I'm just an old poorly self-educated man who keeps watching these shows hoping to get smarter somehow will let me tell you this show does it even for people like me who are just trying to understand all this this show is spectacular easy to understand pleasant to watch thoroughly enjoying thank you so much and please keep up the good work people like me need it thank you thank you thank you
@@AlexanderDunetz yep, all it took was the collective knowledge of Astrophysics, a multibillion $ particle collider & someone to boil it down to layman’s terms, film it & post it to YT. Simple
I have to tip my hat to anyone involved with the creation of this video! 🎩👏🏼 By no means am I a physicist or anything close to one, but I am in fact a very curious individual with a passion and thirst for knowledge and in particular as it relates to how things function. Too many times in my quest to quench my thirst for knowledge, I've come across many videos that touch on different portions of the "Big Bang" Theory but I've yet to come across one that has been able to bring all the relative information together as a whole, as well as presented in such a manner that anyone with even a basic understanding of science and the cosmos could grasp. Until now. One single video has single handedly filled in so many blanks for me that otherwise would have been unknown. For that, I applaud you and thank you for conveying the information so elequently. Keep up the Excellent work!
@@realitynewsmedia And what does that have to do with the price of Tea in China my friend? I'm quite lost on what it is ur trying to say. This was an in depth breakdown of working theories so that ppl could understand the scientist's thought processes and it was laid out in a clear concise way. There was never a claim to have the whole picture because it is still a work in progress. Which I can assure u, is far more information then u bring to the table on ur study of how we were created.... Lol
So... a question without an answer remains an enigma. We can...oh...calculate....formulate and Articulate a reasonable conclusion. Bit does science...prove the validity?
Maybe I should be more precise....does science... through experimentation, theorem and known formuli... Validate and with conciseness prove this. Hypothetical question to be True? In fact...the cost of tea in china can be noted, documented and predicted. Your point please?
I’ve been waiting for this! Ever since John Gribbin’s “In the Beginning: The Birth of the Living Universe “ whetted my appetite nearly 3 decades ago, I’ve looked forward to a sequel based on new discoveries and updated information to change or modify the picture he drew of our origins. Now we have the LHC, the Higgs Boson, and the Hubbell and Webb telescopes at our disposal. More tools will be added in the near future, to further refine our burgeoning knowledge of when and how it all began. Even I, at age 84, can hope to have some questions answered before I die. Thank you for helping me understand more I ever thought possible about our origins.
An absolutely wonderful presentation. Concise and clear, rendered beautifully and deluvered by a very eloquent, accomplished researcher - just a joy to watch.
I like this. I like to think of time as the precise location of every atom in the Universe. This really puts into perspective how difficult travel backwards in time could be. Would have to find a way to put photons back in stars, and pull matter from black holes...
Thank you for a science video admitting caution about discussing surprising uniformity and then a visualization of what is meant. Still would be nice if took that visualization and changed it just enough to demonstrate what wouldn’t be uniformity. Also would be nice if mentioned the speed of our observable universe expanding after the great expansion to when it was 100 million light years across and the expansion speed afterwards. Really liked your video’s many explanations.
Dear Dr Lincoln, Whenever people speak of "the expansion of space" no one says what that means. When I think of space I think of quantized volumes smaller than the Plank length. When I think of dark energy expanding space, two possibilities come to my mind: 1) Those tiny volumes are increasing in volume. 2) Those volumes are staying the same size but new volumes are being created between them. Are either of these valid? If not, what is?
I’m not Dr. Lincoln, but I can answer the question: It’s your 2nd possibility. New volumes are being created. New space is being created, not old space being stretched. If it was option 1, Energy (that means “matter” too) would become too diffuse as it tried to fill the stretched volumes. That’s not what we observe.
g = G Me/r^2 (1e -/+ Ef/Eo) G sub c ♥ neutrino quarks have and Event Horizon 1915 Child mechanical, as does the water molecule 💧 Standard Model is Periodic Table.
The theories of the beginning of the universe keeps changing. Your two theories is no worse or better than what's out there. Like I said it keeps changing. But the way this narrator is going at it... LoL The way he's going about explaining this, reminds me when I was a 6-year-old or 7 child explaining to my mom how no way It could have been me that ate all the cookies 🤷 When in fact it was me 🥺 (Trying to lie your way out of a lie , is not easy)
@Buster Scruggs I have no problem believing that Jupiter , Saturn and the Andromeda Galaxy , And the Halo Galaxy the Sombrero Galaxy and our very own Milky Way galaxy, came out of that small Dot , size of a ballpoint pen . 🙃 But where this theory falls down upon itself is that I can't believe my brother's huge noggin came out that small Dot. They had to go and get a *"Special" extra extra extra *"LARGE"* football helmet for that dude when he played in high School. 🤔
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” This quote is often used to show both Einstein's religiosity and his belief in the compatibility-indeed, the mutual interdependence-of science and religion. ... “It would not be difficult to come to an agreement as to what we understand by science
@@migranthawker2952 yes my brother whatever we know about Earth and Cosmos and about our Human's history only science explained in better way and any disease that we face it's the science that provides medicine and not religion
Excactly!!! Infinite expansion didn't happen by acceleration...it had to happen instantaneously. All dimensions all directions all at once. Look at the universe in it's simplistic form. No Not with Hawkins theory or Plancks constant...but reduce it to its minimal existence. Then we gave TIME, SPACE and MATTER. thats it! Nothing more. Ok..so...we can't have space without time...when would you put it? You can't have time without space...where would you put it? We know that time and space are malleable. ( Einstein) so therefore matter must also be confined to the laws of a same theorem. Correct? A grapefruit doesn't become a universe in moments. The same as a collapsing star doesn't become a black hole overnight. It takes centuries for the right ingrediants to perfect a cosmic soup.
I know that I know this guy's voice from somewhere else where he also says things that I cannot and will not ever comprehend... Does he have another channel or good own I guess? Thanks for the help 😊
Why is it thought that the universe was once “concentrated into a point with zero volume”? How can that be? Why can’t it have commenced with a small chunk of matter, like a seed, with a little bit of volume?
What blows my mind is that it's true, the "Big Bang" didn't happen in one particular point in space time, instead, it happened everywhere. My mind cannot comprehend this. It goes against all logic. There was no center at all. I have hope that one day we will fully understand how this is possible. They say that space time expanded exponentially in a very short amount of time. But, in order for that to happen, there must have been a singularity at a fixed point in space time in order for it to expand outward from. It all just blows my mind. Love this kind of stuff and all the mysteries associated with it.😁
I've been taught to think of the "Big Bang" as less of an explosion, and more of a "phase shift" of all matter, from energy. This helped me wrap my head around a lack of a universal center.
@@nathanmiller9918 I'm right there with you, man. But, it's fun to think and speculate about such a subject. The universe(multi- verse), is indeed a fantastical thing to behold. And thank you. Wishing the very same to you.
I don't understand "flat" in this context. If space is expanding in all directions, how does that make the universe flat? That sounds more like an inflating ball or balloon.
Dr. Lincoln, what exactly IS ‘space’? I guess the same could be asked of time, but there at least we have the sense of past, present and future. How does one attribute space?
Yes I agree very interesting. I was on the fence between creation and evolution. But after hearing this well-dressed highly educated gentleman speaking about the origin of the beginning. He definitely has me leaning towards "Creation" now. The way he's going about explaining this, reminds me when I was a 6-year-old or 7 child explaining to my mom how no way It could have been me that ate all the cookies 🤷 When in fact it was me 🥺 (Trying to lie your way out of a lie , is not easy) He said we got to get our heads "Around 🔘" a flat universe __________ 🤷 In another thread under this video someone mentions that the universe is not just trillion years old but tens of trillions years old . With the Earth being supposedly four billion years old and the universe only 13.8 billion years old, the Earth came into being while the universe was still an infant 🚼. Which makes no sense at all. ( I never heard anyone say this, but I'm quite sure the sun is many billions years older than the Earth .) But for a lot of these theories, logic is tossed right out the window, in order for many of the theories to make sense.
The whole of the universe is but One living, breathing, pulsing Being. There is but one God. There is but one universe. God is the universe. God is not one and the universe another. The universe is not a separate creation of God’s. It is God. There is no created-universe. Nothing is which has not always been. All created things are from the beginning. They have no beginning. They do not come into being. They are and always have been and always will be. Man holds the concept of two universes; a spiritual and a physical. God is presumed to be of the spiritual universe, perfect. Matter is of the physical universe, imperfect. God supposedly created the imperfect physical universe separate and apart from Himself. Man conceives a perfect and omnipotent God. A perfect and omnipotent God could not create imperfection.He could not create a lesser than Himself. He could not create a greater than Himself.God could not create other than Himself. God did not create other than Himself, nor greater, nor lesser than Himself. This is a “creating” universe, not a “created” one. There was never a big bang. Man has not yet learned that bodies are self-created mechanism, which manifest their centering self, that self manifests God as ONE with it. God knowing Mind is timeless and still. Stillness can never be motion or become motion, but it can appear to be. The Universe equilibrium can never be other other than its own balance but it can seem to be. The illusion which is motion springs from stillness and return to stillness.
