till you're born. Neither you have to wait again for the X billions of years for your next conscious life to exist in different universes. You will just exist in an universe that is ready to support life. Just like how people say we are lucky we end up on Earth despite the vast majority of planets are inhabitable. My perspective is we just have to exist on a habitable planet if there was one. So the probability of existing as a concious being anywhere in this universe is not near to 1/infinite. But closer to 1 actually.
If just my consciousness exists and it gave me this overweight “dad-bod” with bad knees, shoulders and back, instead of a healthy one, I’m gonna be pissed! It should have used its imagination and at least made me in shape and not pear shaped.
I've got enough anxiety as it is.. imagine living in constant fear that the Higgs field might suddenly drop to its lowest energy state and at the speed of light proceed to tear across the universe ripping apart everything in its path to its subatomic constitutes. One second youre here. The next, you're aromic dust.
Why would you be fearful of an end you won't even realize it happening. Because if it would happen (no reason to think it would) you would instantly be gone.
Should chemistry be denied in the ready conversion of H1 to H2 merely because H2 is difficult to detect in any direct manner in space? A paper by Canadian astronomer Paul Marmet essentially collapsed the "Big Bang" back in 1990 as he theorized the existence of intergalactic and interstellar matter as the cause of redshift rather than a doppler effect -- and accounting for anomalies much more effectively, before the discovery of the abundance of H2 throughout space, though primarily ignored by the necessities of money and career support. An abundance of H2 throughout space in a gradient that will extend to meet that of our galactic neighbor, will also account for the gravitational anomaly where the outer arms of our galaxy rotate at nearly the same rate as the central region. Quantum physics is great, dare I say so before I have dived into the math. However math hasn't actually proven the existence of dark matter, no matter how sophisticated the math is or can be . Circular reasoning isn't somehow justified if you add decades of career building and funding requirements and the consensus building that takes place over time that takes on more precedence than any math in support . . A much greater quantity of H2 in the presence of H1 is the natural result if we acknowledge basic chemistry, exceeding the mass of the visible component of the universe and which must be ignored to maintain control over the narrative and our inability to think and take a risk without group oriented behavior and identification in support.
Maybe the only reason dark energy hasn't destroyed the universe is because the particles only exist for like a single Planck time unit, basically popping in and out of reality too quickly and never enough at once to accumulate enough mass.
Dark energy was created to keep the Big Bang theory alive. Now with the discoveries of JWST, the big bang theory and dark energy is almost a thing of the past. Jwst has already found galaxies like ours in the so called dark ages.
Yeah the shorter the time interval, the greater the uncertainty of the energy... but... and I should really just look this up, but... I think the energy can be either positive or negative in magnitude. "Real" energy can only be positive but "virtual" energy does not have this limitation. If the solution was just that half of the virtual energy is negative and cancels out the other positive half of all virtual energy, then I think I would have heard of this by now.
Really? That’s the intellectual contribution you come up with for this video? A cookie cutter copy and paste meme that even a braindead 5 year old could come up with?
You can randomly shuffle a deck and the likelihood of that deck being exactly in that order, would be 8.0658e67, or one in 80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000. An incredibly low chance. That doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. Pointing out the likelihood of humans existing is a bit misleading, as something else could've existed with an equally low chance, without making it "impossible" or that it shouldn't exist.
Yes...and the improbability that a fully functional 747 will be the result of a tornado ripping through an airplane junkyard would be about as close to humans existing after a lightning bolt hit a mud puddle.
Should chemistry be denied in the ready conversion of H1 to H2 merely because H2 is difficult to detect in any direct manner in space? A paper by Canadian astronomer Paul Marmet essentially collapsed the "Big Bang" back in 1990 as he theorized the existence of intergalactic and interstellar matter as the cause of redshift rather than a doppler effect -- and accounting for anomalies much more effectively, before the discovery of the abundance of H2 throughout space, though primarily ignored by the necessities of money and career support. An abundance of H2 throughout space in a gradient that will extend to meet that of our galactic neighbor, will also account for the gravitational anomaly where the outer arms of our galaxy rotate at nearly the same rate as the central region. Quantum physics is great, dare I say so before I have dived into the math. However math hasn't actually proven the existence of dark matter, no matter how sophisticated the math is or can be . Circular reasoning isn't somehow justified if you add decades of career building and funding requirements and the consensus building that takes place over time that takes on more precedence than any math in support . . A much greater quantity of H2 in the presence of H1 is the natural result if we acknowledge basic chemistry, exceeding the mass of the visible component of the universe and which must be ignored to maintain control over the narrative and our inability to think and take a risk without group oriented behavior and identification in support.
