The narrator should have explained what a "flat" universe is more clearly. It simply means that it is not bound by any sort of curvature. The universe is not flat like a pancake, that isn't what we are talking about here. The universe is quite obviously 3 dimensional, you can look out and see just as far in any direction as if we were the center of a globe. Again, a flat universe simply means what you probably thought all along. That there are no restrictions to space, it does not curve back in on itself so that if you look far enough in one direction you can see the back of your head. Nor is it inverted, leading to the opposite scenario; A universe who's curvature extends outward into infinity. I'll say it again, it simply means that there is no universal curvature. This is not a flat earth conspiracy, this is scientific fact based on years of careful analysis and mathematical theorem prior to the observation made by Lawrence Krauss.

@computerchi

8 жыл бұрын

Best explanation ever. 👍

@thealoisa3322

8 жыл бұрын

+George Mason Tnx man.. that make sense..

@DownhillAllTheWay

8 жыл бұрын

+George Mason I'm glad you explained that, because I was on the point of pointing out that "flat" to me means two-dimensional. I work in computers, and I know that there are many words used there in a different way from in normal English - analogue, for example - or hardware (describing the physical parts of the machine, originally humorously, but the word is generally accepted now). So I guess "flat" is an astronomical jargon word, where it means something different from when it is used in the vernacular - but I still don't get it. How can the word "flat" be related to three (or four?) dimensions? When you say "It simply means that it is not bound by any sort of curvature", what does that mean? How can anything be bound by a curvature? By "bound", I presume you are referring to a boundary? If this is true, then the only way I can see of it being bound by a curvature would be if that curvature wrapped around to its point of origin, like a great circle on a sphere. Is a saddle defined as being flat or not? It has curvature, but it isn't bound by it. Or is it bound by it if you project the plane of the saddle far enough in all directions?

@calihawa

8 жыл бұрын

+George Mason If the space is not curved and folds back and Big Bang happened then there should be center of Universe.

@TonecrafteLuthiery

8 жыл бұрын

Mike Collins I typed a rely to you about a week ago, and just realized upon reading a reply from another user that my reply to you never got posted. Sorry about that. I'm going to retype it here, but it will be a pretty long post. I'll keep it as simply as possible, but it is afterall a pretty difficult field of study to understand. You asked, "How can the word flat be related to three (or four?) dimensions? How can anything be bound by curvature? By "bound", I presume you are referring to a boundry?". To answer those I first have to explain what I meant by "bound by any sort of curvature", which I realize I should have been more clear about. When I say, "bound by curvature" I am referring to the other 2 options for the "shape" of the universe. Our universe is geometrically flat, meaning that we do not have enough mass in a small enough space for our universe to have a gravitational boundry (referring strictly to a closed universe at this point). If our universe expanded a bit more slowly, and had a lot more mass, gravity would have curved space time back in on itself so that if we could see the fabric of space time, we would see a massive sphere (though the universe is so big that we couldn't actually see it, much like being on the surface of the Earth). The most common explaination of a closed universe is as follows; In a closed universe if you look far enough in one direction, you will be able to see the back of your head because the light from the back of your head is curved by the shape of the universe as it travels through space. Of course, you would have to wait who knows how many light years for that light to travel across the span of the universe and make it into the eye of your telescope, but you get the metaphor. Another key characteristic of a closed universe is that a triangle drawn over a large section of space will have combined angles of greater than 180° as geometry dictates because space itself is curved along the lines you are drawing between stars. Imagine a triangle drawn on the surface of a sphere. A closed universe has positive universal spacial curvature. Here is a diagram that accurately depicts what I am describing. The diagram on the top is a closed universe, the center is an open universe, and the bottom is a flat universe. wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/990006/990006_2048.jpg An open universe is much more difficult to understand because it is both infinite, yet space is still universally curved. No shape I can explain to you would accurately describe the shape of an open universe, and perhaps that is centric to the predicament of an open universe in itself. It is infinite, and therefore very difficult if not impossible to understand. I've heard the shape described as an inverted sphere or even as the opposite of a sphere. An open universe is more of a mathematical principal than a comprehensible geometric shape at this point. The inverted sphere analogy does make sense in a certain, almost philosophical way however. A sphere (a closed universe) is defined by its boundry. It is what the universe would be if gravity (mostly from dark matter) won it's battle against dark energy, and stopped the expansion of the universe. The shape of that universe (and when I say universe I mean the fabric of space itself in every reference) that stopped expanding and eventually started collapsing would be a sphere, and so to imagine the opposite would be to imagine infinity. The opposite of a finite sphere is an infinite, anti-sphere (for lack of a better word). Remember I told you that the combined angles of a traingle drawn between stars in a closed universe would be greater than 180°, like drawing a triangle on the surface of a sphere? Now we have to imagine the opposite. Our triangle's angles would combine to be less than 180°, like drawing a triangle on a piece of paper bent in the way shown in the diagram. An open universe has negative universal spacial curvature, the opposite of the closed universe's positive spacial curvature. And finally we reach our universe. We have no universal spacial curvature. There is simply not enough mass to have stopped the expansion of the universe and caused space itself, as a whole, to curve back in on itself. Nor do we have negative curvature like we would see in an open universe. When we draw a triangle between stars the combined angles are equal to 180°. So to quickly answer your question about being "bound by curvature", in a closed universe there are certainly boundries, so your literal definition fits. In an open universe, by description may not fit the very specific definition provided, but space is still universally curved. In that sense I use the word bound for lack of a better word, simply meaning that the shape of space itself is dictated by negative curvature. In the universe we have, there is no universal curvature. In other words, it is not bound by it, or if you prefer, dictated by it. I hope that helped.