Wouldn't you all agree that there's no intelligence in nothing? If nothing brought everything forward, then nothing can produce laws, principles and Jurisdictions. If you bring just one of those into the equation, you automatically have to rule out the word nothing, and replace it with somebody or something. Therefore; nothing when in relation to creation, will always and forever remain what is, which is a theory. One example, man can't procreate with animal's and produce an offspring. 🌳🌳🌳 grow to various heights, and produces various fruits, and some don't produce any. Some 🐦🐦 are 🍖 eaters, and some not so. Humanities life span, is shorter than that of a tree's, and that's just an example. But why? I'll tell you why? Because something prohibits it. Therefore; nothing can ✋ something from progressing. Where ever there's a cause, there's an effect or vice-versa.
(1:10) *DL: **_"It's probably worth reminding you that singularities aren't real. It means that you've pushed a theory beyond the realm over which it applies. So, this singularity shouldn't be taken extremely seriously."_* ... The *T=0* point in Big Bang should be taken extremely seriously because everything in existence is based on this same type of recursion-based orchestration. There are six different recursions that have happened over the past 13.8 billion years based on this same *0-point* emergence. ... Humanity is currently living within the 6th and final recursion. Dismissing an immeasurable *0-point* of singularity based on the "perception" of incomprehensibility is a mistake, but apparently humanity isn't prepared for what that means.
I'm new to this and I will admit I'm like a kindergartener. But reading all the threads you seem to be one of the very few people who disagree totally or marginally, with this video 🤔
I think, what he's getting at is, just because our current understanding says, at T=0 there was a singularity, it doesn't mean there was a one dimensional object that "Big Banged". It means that we don't understand what happened at the moment of the big bang, or what "Big Banged". Hitting infinities or singularities in your math probably means there's a mistake someplace.
@@lukemcgregor6969 *"I think, what he's getting at is, just because our current understanding says, at T=0 there was a singularity, it doesn't mean there was a one dimensional object that "Big Banged". "* ... I understand your argument, but I've heard this stated before by others. I think it has more to do with theists hijacking singularity as the handywork of God. Note that I am neither theist nor atheist. With this being a "point" of singularity. then it is necessarily 0-dimensional whereas a 1-dimensional element would be a "line." *"Hitting infinities or singularities in your math probably means there's a mistake someplace."* ... That is true! Physicists hate *0* and *∞* but if the math takes you in either direction (and nothing stands in its way) then you have to accept whatever is revealed. The problem isn't really with the math. It's the violation of general relativity that bothers them most. I'm claiming that there's far more to that *0-point* then just a meaningless mathematical convergence. I have 282 pages that supports that claim.
@@icosthop9998 *"But reading all the threads you seem to be one of the very few people who disagree totally or marginally, with this video"* ... I'm sorry if I left you with that opinion. This was an excellent, well-orchestrated, and very educational video. It is only the narrator's indifference to Big Bang's *T=0* point that I disagree with. Since my discipline deals with everything on the opposite side of that singularity, then naturally I'm going to object to any claims of its insignificance. ...I'd still give this video an *A+*
Individually published the Einstein INCH equation, Relativity Applications of Mass 📖 📕 g = G Me/r^2 (1e-/+Ef/Eo) G sub c drop the weight onto check ✔ valve Mechanical Equivalent of Heat, Faraday lens 🔭 energy for use ♥ the Sir Isaac Newton Machine manufactured while Newton stated impossible in Print.
About the beginning this is what started it all. Space was almost empty except there were large mases of energy larger then black holes. Some of the are positive and some are negative .two of them collided [ matter and antimatter type ] now the negative one was smaller so it was almost completely consumed the other one positive partall survived. and that is why our universe is for the most part matter and not antymatter
Thank you Dr. Lincoln for sharing your insight to laymen like me. Your presentation made me imagine that from 10 to the minus 43 seconds to 10 to the minus 35 seconds is an eon. Like you said , there is quite a bit to rap your head around. How does one think of an expansion of space and time that has no center, no core? Did all of space happen at once?
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (John 1:1-3)
As I recall, there are several different estimates for the age of the Universe that might differ by 25 million years. Thus the data does not allow us to distinguish between the big bang and the big bounce with a condensed volume of ~25 million light years. In science it is the data that drives conclusions, not beauty or tradition. Error bars are important.
What doe it mean that the energy of the universe has a energy is 1 eV at sometime and earlier it was like 100 x10 to the 5 what is this energy and we’re is it going?
Something here doesn’t make sense. He says that the universe is likely flat then equates this to the “appearance of flatness” of being on a sufficiently large sphere. Two questions - first, if I am correct in this, then the universe is not flat, but just really big. Second, why is it that every single video I have seen dealing with this flat universe business ignores that within a spherical universe there would be content/universe within the sphere? Existence would not be all on the surface. Were that they case, we would see the universe as two dimensional, yes?
"flat universe" just means that if you travel in a straight line you will never return to your place of departure. It's kinda opposite of a curved universe in witch parallel lines converge or diverge.
Using a flat surface to represent a flat universe is as misleading as using a trampoline with a bowling ball in the middle of it to represent how mass warps spacetime. What they forget to mention is that the concept must be visualized in three dimensions. Geometric shapes in a flat universe will always measure true to form. A triangle using stellar coordinates will always have the sum of its angles add up to 180°. The sum of the angles of a triangle on a curved surface will be something other than 180°.
@@tomheringer2047 Yes, I have seen videos that address the now understood as erroneous measurement of triangles which suggested that the universe is flat…the sum of the angles and all that. I believe the reevaluation of the Plank satellite data showed the universe to be finite and closed/spherical, the triangle measurements effected by lensing or some such. But this should have been known to be so long before the launch of the satellite. In every video I have seen, the notion that the universe was infinite in scope seemed to be linked somehow to its being thought flat. However, it can’t be infinite and in knowing this, it likewise, logically could not then have been flat. If the universe expanded, which is what all physicists and cosmologists claim, from about 10 -15 meters (I believe), a quantifiable measure and via inflation (in which most believe) to about the size of a grapefruit, also quantifiable (and continued on from there), it could never have achieved infinite scope. What is it to expand? It is the progressive increase in number, value or measure by quantifiable increments. So what then would that last increase in measure have been just before the very next one was infinity? As you can see, infinity is merely an abstraction. It cannot exist within material reality in any aspect. Knowing this, they should have known that it could not be flat. Add to this understanding that those who believe that the universe existed in infinite time by virtue of bouncing or as a cyclical phenomenon, i.e., where it expanded and collapsed to expand and collapse again, ad infinitum (which is not just wrong but stupid in other ways as well) and the fact that the universe, if infinite could not have collapsed back into quantifiable increments that this cyclical theory might have been the reality. Take away any number of rocks from infinite rocks and you still have infinite rocks. Finally there is this nonsense of representing the universe as the surface of a sphere or other shape. Who thought this up? IF the universe were spherical for example, existence would not take place just on the outer surface, but rather within the body of the sphere. Were one to use this triangle test from its center, the angles would ALSO add up to 180 degrees. I think the universe being flat is a sophomoric idea and in actuality, a means of promoting the same old pathetic atheist narrative to which all these scientists cling with such desperation. It’s laughable. What do you think? And thanks for you response. I do find these discussions a great deal of fun.
Begin from within you, Lup and Dup are the scientific names given to the two iterations of your heart beat that also come in succession of each other . When all is silent that still remains, it is the only aspect of you that must remain constant, one can hold their breath but one can not hold their heart unless they are dead. I can be the kindest person on the planet or as cold as an ice cube, you decide how you experience me via your choices.