Should chemistry be denied in the ready conversion of H1 to H2 merely because H2 is difficult to detect in any direct manner in space? A paper by Canadian astronomer Paul Marmet essentially collapsed the "Big Bang" back in 1990 as he theorized the existence of intergalactic and interstellar matter as the cause of redshift rather than a doppler effect -- and accounting for anomalies much more effectively, before the discovery of the abundance of H2 throughout space, though primarily ignored by the necessities of money and career support. An abundance of H2 throughout space in a gradient that will extend to meet that of our galactic neighbor, will also account for the gravitational anomaly where the outer arms of our galaxy rotate at nearly the same rate as the central region. Quantum physics is great, dare I say so before I have dived into the math. However math hasn't actually proven the existence of dark matter, no matter how sophisticated the math is or can be . Circular reasoning isn't somehow justified if you add decades of career building and funding requirements and the consensus building that takes place over time that takes on more precedence than any math in support . . A much greater quantity of H2 in the presence of H1 is the natural result if we acknowledge basic chemistry, exceeding the mass of the visible component of the universe and which must be ignored to maintain control over the narrative and our inability to think and take a risk without group oriented behavior and identification in support.
The answer to why we are observing this state of a universe is because only a type of universe that can produce observers will produce observers. We aren't observing higher entropy states because those can not produce observers. It's really not that complicated or hard to figure out. It is not a probability problem, it is a selection bias problem.
@@jonasga XD I've been there. I'll admit the terms and wording of your comment went a little over my head, but still enjoyed the information and hope to learn more
Should chemistry be denied in the ready conversion of H1 to H2 merely because H2 is difficult to detect in any direct manner in space? A paper by Canadian astronomer Paul Marmet essentially collapsed the "Big Bang" back in 1990 as he theorized the existence of intergalactic and interstellar matter as the cause of redshift rather than a doppler effect -- and accounting for anomalies much more effectively, before the discovery of the abundance of H2 throughout space, though primarily ignored by the necessities of money and career support. An abundance of H2 throughout space in a gradient that will extend to meet that of our galactic neighbor, will also account for the gravitational anomaly where the outer arms of our galaxy rotate at nearly the same rate as the central region. Quantum physics is great, dare I say so before I have dived into the math. However math hasn't actually proven the existence of dark matter, no matter how sophisticated the math is or can be . Circular reasoning isn't somehow justified if you add decades of career building and funding requirements and the consensus building that takes place over time that takes on more precedence than any math in support . . A much greater quantity of H2 in the presence of H1 is the natural result if we acknowledge basic chemistry, exceeding the mass of the visible component of the universe and which must be ignored to maintain control over the narrative and our inability to think and take a risk without group oriented behavior and identification in support.
Your voice, cadence, and script are absolutely perfect for this content. The production value is incredible, and reminds of the best History channel documentaries. Thank you for imparting your knowledge onto us :)
@@SebSN-y3f Dear, never pretend to misunderstand things when you try to "discuss" with me. If they use AI but pretend they make everything themselves, then it is pure fraud. Everyone can use AI, but nobody deserves the money or the honor they fraudulently can make from it.
I guess it's "finetuned" in the same sense that at one particular point in time, when pouring water into a coup, there are exactly 10^22 molecules in the glass. From the perspective of the "10^22" this looks like a mystery how the water pourer was able to have exactly that many molecules in the glass of water. But it's just one point in time. Maybe our universe with all its "finetuning" is just a snapshot in time where everything just happens to fit.