For everybody who is utterly confused. "Flat" means if you were a 4 dimensional being and you looked at the universe, you would see no curving. If you told a 2 dimensional being, it was flat to a three dimensional being, it would just not understand because it can't imagine another dimension. so, OF COURSE, our universe is not flat in a two dimensional sense. our three dimensional universe is not curved. and yes, nobody can imagine curved three dimensions because we have never seen it and will never be able to see it.

It simply means you won't come back to earth if you travel in a straight line to anywhere in the universe.

@whosyodaddy13

10 жыл бұрын

Finally, a commenter that gets it. I wish they would've just said this sentence in the video, because it sums up what they were getting at greatly and clears up any confusion.

@princesslemmy

3 жыл бұрын

Ya. Tho you might due to the impossibility of staying still whe you enter this place near a black hole. Besides pull from stars and planets and black holes and the theoretical worm holes would kill you long before you could anyway. But ignoring that the pull will pull you ofcorse no matter your ship. But yea I see what you mean

@edwardfestor8726

3 жыл бұрын

Sounds good to me. Where do I sign up?

I think i understand and would like to explain to people what they mean when they say its flat. It's not describing the shape of the universe in the way you understand shapes to be, but the geometry of travelling from one point to another. If the universe was curved in some way it means that you would start at point A and travelling in what was seemingly a straight line away from point A that you would in fact be travelling along a curved path. In effect you would cover a circle in space and come right back to point A again eventually. What they mean is that this does not happen. You travel away from point A and you do not get back to point A instead getting further and further away from it. It means that the Universe does not join back up with itself like a sphere does for example and that it goes on infinitely in all directions on a flat plane. What it does not mean is that Space is a 2D flat plane as this would obviously be silly and quite clearly untrue. Please note that when the term "curvature of space" is used it is in context of objects interfering with space being flat. Space is flat but objects in space can cause curvature of Space due to gravity. This is why it is possible to see light behind an object due to the curvature caused by the gravity of that object. I may be wrong in my explanations, this is just what I have understood from it all from watching various things. It would be good for someone to confirm if I have understood correctly. But if you dispute it please do so in lamens terms making everything as simple as possible.

@BattleBunny1979

8 жыл бұрын

+Warren Smith I wish more people read your comment. It would eliminate all the " so the universe is a pancake" kinda stuff.