Here is an hypothesis, call it: "The Living Universe Hypothesis" If you see the big bang as naturally occurring, then it is analogous to the birth of a child, life out of chaos. And what does it take for life to exist in the Milky Way galaxy on the nondescript planet earth? In order for the conditions for life as we know it to exist, in order for the perfect natural balance of physical conditions necessary for life to exist, it literally requires the entire universe, specifically, the gravity of the entire universe. You could say, “ I am alive, and I am universe”. If our universe is seen as living, then we know it was born. If it was born, it has parents which it resembles. Therefore, the most reasonable hypothesis for the origin of our living universe is that it is a function of the interaction of other pre-existing parental universes. Similar to the way our living Milky Way galaxy formed out of the interaction of other pre-existing galaxies. Thus, using biology, on the premise that the universe is living, we can surmise that our universe is a function of the interaction between other pre-existing universes like our own, and from whom we got our laws, mass, (and including our life, intelligence, creativity, and consciousness, all of which are only associated with living things). At that point, our living universe would exist in a common time and space with those other universes (or what's left of them), and including a myriad of other related "living universes" like stars in a night sky. Essentially that is the realm beyond the boundary of our expanding universe. When we can see that far, an endless number of universes similar to our own will appear as much more than 14 billion light years away. Our universe would likely be effected gravitationally by those large bodies of mass, like the other galaxies that effect our Milky Way, so that would offer another hypothesis to explain the gravity that we measure holding our universe together and that we currently theorize is associated with a super high density dark matter existing within our universe. ...
That's exactly what the books SECRET UNIVERSE by Ron Kemp did in 2004. He unified all the theories and law. He pinned everything on one action occurring all across the universe. He shows the universe was not created by a big bang. Inflation didn't happen because of the laws of motion, once in motion always in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. The motion occurring throughout the universe is slow between galaxies. That is the only motion occurring. This slow motion is added up over great distances. It's not inflation it's a slow expansion of space or an increase in the volume of space around galaxies. It is not evidence of a big bang or inflation. All the motion of space increasing between galaxies indicates something else! And it's not a big bang. It indicates the universe is growing in energy and matter everywhere there are galaxies. Galaxies are at the centers of all creation. This is covered in the books.
@@jimgraham6722 Why do you think space throughout the universe is expanding or growing exponentially with distance? That evidence was nowhere around when Hoyle proposed the steady state theory. There was no evidence back then that supermassive black holes produced massive amounts of energy. There was no evidence back then that 2 million mi/h particle streams were emanating from the supermassive black hole in the cores of galaxies. The fact that space expands exponentially with great distance indicates a few things. Energy is constantly added to the universe over time. The laws of thermodynamics is wrong. The universe did not start with a big bang and there was no inflation. An infinite amount of energy is required to accelerate a single particle up to the speed of light. It takes a constant increase of infinite energy added everywhere in space to cause galaxies to move away from us faster than the speed of light in every direction. This is why it's called dark energy. Dark because it implies Over-Unity of energy is occurring throughout the universe. This is what Hoyle postulated was happening even though the telescopes at the time were unable to prove it. Well, there is much evidence now that supports this steady state theory. Energy and matter is being produced at a steady state all across the universe causing space to increase in volume. Energy and matter can be created but cannot be destroyed. So, the universe will continue to grow forever. It's much older than 13.8 billion years too. That's just the age of the Milky Way. There are much older and more massive galaxies out there. ULAS J1120+0641 is 13 billion light years away and supports a supermassive black hole of 2 billion solar masses (2x10^9). It's much larger than the one in our own galaxy. According to relativity it's only 750 million years old but is already 1,000 times larger than the Milky Way. This quasar defies all of physics, the big bang theory, and general relativity. The evidence is piling.
@@BigNewGames Thank you much for this long read 👌 In another thread under this video someone mentions that the universe is not just trillion years old but tens of trillions years old . With the Earth being supposedly four billion years old and the universe only 13.8 billion years old, the Earth came into being while the universe was still an infant 🚼. Which makes no sense at all. ( I never heard anyone say this, but I'm quite sure the sun is many billions years older than the Earth .)But for a lot of these theories, logic is tossed right out the window, in order for many of the theories to make sense .
@@BigNewGames Interesting, but I think the expansion of space time does not mean energy or matter is being created. The evidence rather suggests the universe is cooling and matter becoming more diffuse as time goes on. At some point in the distant future its temperature will reach absolute zero (ie. no background energy), all matter will have been cycled through black holes, that will in turn have evaporated. Conditions will be so cold and any particles so diffuse, there will be effectively nothing discernable left. What happens then is purely speculative but Penrose: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology suggests conditions will then be ripe for another big bang and away it all goes again. We may never know but it is possible his guess is better than most
Metaphysically sets are considered abstracta. Physically, and regardless of membership properties, they aren't string-like. Therefore it's useful to explicitly write the familiar notation for ordered sets. Crucially the ordering is induced, as philosopher M. Ridge says, synchronically, or instantaneously. Much like the ETERNAL-SEMPITERNAL distinction, there is a distinction defined over the instantaneous: to wit, synchronic if within time, including the denegenerate case of the Big BANG itself; and simply EXTEMPORAL or outside of time. Sets are always EXTEMPORAL, even when their members aren't.
Fred Hoyle didn’t believe in the Big Bang theory but in the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis. So, don't confuse him with the one who first postulated the Big Bang Theory. But indeed, he used for the ‘Big Bang theory’ the name ‘Big Bang’ first.
In Cycles of Time, Sir Roger Penrose agrees with Expansion but distinguishes it from Inflation. He did not agree with the scientists who posit Inflation.
Yes that explains where our universe came from I thought this was going to be explaining the beginning of everything because if there's a primordial fireball where did it come from
I have a question. Hope it's not too idiotic. Since matter and energy are interchangeable, does energy have an "anti" counterpart? Also could such a thing be applied to the expansion of the Universe that we observe?
There is both positive energy and negative energy. Cosmologists say that the total energy of our universe, even today, is 0, since it has equal amounts of positive and negative energy, which cancel out.
8:49 no it's not! We have yet to measure the curvature of space at absolute 0...even our most precise measurements have a value. A tiny value being '0.0007±0.0019' but there is a value...so we should not assume to know that the universe is flat, or spherical, or any other shape for that matter. The universe is obviously unfathomably large...so any value at all may show curvature...it may not...but it's a bit disturbing that you want to discuss things being misleading and then put definitives on things that aren't definitive.
Aaron Helvig You are correct in your quote "OUR human race." that is a correct quote, what is not correct is everything else, our world is wrong, this planet is shared by many other creatures, and the universe is certainly not ours. The human species seems to put a great importance on itself, when really we are so irrelevant to the universe we would not be missed if we went extinct tomorrow. I am simple trying to show how irrelevant humans are to the overall existence of the universe.
What are you guys thinking? You credit Fred Hoyle with the Big Bang? But he was a skeptic of it - it was rather George Lemaître who proposed the "Big Bang theory" of the origin of the universe, calling it the "hypothesis of the primeval atom". Hoyle didn't believe the theory and called it the "Big Bang" when discussing it on a radio show... giving him credit for it is insanity...
My speculation is that space itself is Frequencies in motion and never travels to its origin. Quantum frequencies spiraling in waves and when two waves intertwine, they bounce against each other causing resistance from gravitational force. As more frequencies combine and become interwoven frequencies, their compressed compaction boundaries tighten. The frequencies pushing through these compacted fields of transference of frequencies, interlocking gives force. As these forces constrict on each other they give fluid motion the visibility of solidity and weight through passing through faster than the speed of light. Gravitational force is the proximity tethering of motion force transference, of frequencies, through evrything. Mass is interlocking, interwoven frequencies compatible waves of fluid motion, slowed by quatamized fields of activity, by gravitational resistance, giving visibility to fluid motion known as mass, but still in motion through frequency transference through the interwoven. These frequencies sew the visible and unseen universe together on the micro scale and snowball from there. Gravitational force is these frequencies pushing through us and all matter or mass as force by spiraling space in slow motion resistance. It takes motion away to pass through our clumped frequencies. Motion is slowed but never stopped. The universe is fluid motion, continuously, only slowing when it gets tangled with itself, causing increased mass creating more force to pass through it. Gravitational force is the universe in slowed motion. Faster motion can't be visible until its slowed down and transfers though matter. Spiraling space bumping so fast that it gets caught up in itself and slowed to vibrate to give us the illusion of solidity. Transference of energy is force or gravitational tethering. Energy passing through all that we see. Proximity of frequencies determine the amount of force that pushes throughout the universe. Looser frequencies, takes less gravitational force to pass through. Tighter wound frequencies more force. Painting the awesome universe for our view. Wave lengths in slow motion. So what do you think? That's my theory of everything. Crazy right?
The problem with theoretical physicists talking about theoretical physics is that they never fully grasp the idea of a "target audience." This video assumes lots of prior knowledge. When someone says this... "You'll notice that I didn't talk about super symmetry and where it comes in" then I'm saying this: "buh bye"
@@karagi101 No. And I didn't claim it should be. But, I did a survey and it showed that 1 in about 100,000 didn't have prior knowledge of super symmetry.
@@kainajones9393 I believe you. I expect people that are really interested in learning this topic will look up some of the terms they are not familiar with.