It kind of is. Hell, there is a probably small "habitable zone" in the timeline of the universe, where just enough heavy elements were formed to make life as we know it possible, with the universe still being so warm that every rocky planet of the right composition would theoretically capable of hosting liquid water. If intelligent life developed there, it would likely wonder just how this could come to pass, how could it be fine tuned that it was so extremely friendly to life. But it is not. It's just a short moment in time just after the extreme violence of its birth and just before it expands and cools off enough so space turns cold and empty for the most part. Same goes for some theoretical guessing on the future of the universe. Neutrinos might be capable of interaction between each other, they are not massless after all. Not doing anything so far because the universe is too full and violent for them to make anything stable. But, this is just very far out there ideas but they are a good example for this thought experiment, in a very far of and to us cold and empty future universe, some exotic interactions might arise and create a second wind for the universe, a world not made from matter as we know it, but neutrinos. Theoretical life forming there, would look back at the universe (if it manages to, there is problems with this but this is just a wild thought experiment) and wonder how it came to be so perfect, so well tuned for it to exist. The "early beginnings" or our times, the age of stars and matter, being the violent birth throws of the universe inhospitable to them, but somehow turning into a vibrant cosmos just right for them to inhabit. So yeah, I fully agree on that. The universe seems fine tuned, but really, we just live in the small slice of time that is hospitable to us. The vast majority of time the universe has being either too violent or too empty to make life like us possible. We are around just at the right time, not because it was tuned this way, but because it is the only time we are possible, and probability makes the likelihood for us to exist just high enough not to be impossible. I also take exception with the "exceptionalism" principle, that states that we are not special. Well, we are not special in a deeper sense, but we should know by now that a lot of things aligned just right to make intelligent life possible on earth that it is very likely not to be common at all, even with the unimaginable amount of stars and planets out there. Even if life forms very easily under the right circumstances, it needs the right circumstances. Just the right single star, created from just the right composition of gas and dust, in just the right area of the galaxy, with just the right composition of planets, with a planet in just the right area of the solar system of just the right composition and size, being hit by another planetoid of just the right size and composition in just the right way to create a large moon of just the right size and just the right heavy iron core kickstarted by this and kept agitated in just the right way to create an electromagnetic field and the planet stressed and remolten just the right amount to make plate tectonics possible. And thats just the large events needed to create earth, excluding all the fine details. Even if in our large universe these events happen a billion, billion times, all of them together, in the right order and the right ways for them to happen are exceedingly rare. So much so that id you calculate the amount of planets kind of like earth for the Milkyway galaxy, we have good guesses on the likelihood of these events, you get a number you can count on one hand, at most low double digits. In a galaxy with somewhere around 100 billion stars. Thats mind boggling, and is also the reason why I don't see so much trouble with the Fermi paradox. Because thats just making the planet, not the complex and then intelligent life on it that would build a civilization. Because of these probability's I personally think that we are in fact sadly alone, not in the universe, but in the Milky Way. There very likely is a lot of life in some basic form out there, some complex even, but I do not have high hopes for intelligent life to be around in any reachable distance at the small slot of time we are around and capable right now. We are kind of special. A unusual blip in probability that took a whole lot of coincidence to come by, looking out at the untold billions of other chances that did not pan out. Which is another point why I do not believe in "design". If you throw one hundred dice often enough, at some point all would land with the same number up, it's just most likely going to take a looooong time. If you do hundreds of billions of these throws at the same time, it's likely going to happen a lot sooner and is a lot more likely. Sorry for the rant, it´s just a fascinating topic and something that bugs me about current main stream science. The assumption that we are not something unusual despite the facts we have indicating that, yes, we are actually unusual. Not special still, but unusual.
@@theexchipmunk I like rants :D I think the idea "we are not special" was born after the theory of evolution got popular enough but before we had good enough telescopes to discover planets. It's just ~30 years since the discovery of the first exoplanets and the 1980ths were full of the idea that there must be countless alien civilizations. While the creation of life is not that big of a deal (also just an issue of the "slice of time"), the bigger issue is about finding an environment where the climate is stable enough for billions of years. So, I'd be extremely surprised if we find intelligent life somewhere in the Milky Way (outside of Earth). I am waiting for a clear indicator which *galaxies* would be suitable for life (just think of frequency of supernova explosions) which might reduce the number in the (known) universe a bit. But I also believe that the universe is infinite, with big bangs happening here and there.
@@lodepublishing Ah, yeah, the habitability of galaxies, not only by supernovas but also where you are (they might have some form of habitable zones too) is something i completely forgot about. That would narrow it down even further.
The fact that it is fitted for so a short time increases the tunning and not decreased, because it demonstrate that even in the big perspective everything came together at the right scarcely available time possible. And thanks God for that, for we need more faith to believe that nothing creates something than to believe in the Source of all creating everything. Jesus be praised above all
The narration , the content of knowledge and fact , the cadence and the music are all fantastic , brilliant . I’ve listened to the “ History of the Universe “ series again and again and have learned so very much .