@prateekg8043

2 жыл бұрын

So, I’m wondering if I’m understanding this right. Does this mean the universe is flat in all observable three dimensions, and thereby quite possibly infinite?

Omg. The video is not arguing that the universe has only two dimension, it is saying that our three dimensional universe does not curve in on itself. And the big bang was not an explosion, it was an inflation at a geometric rate.

@psycronizer

8 жыл бұрын

+Tom Wolstoncroft yep, I've been reading this pathetic little to and fro and cant believe how childish some people can be....what is it about people who cant stand being corrected or insulted by a faceless,ineffectual opponent? what is the point in having a total all out slagging match if there are no solid facts on the subject anyway? pointless, pure lunacy..move on....

@bradebronson8835

8 жыл бұрын

+Tom Wolstoncroft Big Bang doesn't exist bro.... Thats laughable.

@computerchi

8 жыл бұрын

+psycronizer 👍

@psycronizer

8 жыл бұрын

+computerchi yes? what?

@nythepegasus

8 жыл бұрын

+Brade Bronson How doesn't the Big Bang exist?

i need to learn math

@princesslemmy

3 жыл бұрын

Same

superb channel, thank you!

Great videos and great channel. Found you today and subscribed!

Perhaps the universe only looks flat from our perspective, in the same way that your back yard looks flat even though it is on the surface of a round earth.

@mustachecrab9669

3 жыл бұрын

moses howard there’s a big difference between measuring heat and looking at your back yard.

@moseshoward7072

3 жыл бұрын

@@mustachecrab9669 What does your analogy about heat vs. your back yard mean? Do you mean that on the scale of your back yard the universe is flat but may have a curvature we cannot measure?

I think the scientists who did the intense observations and excruciating calculations to for this theory are entirely capable of realizing that "we aren't flat." So enough from the peanut gallery of youtube commenters

@coreydoyle4702

10 жыл бұрын

IKR? People who comment on here don't understand that there are actual trained scientists who use skills honed over 10+ years of education and experience to retrieve observable evidence from experiments, then use said evidence to construct theories which make sense of nature, and are tested over and over to reproduce equivalent results without error across the world by hundreds if not thousands of their colleagues (other scientists). Then there are KZread commenters who come by and take it upon themselves to challenge these theories. It's sad, pathetic, arrogant, and pretentious. I'm no scientist, but I don't pretend to be, I just enjoy learning the results of their labor. //Fin YT rant

@Dannys99887

10 жыл бұрын

Corey Doyle You're absolutely right! The people on here seem not to even understand what a scientific theory is, much less have the slightest conceptual grasp of the theory of cosmology. So we have the "sad, pathetic, arrogant, and pretentious" spectacle of non-scientists spouting "opinions" on the subject.....even offering their own "theories." Since people seem determined to behave like fools, rather than using this as a learning experience, it would probably be better to simply disable comments on scientific videos.

@enriquediaz6306

6 жыл бұрын

Corey Doyle Scientists don't know what happened 13.7 billion years ago, they're just bullshitting everyone- at taxpayer expense.

i’m just mesmerised by the animations and diagrams.

I love these vids guys. This is the first time anyone has ever explained to me hiw we know the "known universe" is flat. Thanks again

in an explosion (in this case the big bang), everything expands in all directions. if the universe is flat, what kept particals from going in all directions?

@Vivek10010

3 жыл бұрын

The big bang wasnt an explosion

@thebeast5215

3 жыл бұрын

It wasn’t explosion, it was inflation. And the answer for the non uniformity of the universe is something that is not yet known. However, this strange property is the reason stars exist, planets exist, and by extension, the reason we exist.

I always say that god is like gravity... simple but enigmatic. Our human consciousness is a gift of this universe, this reality and the only instrument (so far) that can register the existence of god. As much as science can take us to the time briefly after the big bang, without consciousness it would mean nothing. Space and time would still be, or would they?