Wondrium is good, but they don't know how to make videos work right. When I have a DVD from the Great Courses, I can put it in and play it while sitting on the couch, or even while laying in bed going to sleep. It plays lectures 1, 2, 3, and 4 (2 hours worth) in order: all minutes of all lectures. The next day I can do the same thing, and I can do so the next day too, and so on. With Wondrium it doesn't work like that. Once you've watched a lecture the site has the player positioned at the very end. So the second night I start, Wondrium starts at the end of lecture 1, jumps immediately to the end of lecture 2, jumps immediately to the end of lecture 3, and jumps to the end of lecture 4. There is no way to reset the lectures to start at the beginning. If you want to watch all of lectures 1, 2, 3, and 4, you have to start lecture 1, which starts at the end, then manually set the time bar to the beginning of lecture 1, and then start the player. When lecture 1 is over, you have to manually set the time bar to the beginning of lecture 2, and then start the player. When lecture 2 is over, you have to manually set the time bar to the beginning of lecture 3, and then start the player. When lecture 3 is over, you have to manually set the time bar to the beginning of lecture 4, and then start the player. They can't figure out how to add a button for each lecture that allows the time position to be reset to 0??????
Hi Tony, thank you for your feedback! We're always looking for ways to improve our products and services and will share your comments with the appropriate team.
I don't buy that the universe is infinite. If it was, there would have been no beginning and all the stars would have died out eons ago. Infinite, by definition, means no beginning and no end. I subscribe to the idea that our universe is actually curved and likely curves back onto itself. Just like an insect crawling on a giant balloon, no matter what direction it walks and no matter how far they go or how much time passes by, from the insects perspective, they are indeed on a flat surface. I believe that our universe is curved, but only ever so slightly, that we cannot detect it.
@@scambammer6102 I respect your thoughts and opinions. However, in my mind, I cannot fathom a curved universe being infinite. I can understand a perfectly flat universe being infinite though. No matter how it all shakes out, I hope that we can agree that no one so far, not even the brightest of minds to date, has all of the answers. I would guess though, that once(if) everything is fully understood, the answers will either blow our minds entirely, or simply lead to even more questions. This subject has always fascinated me and likely will continue to do so for the remainder of my very short life.😊
@@robertkimmel5416 Perhaps we mean different things by "infinite". If time and space are circular, that would be infinite, in the sense of having no beginning or ending.
@@scambammer6102 Sure enough. That was a good explanation to help and visualize such a thing.😊 As for the "Big Bang" Itself, I dunno, It does imply a beginning of space time at some point 14.8 billion or so years ago. It just bothers me that with all of the amazing knowledge and theories, the math completely falls apart at about 10 to the -30 seconds or so after the big bang. It's the same thing when trying to describe the interior of black holes. The math just doesn't work. Either we are missing something really big and important or we need a revised form of mathematics to describe such things.
Consider the following: “Know that it is one of the most abstruse questions of divinity that the world of existence-that is, this endless universe-has no beginning. … absolute non-existence lacks the capacity to attain existence. If the universe were pure nothingness, existence could not have been realized. Thus, as that Essence of Oneness, or divine Being, is eternal and everlasting-that is, as it has no beginning nor end-it follows that the world of existence, this endless universe, likewise has no beginning. …” - Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, newly revised edition, pp. 207-208.
The prelude notes of caution (on "not taking the singularity seriously," etc) notwithstanding, basic common and basic logic required that if you're going to talk about space-time starting from some place, some time ago --- in which Fred Hoyle's frustration with THAT argument led to his "then it must have been a 'big gan, then' derision").... so that now "everywhere you look, on the larger scale, everything is the same in terms of mass-density" ---- then, obviously, the Universe DOES have a "center." Of course, if you're living in a MICROSCOPIC patch of a Universe of close to 95B light years in diameter and your horizon reaches less than 13.8B light years, you're NOT going to be able to determine the "center" of that existence. But just because a man floating on a raft in the Pacific doesn't know where the "center" of the Earth (or Sun or Galaxy) is, it DOES NOT mean there's no "center" to the Earth, the Sun, the Solar System or the Milky Way. Sir Fred Hoyle (who argued for a persistent or "steady state" universe)'s broader and logical critique on the "Big Bang" SHOULD be understood and appreciated for its beauty, whatever short coming in observational evidence it may be lacking: either the "Big Bang" happened EVERYWHERE, endlessly (hence the "steady state")... or it happened at ONE PLACE, at ONE TIME (hence the "bang" that was really big and powerful enough to get the Cosmos started from t=0 to t=current time in its evolution). If a phenomenon happens everywhere and happens endlessly, you obviously can't find ONE "center" to it, since it happens EVERYWHERE. But if it happens from/at one place, one instance in history --- including the very history of its own creation --- then obviously there is a "center" to it. It doesn't even matter that most things are moving apart due to "space coming into existence" everywhere, between and among them.... and NOT because objects (made up of atoms) themselves are actually, physically "flying apart from each other."
Q: If there is a redshift of light in the universe because of distance, then galaxies that move away with constant velocity seem to move away with accelleration. If so, the bigbang-theory is possibly wrong?
My theory is...We founded earth..then found out it was crawling with a alien species we called Dinosaurs..so we fired a missile which is (omething we are good at doing) killed them off...then we moved in and started our existence on there planet.
Okay, maybe not so much "new" things here? We´ve probably seen it a couple of times before, on yt and elsewhere. Still, another good basic summary, without the maths, of what we (think) we know by know. Just let´s see what the future will bring...
I'm just an old poorly self-educated man who keeps watching these shows hoping to get smarter somehow will let me tell you this show does it even for people like me who are just trying to understand all this this show is spectacular easy to understand pleasant to watch thoroughly enjoying thank you so much and please keep up the good work people like me need it thank you thank you thank you
John :
May god bless your pointed little head.
You is so-o-o-o-o easy to pleez.
What are you talking about my head's not pointed it's square
@@johnkey979 so…are you saying your a block head?
@@AlexanderDunetz yep, all it took was the collective knowledge of Astrophysics, a multibillion $ particle collider & someone to boil it down to layman’s terms, film it & post it to YT. Simple
Good stuff John
Very good, one of the best in explanation our Universe. And the absence of background noise (not really music) is such a relief.
I have to tip my hat to anyone involved with the creation of this video! 🎩👏🏼 By no means am I a physicist or anything close to one, but I am in fact a very curious individual with a passion and thirst for knowledge and in particular as it relates to how things function. Too many times in my quest to quench my thirst for knowledge, I've come across many videos that touch on different portions of the "Big Bang" Theory but I've yet to come across one that has been able to bring all the relative information together as a whole, as well as presented in such a manner that anyone with even a basic understanding of science and the cosmos could grasp. Until now. One single video has single handedly filled in so many blanks for me that otherwise would have been unknown. For that, I applaud you and thank you for conveying the information so elequently. Keep up the Excellent work!
QQq
Was there..any difintive
answer? Um no. This mystery remains.
@@realitynewsmedia And what does that have to do with the price of Tea in China my friend? I'm quite lost on what it is ur trying to say. This was an in depth breakdown of working theories so that ppl could understand the scientist's thought processes and it was laid out in a clear concise way. There was never a claim to have the whole picture because it is still a work in progress. Which I can assure u, is far more information then u bring to the table on ur study of how we were created.... Lol
So... a question without an answer remains an enigma. We can...oh...calculate....formulate and Articulate a reasonable conclusion. Bit does science...prove the validity?
Maybe I should be more precise....does science... through experimentation, theorem and known formuli... Validate and with conciseness prove this. Hypothetical question to be True? In fact...the cost of tea in china can be noted, documented and predicted. Your point please?
Roger Penrose presents a wonderful and coherent model of our cosmological reality.
Don Lincoln is so excellent ...........................The MAN
“There is so much we don’t know” - sums up this theory so well.
Well done! Informative. Engaging!....This video & ones like it need to be viewed, taught in every classroom.
I’ve been waiting for this! Ever since John Gribbin’s “In the Beginning: The Birth of the Living Universe “ whetted my appetite nearly 3 decades ago, I’ve looked forward to a sequel based on new discoveries and updated information to change or modify the picture he drew of our origins.
Now we have the LHC, the Higgs Boson, and the Hubbell and Webb telescopes at our disposal. More tools will be added in the near future, to further refine our burgeoning knowledge of when and how it all began. Even I, at age 84, can hope to have some questions answered before I die.
Thank you for helping me understand more I ever thought possible about our origins.
An absolutely wonderful presentation. Concise and clear, rendered beautifully and deluvered by a very eloquent, accomplished researcher - just a joy to watch.