As mentioned in the video, I would imagine the vacuum energy MOSTLY cancels itself out somehow, maybe by the virtual particle "ripples" constructively and destructively interfering, forming standing waves at certain frequency modes that may cause the outward pressure that is expanding the universe. Just a wild guess from an electrical engineer that is passionate about this stuff so take this with a giant grain of salt.
That is a very interesting postulation that we actually have the technology now to look for/test. Wouldn't surprise me at all to hear about such a study in a couple years.
Should chemistry be denied in the ready conversion of H1 to H2 merely because H2 is difficult to detect in any direct manner in space? A paper by Canadian astronomer Paul Marmet essentially collapsed the "Big Bang" back in 1990 as he theorized the existence of intergalactic and interstellar matter as the cause of redshift rather than a doppler effect -- and accounting for anomalies much more effectively, before the discovery of the abundance of H2 throughout space, though primarily ignored by the necessities of money and career support. An abundance of H2 throughout space in a gradient that will extend to meet that of our galactic neighbor, will also account for the gravitational anomaly where the outer arms of our galaxy rotate at nearly the same rate as the central region. Quantum physics is great, dare I say so before I have dived into the math. However math hasn't actually proven the existence of dark matter, no matter how sophisticated the math is or can be. Circular reasoning isn't somehow justified if you add decades of career building and funding requirements and the consensus building that takes place over time that takes on more precedence than any math in support . . A much greater quantity of H2 in the presence of H1 is the natural result if we acknowledge basic chemistry, exceeding the mass of the visible component of the universe and which must be ignored to maintain control over the narrative and our inability to think and take a risk without group oriented behavior and identification in support .
I read an interview with now deceased British physicist/lecturer David Bohm (Dec 20, 1917-oct 27,1992 ). He speculated about a quantum energy field underlying all space. He theorized that it was a disturbance within that field that caused matter as we know it to arise. Bohm said that quantum mathematics supported that one cubic cm of this field contained more energy than the entire physical universe. The interview can be found in a book written by Renee Weber called "Dialogues with Scien t ists and Sages". This video put me in mind of Bohm's astonishing statement.
Another masterpiece of presentation, Antonio. If you are a teacher or a lecturer then you have very lucky students. Please don't allow this channel to die.
One of my favorite theories is that the multiverse is pretty much guaranteed if we truly live in an infinite Universe. Provided that we assume there's infinite space out there beyond the observable parts, it's mathematically impossible for there to simply be "nothing" beyond our unthinkably small sliver of it. I believe in an infinite and ever-changing Universe which supports all possible things and has always existed. Everything that can happen will happen, has happened, and will continue to happen for all eternity. I know this isn't able to be proven or disproven, but it's what I choose to believe. Consciousness is a rather odd phenomenon lol.
I believe that it repeats endlessly, the universe is born, the story of everything happens, it dies, then it gets born again, everything repeats again, why? Because the most likely thing that can happen happens again... The story of the universe repeats, which means when the universe dies, there will again be a youtube, and I will be typing this comment on it again, because that's the most likely thing that can happen right to the first cause, so yes it is a deterministic story that repeats.
Really a multiverse is just an infinite universe. A multiverse would require separate infinites, because each universe is, well, it’s own inherently infinite universe. But if you take an infinite universe and cut in in half, you have two separate infinites. Which means there’s really no difference between a multiverse and an infinite universe
@@visheshl For me, whether or not it's deterministic depends on whether or not the Universe becomes entirely conscious of itself. If the Universe realizes and remembers its own nature, then theoretically things can get better (more pleasant) as it continues. I believe that things could very well be deterministic *until* the Universe has some sort of awakening.
@@damonedrington3453 Very true; the semantics of it are just to tie two "separate" ideas together. Like describing a glass of water as a collection of water droplets. Ultimately, there is some sort of unfathomable "truth" out there, but it comes down to whether or not it will be realized at any point. You are correct though, there is no difference!
I always wondered, if the big bang is actually a thing and if it has very small chance of happening; could the big bang happen again while we are still out here in this universe of ours? I mean, what would prevent such event to happen again somewhere out there. Since we dont really know much about the whole beginning anyway.