@tomaszkantoch4426

8 жыл бұрын

+el scientifico God is nothing like gravity. You can experience gravity and demonstrate anytime. God is a human mind concept, an escape from reality.

It was very important lesson for me. Thanks

How do you determine that the speed of sound in the surface of last scattering is c/√3?

Flat = Infinite, not paper thin.

I feel like awkward asking this, but what does he mean when he says the universe is flat? When the video depicted the satellite mapping the Cosmic Microwave background, wasn't it mapping a 3-D Sphere?

@xSakijix

10 жыл бұрын

imagine you're at the center, inside of a cube. You take pictures of every possible direction, but the cube doesn't have solid walls, only space within and specs of matter here and there. The mapped image would seem seamless like a 3D-sphere, as you can't get a secondary perspective, we can't move our viewpoint. However, by the shown calculation we can track back, how the spatial deformation/divergence would have to be assuming various shapes of the universe. The "likely" conclusion is that the universe is flat, in the sense of a X-Y-Z space, a cube or a rectangle. If you move further away from your starting point, in a straight line, you end up increasingly distancing yourself from your origin, indefinitely. This means you wouldn't eventually end up going round across the whole universe reaching your starting point again, as it'd be the case with a circular universe.

@EkinOC1

10 жыл бұрын

If the universe is curved you would be able to began at one point go all the way around until you got back to the place you started. being flat means its infinite and endless.

@TN-pj5lk

10 жыл бұрын

I see what you mean, so the shape of space itself is euclidean, as opposed to spherical. See, my predicament arose when I assumed that 'flat' meant that we're living on a big disk.

@MystyrNile

10 жыл бұрын

Rather than living on a (2d) disk or a (3d) sphere, this video says that we probably live on a (4d) hypersphere, whose surface is 3 dimensional.

@MystyrNile

10 жыл бұрын

I'm sorry, i mean this video says we DON'T live on a hypersphere.

Just blew my mind!

V well done! Informative!

I think a lot of people are misunderstanding him. He's implying, again, that the universe is flat in SHAPE/SPACE not that everything and in everyone in it is flat like paper. Go back to 5:27. Compare to the "closed" shape as in the universe isn't in a closed ROUND/SPACE shape. Of course he doesn't mean extending in ONLY two dimensions. Open your mind a little. It's flat SHAPE but a three dimensional universe. Although, for all we know there is a fourth dimension.

@11vinni11

6 жыл бұрын

Ann Reaves there is a 4th...it’s time

It seems that everything Tony Darnell says in this video is correct, however he fails to explain what a flat universe is. The observable universe is obviously not "flat" because every point we scan with the WMAP is exactly the same distance away from us, that means clearly that it has a spherical shape, and he clearly shows that spherical shape. To give this whole presentation any meaning he should state what it means to have a "flat" universe. Scientists have defined a flat universe as a condition of the expansion rate of the universe and not its shape. A flat universe is a universe that has exactly the right amount of mass that provides the precise amount of gravitational force to slow down the expanding acceleration to zero, meaning that it will eventually expand at a constant speed. Zero acceleration on a speed versus time graph does show a flat horizontal line, that is where the term "flat" comes from.

@reiniertl

5 жыл бұрын

And there is where sometimes scientist screw up thing trying to sound fancy. It would be easier to say, that we live in a 3D universe that is expanding in all directions at a constant rate. Now you say it is flat and people will certainly think it is a disk. Then you have to explain what "flat" means when they should never label it in such a paradoxical way. Generalization not necessarily lead to better understanding.

How can u judge the with and length if some thing that has no end. Its expanding in all directions.

Just a thought, but I think that space can be all those three geometries, like a messy disturbed bubble full of 'mountains and valleys', but our scale prevent us to measure the real curvature of our place with precision, or maybe the curvatures itself are what gives determined area of space its 'constants'.

This should be titled "How do we know that space-time is flat?"

@thebeast5215

3 жыл бұрын

Agreed. I also feel like the consequences of flat, positive curvature, and negative curvature space time should have been explained in greater depth.