If space is flat, how thick is it?? Mind boggling subject but it fascinates me!
The term flat doesn't mean flat in that sense (think 3D instead of 2D). It means that there is no curvature.
Excellent production...right up there with the big boys!
I AGREE THAT THE BIG BANG CREATED THE UNIVERSE. A LIFE-FORM OR LIFE-FORM'S, WHATEVER LIFE EVEN IS, DID NOT CREATE THE UNIVERSE OR MULTI-VERSE. PERIOD
I think time as it moves forward with the expansion of the universe is directly connected.
I like this. I like to think of time as the precise location of every atom in the Universe. This really puts into perspective how difficult travel backwards in time could be. Would have to find a way to put photons back in stars, and pull matter from black holes...
Thank you for a science video admitting caution about discussing surprising uniformity and then a visualization of what is meant. Still would be nice if took that visualization and changed it just enough to demonstrate what wouldn’t be uniformity. Also would be nice if mentioned the speed of our observable universe expanding after the great expansion to when it was 100 million light years across and the expansion speed afterwards. Really liked your video’s many explanations.
I love your new format
Thank you very much. I've learned much.
Thanks for posting this.
We can look all around us seeing galaxies like we are in a bubble but space is flat?
22:50 i believe in this Desert theory if DM , DM , BB and inflation well understood .
Dear Dr Lincoln,
Whenever people speak of "the expansion of space" no one says what that means.
When I think of space I think of quantized volumes smaller than the Plank length. When I think of dark energy expanding space, two possibilities come to my mind:
1) Those tiny volumes are increasing in volume.
2) Those volumes are staying the same size but new volumes are being created between them.
Are either of these valid? If not, what is?
I’m not Dr. Lincoln, but I can answer the question:
It’s your 2nd possibility. New volumes are being created. New space is being created, not old space being stretched.
If it was option 1, Energy (that means “matter” too) would become too diffuse as it tried to fill the stretched volumes. That’s not what we observe.
g = G Me/r^2 (1e -/+ Ef/Eo) G sub c ♥ neutrino quarks have and Event Horizon 1915 Child mechanical, as does the water molecule 💧
Standard Model is Periodic Table.
The theories of the beginning of the universe keeps changing.
Your two theories is no worse or better than what's out there.
Like I said it keeps changing.
But the way this narrator is going at it...
LoL
The way he's going about explaining this, reminds me when I was a 6-year-old or 7 child explaining to my mom how no way It could have been me that ate all the cookies 🤷
When in fact it was me 🥺
(Trying to lie your way out of a lie , is not easy)
@@cjheaford what was there Before what ever was before the space the universe is expanding into? And what was there before that
@Buster Scruggs I have no problem believing that Jupiter , Saturn and the Andromeda Galaxy , And the Halo Galaxy the Sombrero Galaxy and our very own Milky Way galaxy, came out of that small Dot , size of a ballpoint pen . 🙃
But where this theory falls down upon itself is that I can't believe my brother's huge noggin came out that small Dot.
They had to go and get a *"Special" extra extra extra *"LARGE"* football helmet for that dude when he played in high School. 🤔
Don is the man!
WHAT 👀 great work.production value💯💯💯presentation 💯💯💯material💯💯💯
21:10 10 to the power 2 expressed as 1000, which is correct, the written word or the spoken word?
Very interesting 👌... The narrator's background is cool 😎 too!
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” This quote is often used to show both Einstein's religiosity and his belief in the compatibility-indeed, the mutual interdependence-of science and religion. ... “It would not be difficult to come to an agreement as to what we understand by science
Why mix science with myth and legend? Religion is totally without any basis!!
@@migranthawker2952 yes my brother whatever we know about Earth and Cosmos and about our Human's history only science explained in better way and any disease that we face it's the science that provides medicine and not religion
If the universe was once the size of a grapefruit, when did the universe transition from being finite in size to infinite in size?
Excactly!!! Infinite expansion didn't happen by acceleration...it had to happen instantaneously. All dimensions all directions all at once. Look at the universe in it's simplistic form. No Not with Hawkins theory or Plancks constant...but reduce it to its minimal existence. Then we gave TIME, SPACE and MATTER. thats it! Nothing more. Ok..so...we can't have space without time...when would you put it? You can't have time without space...where would you put it? We know that time and space are malleable. ( Einstein) so therefore matter must also be confined to the laws of a same theorem. Correct? A grapefruit doesn't become a universe in moments. The same as a collapsing star doesn't become a black hole overnight. It takes centuries for the right ingrediants to perfect a cosmic soup.
Maybe infinity grew, and continues growing?
This kind of a professor will never get students bored. 👍🏼
zzzzzzzz
"The heavens declare the glory of God." ""And God said, let there be Light." And flash! The big bang took place.
I know that I know this guy's voice from somewhere else where he also says things that I cannot and will not ever comprehend... Does he have another channel or good own I guess? Thanks for the help 😊
Might be this one: ua-cam.com/users/fermilab Happy learning!
Very lucid explanation of a fascinating subject
More of this! 👍 Thanks
excellent video
Great video thanks
Well show. Good information. Well.
Why is it thought that the universe was once “concentrated into a point with zero volume”? How can that be? Why can’t it have commenced with a small chunk of matter, like a seed, with a little bit of volume?
because it was trillions of degrees and it included all of space time
What blows my mind is that it's true, the "Big Bang" didn't happen in one particular point in space time, instead, it happened everywhere. My mind cannot comprehend this. It goes against all logic. There was no center at all. I have hope that one day we will fully understand how this is possible. They say that space time expanded exponentially in a very short amount of time. But, in order for that to happen, there must have been a singularity at a fixed point in space time in order for it to expand outward from. It all just blows my mind. Love this kind of stuff and all the mysteries associated with it.😁
I've been taught to think of the "Big Bang" as less of an explosion, and more of a "phase shift" of all matter, from energy. This helped me wrap my head around a lack of a universal center.
@@nathanmiller9918 That is a very interesting perspective. And far be it from me to discount such a thought.
@@robertkimmel5416 Yeah, I don't pretend to know. Don't get me wrong. I just felt that it helped me. Best to you and yours.
@@nathanmiller9918 I'm right there with you, man. But, it's fun to think and speculate about such a subject. The universe(multi- verse), is indeed a fantastical thing to behold. And thank you. Wishing the very same to you.
It doesn't go against all logic.
Fantastic! Thanks!
I don't understand "flat" in this context. If space is expanding in all directions, how does that make the universe flat? That sounds more like an inflating ball or balloon.
Expansion = ENDLESS....CMB ENFLATION of this = "Universe"
..............."VISIBLE"= Theory of this "Universe" !!
Dr. Lincoln, what exactly IS ‘space’? I guess the same could be asked of time, but there at least we have the sense of past, present and future. How does one attribute space?
If space is ""FLAT"", what lays above and below (figuratively speaking), the plane of space, which, I presume, is the same as the Universe?
Very good question 🤔
There was a time when the old scholars thought the Earth was flat 🙃
How can the big bang have a fireball when there is NOT oxygen present?
Some interesting arguments.
Yes I agree very interesting.
I was on the fence between creation and evolution. But after hearing this well-dressed highly educated gentleman speaking about the origin of the beginning.
He definitely has me leaning towards "Creation" now.
The way he's going about explaining this, reminds me when I was a 6-year-old or 7 child explaining to my mom how no way It could have been me that ate all the cookies 🤷
When in fact it was me 🥺
(Trying to lie your way out of a lie , is not easy)
He said we got to get our heads "Around 🔘" a flat universe __________ 🤷
In another thread under this video someone mentions that the universe is not just trillion years old but tens of trillions years old .
With the Earth being supposedly four billion years old and the universe only 13.8 billion years old, the Earth came into being while the universe was still an infant 🚼.
Which makes no sense at all.
( I never heard anyone say this, but I'm quite sure the sun is many billions years older than the Earth .) But for a lot of these theories, logic is tossed right out the window, in order for many of the theories to make sense.
Eye have a question. What about the singularity of a black hole?
Thank you for your presentation
Thank you for listening, John! Happy to hear you liked it.
There is no beginning, uncreated it comes, having created, it goes.
thanks for the fortune cookie
What if the universe was an experiment in a particle physics lab that simply blew up.
The whole of the universe is but One living, breathing, pulsing Being. There is but one God. There is but one universe. God is the universe.
God is not one and the universe another. The universe is not a separate creation of God’s. It is God. There is no created-universe.
Nothing is which has not always been.