Should chemistry be denied in the ready conversion of H1 to H2 merely because H2 is difficult to detect in any direct manner in space? A paper by Canadian astronomer Paul Marmet essentially collapsed the "Big Bang" back in 1990 as he theorized the existence of intergalactic and interstellar matter as the cause of redshift rather than a doppler effect -- and accounting for anomalies much more effectively, before the discovery of the abundance of H2 throughout space, though primarily ignored by the necessities of money and career support. An abundance of H2 throughout space in a gradient that will extend to meet that of our galactic neighbor, will also account for the gravitational anomaly where the outer arms of our galaxy rotate at nearly the same rate as the central region. Quantum physics is great, dare I say so before I have dived into the math. However math hasn't actually proven the existence of dark matter, no matter how sophisticated the math is or can be . Circular reasoning isn't somehow justified if you add decades of career building and funding requirements and the consensus building that takes place over time that takes on more precedence than any math in support . . A much greater quantity of H2 in the presence of H1 is the natural result if we acknowledge basic chemistry, exceeding the mass of the visible component of the universe and which must be ignored to maintain control over the narrative and our inability to think and take a risk without group oriented behavior and identification in support.
It is wrong to say that physicists have discovered dark energy. This is an untested hypothesis that explains some phenomenon, but that is different then saying it is the only possible explanation or that it has been observed.
The assumption that the energy of our universe should cause it to collapse on itself ignores the potential for mass/energy outside the observable universe providing balance.
😊😂😂😂😂😂 ... OMG, THAT IS SO FUNNY!!! YOU JUST MADE MY DAY!!! YOU'RE RIGHT. HE DOES KEEP OUR ATTENTION, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE THIS STUPID EXPRESSION PAINTED ON OUR FACES ... 😅
Many people have deep Knowledge, but it is really exceptional, when you can explain all those complicated things into simple, easy to understand concepts. not all the smart people in the world can do that!
Should chemistry be denied in the ready conversion of H1 to H2 merely because H2 is difficult to detect in any direct manner in space? A paper by Canadian astronomer Paul Marmet essentially collapsed the "Big Bang" back in 1990 as he theorized the existence of intergalactic and interstellar matter as the cause of redshift rather than a doppler effect -- and accounting for anomalies much more effectively, before the discovery of the abundance of H2 throughout space, though primarily ignored by the necessities of money and career support. An abundance of H2 throughout space in a gradient that will extend to meet that of our galactic neighbor, will also account for the gravitational anomaly where the outer arms of our galaxy rotate at nearly the same rate as the central region. Quantum physics is great, dare I say so before I have dived into the math. However math hasn't actually proven the existence of dark matter, no matter how sophisticated the math is or can be . Circular reasoning isn't somehow justified if you add decades of career building and funding requirements and the consensus building that takes place over time that takes on more precedence than any math in support . . A much greater quantity of H2 in the presence of H1 is the natural result if we acknowledge basic chemistry, exceeding the mass of the visible component of the universe and which must be ignored to maintain control over the narrative and our inability to think and take a risk without group oriented behavior and identification in support.
the more i think about this stuff the more I believe that were confusing our universe with the matter in it. They are separate and likely have separate rules, I don’t think a theory of everything exists, just a theory of matter.
Kind of lame to say that Archimedes' conclusion was "just a fluke" IMO. I dunno why people insist on thinking "oh the ancients had such silly ideas it's amazing we ever got anywhere!" (I'm sure this wasn't your intent but in my experience it's a common conception and so I think that's how it will come off to a lot of people) Alchemy is a great example of this; they weren't exactly wrong with the whole "you can turn lead into gold" thing. It might not be economical and there might not be any reason to do it besides "because we can" but you can quite literally turn lead into gold if you have the resources. Maybe 2000 years from now people will be laughing about how we thought matter was actually made of strings or brine or whatever.
In order to claim that the universe has a 1% chance of existing, one must first show that there are 99 alternative universes that could have existed in its place.
Maybe the universe wasn't born of a single infinitesimally small point of infinite mass, but of two points, one of light matter and one of dark one. Like the Yin-Yan revered by the ancients.
"national media" ? what country do you live in? Belarus? Russia? im just interested, i've never met anyone that lives under a regime with a "national state media" . If you dont mind...
Brother if you don't think American TV is anything but totally under the control of corporate interests AND if you don't realize that American jurisprudence is the errand boy of corporate interests, I don't know what to tell you other than watch some Second Thought or 1Dime or hell even HasanAbi.