The Universe is flat, I hope it finds a helluva good push up bra.

@raffaele6143

9 жыл бұрын

This is my favorite comment

@brucemckay6937

6 жыл бұрын

Good one 😁🤣 Krunch.

question - if we look in any direction with a deep field capability wouldn't we always see a similar (but different) set of very remote and old galaxies? And if so then how that does that square with the Big Bang coming from a single point? There appear to be an infinite number of points, correct?

How do you determine that the 'flat' granularity of the CMB should have a resolution of 1º?

Why can't it be gravity that creates mass? We only know one is present with the other, right?

@pipsch12

10 жыл бұрын

you are right. it could be where gravtiy is there is mass. but would that change anything? nothing really because you can't say what comes first if they both start to exist simultaneously. actually, if you believe that gravity creates mass, you can think of gravity as god. it's a sweet thought. :)

@LuxiusDK

10 жыл бұрын

sam Well, if you see it in that order, you can then ask: what makes gravity?

@pipsch12

10 жыл бұрын

Christen Stephansen it doesn't matter because we can't answer "what makes mass" either. if you assume there is a finite amount of mass in the universe, you have a finite amount of gravity too. so nobody is adding gravity or mass, it's just a redistribution of mass/gravity. if you have an infinite universe, it doesn't matter either. we know the universe is expanding (or expands, considering that it might always do so). we know there is new space. do we know where that space is coming from? no. it must come from something, even is that something is nothing. what if gravity is just the natural type of energy that exists inifitely? i am just speculating. i just think it's a cool thought that you had.

@LuxiusDK

10 жыл бұрын

sam I hear you, all I am saying is that most people say mass has gravity, but stop speculating if mass is an effect of gravity, not the other way around. Unless you say they are co-dependent like black and white? Hm ... do we know?

@pipsch12

10 жыл бұрын

Christen Stephansen i think you don't mean black and white, but rather light and no light. but i don't think that describes gravity and mass correctly. of course, if you have gravity you will have spots where there is no gravity and therefore no mass. but it's not about something and the absence of something, but about something and something that automatically comes along with it. i can't think of a good example though except for mass and gravity itself xD

Um… flat in what sense? Surely not flat in a sense of extending in only two dimensions, right? Because space obviously does have at least three spatial dimensions. Taking that into considerations it is hard to imagine what we would encounter when reaching the boundaries of the universe. It seems childish to imagine we would run in some sort of invisible wall. I fell in love with an hypothesis that I once heard which goes roughly as follows: If we imagine a sphere it has three dimensions, but it's surface is two-dimensional and for any imaginary two-dimensional being that lives on it's surface it must seem infinite, because no matter which direction you go you can never reach an end. If we imagine a fourth spatial dimension (or even more) that we as humans cannot perceive, then the universe just might be the three-dimensional surface of a four-dimensional hypersphere. Of course that hypotheses is impossible to back up with evidence at this point, though some astrophysicists have been doing the math, so theoretically it at least seems plausible. But who knows, considering we can't ever possibly perceive more than three (spatial) dimensions we will probably never know. But it makes so much more sense to me than a finite three-dimensional flat-ish ellipsoid.

@UncraftedName

10 жыл бұрын

flat in the sense of three dimensions, because if there is a 4th dimension, (don't argue with me on this one, we can't prove that yet) then just like in your sphere hypothesis, the 3-dimensional fabric of space can stretch in to the 4th dimension (assuming that the 4th dimension isn't time)

@kentfletcher7532

10 жыл бұрын

Uncrafted MC But the 4th dimension IS time. Relativity makes it an integral part to the equation.... that's why they don't call it just "space"... they call it "space-time".

@haiggoh

10 жыл бұрын

Kent Fletcher Apparently there is a quite widespread hypothesis that time is not different from the other dimensions but actually a fourth spatial dimension with the only difference being, that we don't perceive it as spatial because otherwise our brains couldn't comprehend it. They explain this idea in a video called "Imagining the 4th dimension"

@TheMaveriker

10 жыл бұрын

haiggoh In "Imagining the 4th Dimension," he clearly shows that the 4th dimension IS time and IS NOT a spatial dimension. Go back and watch it again.