All created things are from the beginning. They have no beginning. They do not come into being. They are and always have been and always will be. Man holds the concept of two universes; a spiritual and a physical. God is presumed to be of the spiritual universe, perfect. Matter is of the physical universe, imperfect. God supposedly created the imperfect physical universe separate and apart from Himself. Man conceives a perfect and omnipotent God. A perfect and omnipotent God could not create imperfection.He could not create a lesser than Himself. He could not create a greater than Himself.God could not create other than Himself. God did not create other than Himself, nor greater, nor lesser than Himself. This is a “creating” universe, not a “created” one.
There was never a big bang. Man has not yet learned that bodies are self-created mechanism, which manifest their centering self, that self manifests God as ONE with it.
God knowing Mind is timeless and still. Stillness can never be motion or become motion, but it can appear to be. The Universe equilibrium can never be other other than its own balance but it can seem to be. The illusion which is motion springs from stillness and return to stillness.
@@TheArtWithinYou3 mightvhave been there all the time
Earth is flat so no it’s not possible
@@TheArtWithinYou3 I bet you’re fun at parties. Lol
Wouldn't you all agree that there's no intelligence in nothing? If nothing brought everything forward, then nothing can produce laws, principles and Jurisdictions. If you bring just one of those into the equation, you automatically have to rule out the word nothing, and replace it with somebody or something. Therefore; nothing when in relation to creation, will always and forever remain what is, which is a theory. One example, man can't procreate with animal's and produce an offspring. 🌳🌳🌳 grow to various heights, and produces various fruits, and some don't produce any. Some 🐦🐦 are 🍖 eaters, and some not so. Humanities life span, is shorter than that of a tree's, and that's just an example. But why? I'll tell you why? Because something prohibits it. Therefore; nothing can ✋ something from progressing. Where ever there's a cause, there's an effect or vice-versa.
Interesting
(1:10) *DL: **_"It's probably worth reminding you that singularities aren't real. It means that you've pushed a theory beyond the realm over which it applies. So, this singularity shouldn't be taken extremely seriously."_* ... The *T=0* point in Big Bang should be taken extremely seriously because everything in existence is based on this same type of recursion-based orchestration. There are six different recursions that have happened over the past 13.8 billion years based on this same *0-point* emergence.
... Humanity is currently living within the 6th and final recursion.
Dismissing an immeasurable *0-point* of singularity based on the "perception" of incomprehensibility is a mistake, but apparently humanity isn't prepared for what that means.
I'm new to this and I will admit I'm like a kindergartener.
But reading all the threads you seem to be one of the very few people who disagree totally or marginally, with this video 🤔
I think, what he's getting at is, just because our current understanding says, at T=0 there was a singularity, it doesn't mean there was a one dimensional object that "Big Banged". It means that we don't understand what happened at the moment of the big bang, or what "Big Banged". Hitting infinities or singularities in your math probably means there's a mistake someplace.
“6 different recursions.....living within the 6th and final recursion!!” Rawr! I’m right And you’re wrong hahaha blippity bloppity bloop
@@lukemcgregor6969 *"I think, what he's getting at is, just because our current understanding says, at T=0 there was a singularity, it doesn't mean there was a one dimensional object that "Big Banged". "*
... I understand your argument, but I've heard this stated before by others. I think it has more to do with theists hijacking singularity as the handywork of God. Note that I am neither theist nor atheist.
With this being a "point" of singularity. then it is necessarily 0-dimensional whereas a 1-dimensional element would be a "line."
*"Hitting infinities or singularities in your math probably means there's a mistake someplace."*
... That is true! Physicists hate *0* and *∞* but if the math takes you in either direction (and nothing stands in its way) then you have to accept whatever is revealed. The problem isn't really with the math. It's the violation of general relativity that bothers them most.
I'm claiming that there's far more to that *0-point* then just a meaningless mathematical convergence. I have 282 pages that supports that claim.
@@icosthop9998 *"But reading all the threads you seem to be one of the very few people who disagree totally or marginally, with this video"*
... I'm sorry if I left you with that opinion. This was an excellent, well-orchestrated, and very educational video. It is only the narrator's indifference to Big Bang's *T=0* point that I disagree with. Since my discipline deals with everything on the opposite side of that singularity, then naturally I'm going to object to any claims of its insignificance.
...I'd still give this video an *A+*
Free will will always throw a wrench into a theory of everything....
Individually published the Einstein INCH equation, Relativity Applications of Mass 📖 📕
g = G Me/r^2 (1e-/+Ef/Eo) G sub c drop the weight onto check ✔ valve Mechanical Equivalent of Heat, Faraday lens 🔭 energy for use ♥ the Sir Isaac Newton Machine manufactured while Newton stated impossible in Print.
We still have no idea what caused the big bang. Period.
The truth of the matter is that there was no beginning and therefore there will be no end!
ty mr don :)
Congratulations on the awesome weight loss! You’re looking good.
I'm thankful for what ever reason the universe started. Thank you for the great video!
Glad you liked it! Never stop learning!
A universe being created is not only redundant it is deliberately misleading. There is only Creation.
GOD bless and optimism.
@@super_ficial so who created god then?
@@Mommy10417 Creator, creature and creation is the same thing
@@super_ficial To me your response is a nil response.
About the beginning this is what started it all. Space was almost empty except there were large mases of energy larger then black holes. Some of the are positive and some are negative .two of them collided [ matter and antimatter type ] now the negative one was smaller so it was almost completely consumed the other one positive partall survived. and that is why our universe is for the most part matter and not antymatter
المهيون وله ماتحط حلقك زي بعظ
Realy its interestyng this video
Thank you Dr. Lincoln for sharing your insight to laymen like me. Your presentation made me imagine that from 10 to the minus 43 seconds to 10 to the minus 35 seconds is an eon. Like you said , there is quite a bit to rap your head around. How does one think of an expansion of space and time that has no center, no core? Did all of space happen at once?
People
To whom does this Dr. UA-camr attribute the credits of "the primitive atom"?
@@teghem6723 "whom" isn't an intelligent question. There were no schlongs in existence at the plank time.
And after attaining some critical speed it starts replicating it self one at a time and initiating expansion as a layer of concentric spheres.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (John 1:1-3)
I don't care what it says in your messy iron age holy book. Why should I believe one word of it?
As I recall, there are several different estimates for the age of the Universe that might differ by 25 million years. Thus the data does not allow us to distinguish between the big bang and the big bounce with a condensed volume of ~25 million light years. In science it is the data that drives conclusions, not beauty or tradition. Error bars are important.
What doe it mean that the energy of the universe has a energy is 1 eV at sometime and earlier it was like 100 x10 to the 5 what is this energy and we’re is it going?
So we can rewind everything into a singularity but there is no center of the universe?
Something here doesn’t make sense. He says that the universe is likely flat then equates this to the “appearance of flatness” of being on a sufficiently large sphere. Two questions - first, if I am correct in this, then the universe is not flat, but just really big. Second, why is it that every single video I have seen dealing with this flat universe business ignores that within a spherical universe there would be content/universe within the sphere? Existence would not be all on the surface. Were that they case, we would see the universe as two dimensional, yes?
"flat universe" just means that if you travel in a straight line you will never return to your place of departure. It's kinda opposite of a curved universe in witch parallel lines converge or diverge.
Using a flat surface to represent a flat universe is as misleading as using a trampoline with a bowling ball in the middle of it to represent how mass warps spacetime. What they forget to mention is that the concept must be visualized in three dimensions. Geometric shapes in a flat universe will always measure true to form. A triangle using stellar coordinates will always have the sum of its angles add up to 180°. The sum of the angles of a triangle on a curved surface will be something other than 180°.
@@tomheringer2047 Yes, I have seen videos that address the now understood as erroneous measurement of triangles which suggested that the universe is flat…the sum of the angles and all that. I believe the reevaluation of the Plank satellite data showed the universe to be finite and closed/spherical, the triangle measurements effected by lensing or some such. But this should have been known to be so long before the launch of the satellite. In every video I have seen, the notion that the universe was infinite in scope seemed to be linked somehow to its being thought flat. However, it can’t be infinite and in knowing this, it likewise, logically could not then have been flat. If the universe expanded, which is what all physicists and cosmologists claim, from about 10 -15 meters (I believe), a quantifiable measure and via inflation (in which most believe) to about the size of a grapefruit, also quantifiable (and continued on from there), it could never have achieved infinite scope. What is it to expand? It is the progressive increase in number, value or measure by quantifiable increments. So what then would that last increase in measure have been just before the very next one was infinity? As you can see, infinity is merely an abstraction. It cannot exist within material reality in any aspect. Knowing this, they should have known that it could not be flat. Add to this understanding that those who believe that the universe existed in infinite time by virtue of bouncing or as a cyclical phenomenon, i.e., where it expanded and collapsed to expand and collapse again, ad infinitum (which is not just wrong but stupid in other ways as well) and the fact that the universe, if infinite could not have collapsed back into quantifiable increments that this cyclical theory might have been the reality. Take away any number of rocks from infinite rocks and you still have infinite rocks.