The most enigmatic bit is the impossibility of proving that it actually exists. You can’t prove existence with existence. And Absolute Nothing(ness) is beyond our grasp, too. So, for now at least, it is what it is - it is what we make of what we think it is.
Come again? You can’t prove reality by using reality? So if I have a cup of water and someone says prove it. And so I show them the cup of water. This is not proof that I have a cup of water? Color me confused.
Not miracle,not special beacuse it is not perfect full of suffering,pain, misery, struggle, hardship, inequality, misfortune,illfortune. You call this miracle? No no no. Universe is only miracle for people like you who are so fortunate and never experienced anything i Mentioned.
@@x8jason8x You don't have to believe they are real. Littlewood's law, part of probability theory, proves extremely improbable events happens regularly. When we humans experience them we associate them with non-related events and call them coincidences. They don't require your belief to happen.
This is an easier question then why it should! While I have no answer as to why the universe should exist. I can give you a 1000 reasons why it shouldn't.
Question for the audience 👋 how can we say the universe _shouldn't_ exist (I read this statement a lot) because it didn't annihilate itself this time around? It just had to annihilate itself 10x10x120 times before it finally stuck. So unless it could flawlessly annihilate infinitely many times, then it _should_ exist because it _has_ to exist eventually? Edit: to clarify my logic, if the matter annihilates at a ratio of 1:1 then it would just return to whatever state it was in previously, a state that allowed for a big bang to occur. It would thus continue to bang forever until a quantum discrepancy throws off the equilibrium and allows matter to remain. So isn't it inevitable? Or am I making an assumption in that the final product of existing matter proves anything
I think the problem is that the Big Bang is perceived as a single-time event. That means even if it did annihilate itself, that process would lead to an enormous increase of entropy such that nothing would ever happen again. Or simply you just cannot return back to the starting point. So the creation cannot be repeated again. To clarify more 10^10^123 is not the chance of successful evolution of the universe, it is the chance of energy-matter distribution at the Big Bang, and any change of creation-annihilation of matter would create small differences (mainly by gravity) in composition and distribution of energy and matter, that would lead to increase of entropy that would cause entropy to exponentially grow, that would lead to the death of universe before it even started. To sum up, in current models of cosmology, the Big Bang is perceived as a single-time event therefore the conclusion we shouldn't even exist, but there are other theories for example from Roger Penrose who actually proposes an infinite cycle of universes, that kinda allow for infinite "Big Bangs".
@itzeln6170 ah, thanks! 😁 I misunderstood the energy-matter distribution as being the probability of residual matter. If I understand Penrose's idea correctly, it sounds like since we don't know about the singularity then it's also possible that it wasn't infinitely small, as in a black hole, but rather a state in which the only remaining particles are photons (the previous incarnation of the universe having lived out it's life until all black holes evaporate) and since photons have no mass and do not experience time we arrive at the initial conditions of the big bang once again. Big bounce, yeah? BUT! If post-bang conditions were such that all matter annihilates itself 1:1 then it could not arrive at a future state that allows for a bounce, so if this bounce process is occuring then there might be a way to read the CMBR for indications that this is so? That either the cosmological constant always produces conditions for a persistent universe or conversely that there's a small chance every cycle that it could all just stop forever. On a side tangent... since black holes trap photons as well, then once they've evaporated all their massive particles, there are still timeless photons within it, right? Wouldn't this be identical to the initial 'bounce' state? So while maybe the creation of a BH singularity doesn't mean the creation of another universe, it would eventually arrive at a state where a big bang could happen beyond the event horizon. I don't remember Hawking writing anything in layman's terms regarding the final moments of a black hole's evaporation but I'll see if I can find anything I can understand on the topic. Edit: so I found a recent paper (May 2022) titled "What is the fate of Hawking evaporation in gravity theories with higher curvature terms?" By Fabrizio Corelli, Marina De Amicis, Taishi Ikeda and Paolo Pani Their paper uses a modified general relativity to predict gravity conditions near the end-state of an evaporating black hole and seems to lead to two possibilities; either a stable remnant (wonderfully referred to as a 'nugget') where the event horizon and singularity disappear leaving behind a microscopic collection of (possibly classical) particles that solves the information paradox. Or a naked singularity which, in allowing us to see beyond the event horizon, could help us rectify the macro/micro theories. Also an interesting idea that maybe primordial BHs haven't evaporated yet
We can't know what happened at the big bang, if it even happened, or before it, just as much as we can't know what is beyond the observable universe, just as much as we can't go beyond the speed of causality. The furthest back we can see is the cosmic microwave background. At that time the universe was already far less dense than a single point. Btw, zeropoint energy doesn't have a mass. That's something the guy from the video is wrong about, and makes everyone confused.