@haiggoh

10 жыл бұрын

TheMaveriker Yeah this was hard to understand for me at first because the graphical representation did show hypercubes etc, so a fourth spatial dimension. That being said, as I understand it now, time and space are one and the same, it's just that we perceive time as a succession of "planck frames" but actually time can be visualized as the same way the other three dimensions are

This is the first clear explanation I've seen for why scientists know that the Universe is flat. Thanks.

This explanation made things very clear for the flat universe, but I am having trouble wrapping my head around if and how this ties in with the "light cone" ... well, "shape" for lack of better word. Can you explain this for me since you seem to have a very good grasp of this subject?

+Farbod J Actually, yes, the energy you use in neural function and the chemicals, that matter, that produce the hormonal changes and enter your bloodstream to give you the 'feeling' of an emotion, and the energy used in that whole process... is quantifiable and has a definite mass. So technically, you're incorrect to my understand. Thought and feeling has mass, since they're real things made of energy. Even your thoughts can be measured in this way... Though there's not really a reason to do that yet, that I know of.

It makes you wonder... what if the Universe is so incomprehensibly big, maybe infinite, that in fact is a minuscule system, in a truly giant "world". A very good comparison would be the movie " Horton hears a who".

excuse me if im asking a stupid question but i have very little idea about phisics.. wouldnt the pictures we have of the universe influence those calculaions to "mistakenly" think its flat? i experience daily a non flat universe and it makes it hard to belive :P also Galileo

@JeraWolfe

10 жыл бұрын

I been wondering if perspective could throw us off, as well, but I'm still trying to understand the concepts.

@81dnomyar

10 жыл бұрын

yea, i was thinking that no matter how many pictures we take, unless we know the exact distance of the things we are mesuring, it will always come out flat. i belive the universe is flat, but i don't think it can be proved by taking pictures.

@JeraWolfe

10 жыл бұрын

We have some pretty solid methods for determining the distance of things far away. Before the advent of telescopes or even the trip there, we had worked out the distance to the moon and the earth's circumferance using Trig and two deep holes filled with water (wells). galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/gkastr1.html

@81dnomyar

10 жыл бұрын

hmm. yea. and it would make since for us to also specifically choose things that we "know" the distance of.

It's a long-known fact that the speed of light changes depending on the medium it is travelling through. The most often quoted speed is always "in a vacuum". The speed of light is slower in glass (50 to 90% as compared to a vacuum). Since space is mostly vacuum light travels at its maximum speed most of time.

On your next vid please make "How Do We Know God Doesn't Exist?" ~puts up flame shield~

@Shorty15c4007

9 жыл бұрын

Religious fanatic uses Flame Thrower! -It isn't effective.

@FrederikFalk21

9 жыл бұрын

Thing is, we don't :p

@Shorty15c4007

9 жыл бұрын

Frederik Falk ISIS did with that pilot last month.

@FrederikFalk21

9 жыл бұрын

UberTech What? :o I was replying to OP, not you

@Shorty15c4007

9 жыл бұрын

Frederik Falk Lol Oops

"We do NOT "know" the geometrics of the Universe".

@live4christ295

9 жыл бұрын

lol THERE IS NO UNIVERSE. THIS IS PAGAN RELIGION, WORSHIPPING THE SUN gODS. HAVE A MIND OF YOUR OWN. IT MAKES NO LOGICAL SENSE AND YU STILL EAT IT UP. KEEP IN MIND THIS IS THE SAME UNIVERSE THAT NASA TRAVELS IN. AND THEY CAN ONLY SHOW YOU GRAINY PICS WITH ALL THISE SATELLITES UP THEIR? OPEN YOUR EYES. WHAT ARE THEY HIDING? THEIR HIDING A FACT. tHE FACT OF God.