Finally there is this nonsense of representing the universe as the surface of a sphere or other shape. Who thought this up? IF the universe were spherical for example, existence would not take place just on the outer surface, but rather within the body of the sphere. Were one to use this triangle test from its center, the angles would ALSO add up to 180 degrees. I think the universe being flat is a sophomoric idea and in actuality, a means of promoting the same old pathetic atheist narrative to which all these scientists cling with such desperation. It’s laughable.
What do you think? And thanks for you response. I do find these discussions a great deal of fun.
There are flat-earthers and then there are flat-universers.
@@terryz935 LoL
Begin from within you, Lup and Dup are the scientific names given to the two iterations of your heart beat that also come in succession of each other . When all is silent that still remains, it is the only aspect of you that must remain constant, one can hold their breath but one can not hold their heart unless they are dead. I can be the kindest person on the planet or as cold as an ice cube, you decide how you experience me via your choices.
Here is an hypothesis, call it: "The Living Universe Hypothesis"
If you see the big bang as naturally occurring, then it is analogous to the birth of a child, life out of chaos. And what does it take for life to exist in the Milky Way galaxy on the nondescript planet earth? In order for the conditions for life as we know it to exist, in order for the perfect natural balance of physical conditions necessary for life to exist, it literally requires the entire universe, specifically, the gravity of the entire universe. You could say, “ I am alive, and I am universe”.
If our universe is seen as living, then we know it was born. If it was born, it has parents which it resembles. Therefore, the most reasonable hypothesis for the origin of our living universe is that it is a function of the interaction of other pre-existing parental universes. Similar to the way our living Milky Way galaxy formed out of the interaction of other pre-existing galaxies.
Thus, using biology, on the premise that the universe is living, we can surmise that our universe is a function of the interaction between other pre-existing universes like our own, and from whom we got our laws, mass, (and including our life, intelligence, creativity, and consciousness, all of which are only associated with living things). At that point, our living universe would exist in a common time and space with those other universes (or what's left of them), and including a myriad of other related "living universes" like stars in a night sky. Essentially that is the realm beyond the boundary of our expanding universe. When we can see that far, an endless number of universes similar to our own will appear as much more than 14 billion light years away. Our universe would likely be effected gravitationally by those large bodies of mass, like the other galaxies that effect our Milky Way, so that would offer another hypothesis to explain the gravity that we measure holding our universe together and that we currently theorize is associated with a super high density dark matter existing within our universe. ...
The presenter presupposed the origin point of Big Bang, the singularity as to unreal.
That's exactly what the books SECRET UNIVERSE by Ron Kemp did in 2004. He unified all the theories and law. He pinned everything on one action occurring all across the universe. He shows the universe was not created by a big bang. Inflation didn't happen because of the laws of motion, once in motion always in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. The motion occurring throughout the universe is slow between galaxies. That is the only motion occurring. This slow motion is added up over great distances. It's not inflation it's a slow expansion of space or an increase in the volume of space around galaxies. It is not evidence of a big bang or inflation. All the motion of space increasing between galaxies indicates something else! And it's not a big bang. It indicates the universe is growing in energy and matter everywhere there are galaxies. Galaxies are at the centers of all creation. This is covered in the books.
Thank you much for the summary appreciate it 👌
This was the essence of Fred Hoyle's theory, was once credible but has now been largely discredited.
@@jimgraham6722 Why do you think space throughout the universe is expanding or growing exponentially with distance? That evidence was nowhere around when Hoyle proposed the steady state theory. There was no evidence back then that supermassive black holes produced massive amounts of energy. There was no evidence back then that 2 million mi/h particle streams were emanating from the supermassive black hole in the cores of galaxies. The fact that space expands exponentially with great distance indicates a few things. Energy is constantly added to the universe over time. The laws of thermodynamics is wrong. The universe did not start with a big bang and there was no inflation. An infinite amount of energy is required to accelerate a single particle up to the speed of light. It takes a constant increase of infinite energy added everywhere in space to cause galaxies to move away from us faster than the speed of light in every direction. This is why it's called dark energy. Dark because it implies Over-Unity of energy is occurring throughout the universe. This is what Hoyle postulated was happening even though the telescopes at the time were unable to prove it. Well, there is much evidence now that supports this steady state theory. Energy and matter is being produced at a steady state all across the universe causing space to increase in volume. Energy and matter can be created but cannot be destroyed. So, the universe will continue to grow forever. It's much older than 13.8 billion years too. That's just the age of the Milky Way. There are much older and more massive galaxies out there. ULAS J1120+0641 is 13 billion light years away and supports a supermassive black hole of 2 billion solar masses (2x10^9). It's much larger than the one in our own galaxy. According to relativity it's only 750 million years old but is already 1,000 times larger than the Milky Way. This quasar defies all of physics, the big bang theory, and general relativity. The evidence is piling.
@@BigNewGames Thank you much for this long read 👌
In another thread under this video someone mentions that the universe is not just trillion years old but tens of trillions years old .
With the Earth being supposedly four billion years old and the universe only 13.8 billion years old, the Earth came into being while the universe was still an infant 🚼.
Which makes no sense at all.
( I never heard anyone say this, but I'm quite sure the sun is many billions years older than the Earth .)But for a lot of these theories, logic is tossed right out the window, in order for many of the theories to make sense .
@@BigNewGames Interesting, but I think the expansion of space time does not mean energy or matter is being created. The evidence rather suggests the universe is cooling and matter becoming more diffuse as time goes on. At some point in the distant future its temperature will reach absolute zero (ie. no background energy), all matter will have been cycled through black holes, that will in turn have evaporated. Conditions will be so cold and any particles so diffuse, there will be effectively nothing discernable left.
What happens then is purely speculative but Penrose:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology
suggests conditions will then be ripe for another big bang and away it all goes again. We may never know but it is possible his guess is better than most
What I'm failing to understand is if the universe is expanding, what's it expanding into if space‐time is contained within the universe itself?
Metaphysically sets are considered abstracta.
Physically, and regardless of membership properties, they aren't string-like.
Therefore it's useful to explicitly write the familiar notation for ordered sets.
Crucially the ordering is induced, as philosopher M. Ridge says, synchronically, or instantaneously. Much like the ETERNAL-SEMPITERNAL distinction, there is a distinction defined over the instantaneous: to wit, synchronic if within time, including the denegenerate case of the Big BANG itself; and simply EXTEMPORAL or outside of time.
Sets are always EXTEMPORAL, even when their members aren't.
Fred Hoyle didn’t believe in the Big Bang theory but in the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis. So, don't confuse him with the one who first postulated the Big Bang Theory. But indeed, he used for the ‘Big Bang theory’ the name ‘Big Bang’ first.
In Cycles of Time, Sir Roger Penrose agrees with Expansion but distinguishes it from Inflation. He did not agree with the scientists who posit Inflation.
Yes that explains where our universe came from I thought this was going to be explaining the beginning of everything because if there's a primordial fireball where did it come from
I have a question. Hope it's not too idiotic. Since matter and energy are interchangeable, does energy have an "anti" counterpart? Also could such a thing be applied to the expansion of the Universe that we observe?
There is both positive energy and negative energy. Cosmologists say that the total energy of our universe, even today, is 0, since it has equal amounts of positive and negative energy, which cancel out.
8:49 no it's not! We have yet to measure the curvature of space at absolute 0...even our most precise measurements have a value. A tiny value being '0.0007±0.0019' but there is a value...so we should not assume to know that the universe is flat, or spherical, or any other shape for that matter. The universe is obviously unfathomably large...so any value at all may show curvature...it may not...but it's a bit disturbing that you want to discuss things being misleading and then put definitives on things that aren't definitive.
is there time, without movement as we know?
What's all this about OUR universe, and our earth, it's THE Universe. The earth .
Aaron Helvig You are correct in your quote "OUR human race." that is a correct quote, what is not correct is everything else, our world is wrong, this planet is shared by many other creatures, and the universe is certainly not ours. The human species seems to put a great importance on itself, when really we are so irrelevant to the universe we would not be missed if we went extinct tomorrow. I am simple trying to show how irrelevant humans are to the overall existence of the universe.
Consider that Mercury is actually Venus' moon.
Really hard to understand or visualize that space is flat. We clearly have x,y,z dimension. It is mind bloggling.
What are you guys thinking? You credit Fred Hoyle with the Big Bang? But he was a skeptic of it - it was rather George Lemaître who proposed the "Big Bang theory" of the origin of the universe, calling it the "hypothesis of the primeval atom". Hoyle didn't believe the theory and called it the "Big Bang" when discussing it on a radio show... giving him credit for it is insanity...