Yes...I love how biology flips the whole law of entropy on it's head. The only time that things don't consistently fall to chaos is when someone orders it so. I know that Atheism is a pride thing, and simpletons think that it makes them an 'intellectual', but at some point, one must face the plausibility that we exist bc we were created to exist in the universe and a planet that was created for us to exist within and upon. Either you laugh at the possibility of dark matter and energy based on the observations of galactic rotation, or you do not...in which case, nor should you laugh at the possibility of intelligent design by the same reasoning. We have never seen God, but we see the evidence of Him all around us.
it took me 2 days to watch the full video and I still don't understand the complexity lol BUT it has made me curious and now I'm continuing to explore the topic. thank you for the video, it was fascinating!!
You don’t have too. The way of thinking totally different for scientists. And if you don’t work professionally then it will be hard to grasp it. The same would be for any scientists to read a medical diagnosis. )
Excellent presentation my friend! We're definitely looking into some very big questions these days and the answers are putting up a fight. My hope is that someone makes a significant breakthrough that will enable further progress. Cheers to those who are willing to endure the frustration and inch forward.
The answer has always been there, to why there is a universe, and why we exist, but no one wants to believe it, tho it is the only one that makes any sense at all...
@@allhopeabandon7831 So Mr big brain knows the "answer" huh? Well I want to believe you, I just don't. You ever think about that before injecting your superior position in response to a genuine comment intended to show gratitude? Your doubts are showing.
The chance for the universe to exist, for everything to be just right for things to turn out how they did might be absolutely, incredibly, mindbogglingly small, but the amount if stable (and failed) universes we have available for comparison is rather small.
There is a horrifying concept simply known as a non-zero chance. It simply states that in systems baring deliberate alteration or limitation, anything that has a chance greater than zero to occur, will. It doesn't matter how small the chance of the universe occuring, of life existing, of consciousness manifesting, if it can, it most certainly will.
@@Zamstein Rivetting, I'm afraid your girlfriend is a very limited data set with very little options for recursion over infinite spans of time, so yes, unless specific corrective measures are taken she is indeed likely to remain as she was, though I'd personally be more concerned about your own shortcomings...
Should chemistry be denied in the ready conversion of H1 to H2 merely because H2 is difficult to detect in any direct manner in space? A paper by Canadian astronomer Paul Marmet essentially collapsed the "Big Bang" back in 1990 as he theorized the existence of intergalactic and interstellar matter as the cause of redshift rather than a doppler effect -- and accounting for anomalies much more effectively, before the discovery of the abundance of H2 throughout space, though primarily ignored by the necessities of money and career support. An abundance of H2 throughout space in a gradient that will extend to meet that of our galactic neighbor, will also account for the gravitational anomaly where the outer arms of our galaxy rotate at nearly the same rate as the central region. Quantum physics is great, dare I say so before I have dived into the math. However math hasn't actually proven the existence of dark matter, no matter how sophisticated the math is or can be . Circular reasoning isn't somehow justified if you add decades of career building and funding requirements and the consensus building that takes place over time that takes on more precedence than any math in support . . A much greater quantity of H2 in the presence of H1 is the natural result if we acknowledge basic chemistry, exceeding the mass of the visible component of the universe and which must be ignored to maintain control over the narrative and our inability to think and take a risk without group oriented behavior and identification in support.
The more I learn about where the universe came from , the more it looks like to me something intervened and tipped the "Exist" scales in our favor, almost like a well meaning hacker manually overwriting the winning lottery number with the numbers we picked so we would win, but making it look like pure chance too.
think of our universe as one experiment where we came to exist because of a long series of flukes, a grand fluke. Now take another universe where no life exists, its the same as that universe not existing because there is no intelligent life in it to observe. The odds of us existing are very low but not impossible, its similar to flipping a coin countless times to see it land neither on tails/heads
Will never be able to thank you guys enough for what you do. It really is astonishing what you are able to make. There is an absolute sense of professinalism in what you do, and it makes it an awsome watch!
The anti-particles are in another universe, where they are no different from our particles. Our particles are the anti-particles of the other universe.
Sometimes I wonder what would happen if we could go back in time and grab some of the great thinkers and scientists of the past - Archimedes, Pythagoras, Socrates/Aristotle/Plato, Isaac Newton, Leonardo da Vinci; And even ones closer to our time like Einstein, Planck, Fermi, etc. and _especially_ Nikolai Tesla (would loved to have met him) - and basically just catch them up to where science is now, fill in the gaps of their knowledge, put everything into context, straighten up their presuppositions, get them past anything stumping them and just slowly bring them up to speed and either leave them in the past to see how history would change (they'd probably be burned at the stake or ignored I imagine) or bring them to our time and let _them_ see how their ideas shaped the world and how far we've advanced - but also, with their powerful, unique, genius minds, let them start researching our current issues, questions, problems and roadblocks in science and see if and how far they could advance our current knowledge. I mean, I guess that kind of gets into some philosophical questions like: Were they only smart for their own times? Was there something special about their minds and thought processes? If they were brought up to speed, would they be any smarter than current scientists? With the problems they focused their entire lives on now solved, could they progress any further?... And just many thoughts like that. I basically just wonder if there was something/anything special about their minds, thought process, methods, etc. to where they would be geniuses at any time in history given contemporary knowledge or, if their minds were just special/powerful for the times they lived... Like, I'm not dumb but I'm not overly intelligent and certainly not a genius (maybe slightly above average since I've always loved learning while almost nobody else cares about learning/knowledge anymore) - I have a decent grasp on a lot of topics and some things that were cutting edge in history are now just taken for granted - _But_ I still think if I went back in time - even all the way back to ancient Greece - that all or most of those great thinkers would be a lot smarter than myself - and I think that's almost a given for any of the great scientists from say the 18th century on.
you may be afraid of death. specially what comes after it. if it would be perfect and eternal darkness, you would be afraid of it even more. what you are not aware of is all the dreamless nights you had in your life, experiencing this perfection for hours, flying by in less then an instant. one where fear and doubt simply have no space. maybe, even if you would spend an eternity in this state, it still would be to perfect to bother you for even a second.
Because so little is actually known about the universe it’s so easy for people to make videos like this. All you need to do is throw in some random numbers and say stuff like “100 to the power of 63 and 752 squared to the negative of 6”, then use some stock CGI footage, maybe throw in a couple of words like”infinite” and “singularity” and boom, you got yourself a “documentary”
Yup. And i also think that some of these awe infusing docu's are just subtle religious propaganda to catch some sheep. In a lot of them you can find sprinkled in sentences like “Our universe must have been carved with a level of precision that just doesn’t make sense.” to indoctrinate the undecided and to encourage the believers. They often try to push you in the god/creator direction.
I experienced an NDE that brought me back to the beginning when there was no time and space. What existed was only a conversation taking place....with myself and I(who was CLEARLY someone else, yet still me). It was a conversation about whether, or not, life should exist and how it could be truly justified. Therefore, this is only a mental construct or, perhaps, an electronic simulation of what it would be like actually exist. Informing us on our final decision...whether to live or not!
Ahhhh, the God of the gaps argument! If we don't know something, then it must be God. It used to be that we didn't understand why it rained, so we sacrificed babies to the gods for rain. Now we know how rain works, so God fills new gaps. Gotta love the fear of "I don't know! It must be God! Cmon, guys, pick a God so you don't burn!"
I'm an agnostic and I know what you were trying to say. The problem is, which abrahamic God is real? the Muslim one, the Roman Catholic one, the Protestant one, the Evangelical one, the Pentecostal one? Etc.. Just interpretation and all claim they have the truth and you will burn if you're in the wrong Abrahamic club.
@@chesi_7_0_79 Actually of you studies theology you would know that’s not true. The Abrahamic God is one and the same. As long as you believe in One God you are alright. It’s up to you whether you learn about all of them or not. Whatever you choose you can say you tried your best.
Why we exist is unthinkable to me. Why is the universe studying itself? Why the universe exist? It's so scary just thinking what came before the big bang or God or anything before anything. To me it's not exciting or inspiring but scary, sometimes so much that it sends chill to my spine.