Oh no! This episode of the course is much too advanced than what I watched, I mean, I was watching episode 1 and this is ,episode 22, so...
My speculation is that space itself is Frequencies in motion and never travels to its origin. Quantum frequencies spiraling in waves and when two waves intertwine, they bounce against each other causing resistance from gravitational force. As more frequencies combine and become interwoven frequencies, their compressed compaction boundaries tighten. The frequencies pushing through these compacted fields of transference of frequencies, interlocking gives force. As these forces constrict on each other they give fluid motion the visibility of solidity and weight through passing through faster than the speed of light. Gravitational force is the proximity tethering of motion force transference, of frequencies, through evrything. Mass is interlocking, interwoven frequencies compatible waves of fluid motion, slowed by quatamized fields of activity, by gravitational resistance, giving visibility to fluid motion known as mass, but still in motion through frequency transference through the interwoven. These frequencies sew the visible and unseen universe together on the micro scale and snowball from there. Gravitational force is these frequencies pushing through us and all matter or mass as force by spiraling space in slow motion resistance. It takes motion away to pass through our clumped frequencies. Motion is slowed but never stopped. The universe is fluid motion, continuously, only slowing when it gets tangled with itself, causing increased mass creating more force to pass through it. Gravitational force is the universe in slowed motion. Faster motion can't be visible until its slowed down and transfers though matter. Spiraling space bumping so fast that it gets caught up in itself and slowed to vibrate to give us the illusion of solidity. Transference of energy is force or gravitational tethering. Energy passing through all that we see. Proximity of frequencies determine the amount of force that pushes throughout the universe. Looser frequencies, takes less gravitational force to pass through. Tighter wound frequencies more force. Painting the awesome universe for our view. Wave lengths in slow motion. So what do you think? That's my theory of everything. Crazy right?
The problem with theoretical physicists talking about theoretical physics is that they never fully grasp the idea of a "target audience." This video assumes lots of prior knowledge. When someone says this... "You'll notice that I didn't talk about super symmetry and where it comes in" then I'm saying this: "buh bye"
Did the video claim it’s for people with zero knowledge of anything?
@@karagi101 No. And I didn't claim it should be. But, I did a survey and it showed that 1 in about 100,000 didn't have prior knowledge of super symmetry.
@@kainajones9393 I believe you. I expect people that are really interested in learning this topic will look up some of the terms they are not familiar with.
Wondrium is good, but they don't know how to make videos work right.
When I have a DVD from the Great Courses, I can put it in and play it while sitting on the couch, or even while laying in bed going to sleep. It plays lectures 1, 2, 3, and 4 (2 hours worth) in order: all minutes of all lectures. The next day I can do the same thing, and I can do so the next day too, and so on.
With Wondrium it doesn't work like that. Once you've watched a lecture the site has the player positioned at the very end. So the second night I start, Wondrium starts at the end of lecture 1, jumps immediately to the end of lecture 2, jumps immediately to the end of lecture 3, and jumps to the end of lecture 4. There is no way to reset the lectures to start at the beginning. If you want to watch all of lectures 1, 2, 3, and 4, you have to start lecture 1, which starts at the end, then manually set the time bar to the beginning of lecture 1, and then start the player. When lecture 1 is over, you have to manually set the time bar to the beginning of lecture 2, and then start the player. When lecture 2 is over, you have to manually set the time bar to the beginning of lecture 3, and then start the player. When lecture 3 is over, you have to manually set the time bar to the beginning of lecture 4, and then start the player. They can't figure out how to add a button for each lecture that allows the time position to be reset to 0??????
Hi Tony, thank you for your feedback! We're always looking for ways to improve our products and services and will share your comments with the appropriate team.
I don't buy that the universe is infinite. If it was, there would have been no beginning and all the stars would have died out eons ago. Infinite, by definition, means no beginning and no end. I subscribe to the idea that our universe is actually curved and likely curves back onto itself. Just like an insect crawling on a giant balloon, no matter what direction it walks and no matter how far they go or how much time passes by, from the insects perspective, they are indeed on a flat surface. I believe that our universe is curved, but only ever so slightly, that we cannot detect it.
whether the universe is curved is irrelevant to how it began. a curved universe can be infinite.
@@scambammer6102 I respect your thoughts and opinions. However, in my mind, I cannot fathom a curved universe being infinite. I can understand a perfectly flat universe being infinite though. No matter how it all shakes out, I hope that we can agree that no one so far, not even the brightest of minds to date, has all of the answers. I would guess though, that once(if) everything is fully understood, the answers will either blow our minds entirely, or simply lead to even more questions. This subject has always fascinated me and likely will continue to do so for the remainder of my very short life.😊
@@robertkimmel5416 Perhaps we mean different things by "infinite". If time and space are circular, that would be infinite, in the sense of having no beginning or ending.
@@scambammer6102 Sure enough. That was a good explanation to help and visualize such a thing.😊 As for the "Big Bang" Itself, I dunno, It does imply a beginning of space time at some point 14.8 billion or so years ago. It just bothers me that with all of the amazing knowledge and theories, the math completely falls apart at about 10 to the -30 seconds or so after the big bang. It's the same thing when trying to describe the interior of black holes. The math just doesn't work. Either we are missing something really big and important or we need a revised form of mathematics to describe such things.
That's my Theory
Consider the following:
“Know that it is one of the most abstruse questions of divinity that the world of existence-that is, this endless universe-has no beginning.
… absolute non-existence lacks the capacity to attain existence. If the universe were pure nothingness, existence could not have been realized. Thus, as that Essence of Oneness, or divine Being, is eternal and everlasting-that is, as it has no beginning nor end-it follows that the world of existence, this endless universe, likewise has no beginning. …” - Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, newly revised edition, pp. 207-208.
Who is this guy ?
The prelude notes of caution (on "not taking the singularity seriously," etc) notwithstanding, basic common and basic logic required that if you're going to talk about space-time starting from some place, some time ago --- in which Fred Hoyle's frustration with THAT argument led to his "then it must have been a 'big gan, then' derision").... so that now "everywhere you look, on the larger scale, everything is the same in terms of mass-density" ---- then, obviously, the Universe DOES have a "center."
Of course, if you're living in a MICROSCOPIC patch of a Universe of close to 95B light years in diameter and your horizon reaches less than 13.8B light years, you're NOT going to be able to determine the "center" of that existence. But just because a man floating on a raft in the Pacific doesn't know where the "center" of the Earth (or Sun or Galaxy) is, it DOES NOT mean there's no "center" to the Earth, the Sun, the Solar System or the Milky Way.
Sir Fred Hoyle (who argued for a persistent or "steady state" universe)'s broader and logical critique on the "Big Bang" SHOULD be understood and appreciated for its beauty, whatever short coming in observational evidence it may be lacking: either the "Big Bang" happened EVERYWHERE, endlessly (hence the "steady state")... or it happened at ONE PLACE, at ONE TIME (hence the "bang" that was really big and powerful enough to get the Cosmos started from t=0 to t=current time in its evolution).
If a phenomenon happens everywhere and happens endlessly, you obviously can't find ONE "center" to it, since it happens EVERYWHERE. But if it happens from/at one place, one instance in history --- including the very history of its own creation --- then obviously there is a "center" to it. It doesn't even matter that most things are moving apart due to "space coming into existence" everywhere, between and among them.... and NOT because objects (made up of atoms) themselves are actually, physically "flying apart from each other."
Wow, is that you Don?
Q: If there is a redshift of light in the universe because of distance,
then galaxies that move away with constant velocity seem to move away with accelleration.
If so, the bigbang-theory is possibly wrong?
no that's how we know BBT is right
If universe is 3D, then how is it possible every galaxy is moving away from us. This means universe is 2D or hollow like a balloon.
GOD spoke the Universe into existence.His perfect design displays HIS work.
Too bad you have zero evidence while science has a ton of evidence.
My theory is...We founded earth..then found out it was crawling with a alien species we called Dinosaurs..so we fired a missile which is (omething we are good at doing) killed them off...then we moved in and started our existence on there planet.
I kinda think we're Earth's cancer that hopefully doesn't escape it
Unless the universe expands faster than the speed of light it seems to me light from an object any distance away will eventually reach us
James telescope are you kidding me!
Okay, maybe not so much "new" things here? We´ve probably seen it a couple of times before, on yt and elsewhere. Still, another good basic summary, without the maths, of what we (think) we know by know. Just let´s see what the future will bring...
Please remove the wretched guitar music at the end
Before big bang there can only be spinning of premordial element .
How could universe be expanding if space has edge of blocking just like a wall ?