@jamieenglish1681

9 жыл бұрын

Shory Garrison 'have a mind of your own' yet your rambling about a 'god' that you read about in book written a few thousand years ago? A bit ironic I think.

@live4christ295

9 жыл бұрын

Jamie Carter Im speaking of a God that not onl is described in a book, but is real and comforts me more than any decive or piece of technology can. Some people are only open to believeing in the supernatural just s long as it fits their needs and desires. God speaks to me daily, and I hear Him because He is my shepard. Im just a messenger here to spread the gospel, Im not telling you how evil and wrong you are in my sight, so change or be punished! lol It really doesn't matter what manner I tell the story of Christ in, because as soon as people see anything resembling a believer, they attack. Why is I that Im the bad guy here? Have I been disrepecful to the thread and the policies of KZread? No. Have I offended anyone personally or attacked anyones character? No. I simply state that I am a follower of Jesus Christ, and people came out of the wood works to bash and try hurting me with words. Im not crying about it at all, God has prepared me for the spiritual warfare that we are currently in. You did not at all offend me but Im just telling you my side of the story. If someone where to see the replies Ive gotten without knowing the content of the conversation, they would think Im a cyber terrorist threatening peoples lives lol Its the same way they masses did Jesus when He walked the earth, and exactly what he said would happen if you follow Him in this day and age. Pretty ironic indeed

@jamieenglish1681

9 жыл бұрын

Shory Garrison if you think jesus speaks to you, what sort of things does he say to you? Does he speak English? Or is it a form of non language? A language of creation I wonder? And iam not being sarcastic, iam just interested in what you are saying. I do not believe in Christianity, but I do believe that something had to have started the big bang, or however it all started, in my mind needs to have a cause. Simply saying 'god did it' or 'god as always been infinite' really doesn't hold much weight atall. But still I believe something set of the universe, but no offence I don't believe a jew from the middle east held the awnsers. When I pray, which I do, I don't speak to jesus I speak and talk to the universe. I have no ill feeling towards you, or anybody else, and I respect what makes you feel comfortable, but for me jesus and Christianity do nothing to help me feel comfortable. Thanks 

@gerrynightingale9045

9 жыл бұрын

I wonder why this 'tripe' is coming up on my "G+?"

Very well made video, but if gravity is a secondary force to the electromagnetic force we would have to rethink everything! Would it not be logical that electromagnetism and the gravitational force are part of one universal process both sharing the inverse square law that keeps the Universe to perfect balance or flat?

@peterbonnema8913

9 жыл бұрын

The electromagnetic force does not take part in shaping the universe at a large scale like gravity does. That's because matter (atoms) has no charge.

One thing I have always wondered, what does it look like what the star being "drained" by a neutron star or blackhole look like when it goes nova or supernova?

3:47 “1 That covers the entire universe (triangle)” he must be part of the *Illuminati*

If you have mass you have gravity? According to minutephysics, you have gravity if you have energy, which is why light can be attracted by gravity.

@METAL1ON

10 жыл бұрын

Tell that to a blackhole.

@MystyrNile

10 жыл бұрын

I tried that once but then i got sent to another universe: this one.

@Unluckydisires

10 жыл бұрын

Mass is energy, in case you forgot. (e = mc^2)

@diegofernandez-salvador1132

9 жыл бұрын

Anything that interacts with the Higgs Field has mass and thus has a gravitational attraction. Gravity bends space, which causes light's direction to bend and change course.

@Consrignrant

5 жыл бұрын

+Diego.............Mass bends space, not gravity.

What does it turn into if you keep overlaying it?

It took a while for me to imagine this concept, but what helped me is if you imagine throwing out a few large triangles on 2D 'slices' of space from your position in space. And, then stepping out into a grand 3rd person point of view and describe what each of those 2D triangles would look like. If those triangles would appear to bulge out then it would indicate that space has some natural negative curvature not being caused by gravity or mass. Or if that triangle looked like it was being caved in, then space would have some natural positive curvature not being caused by gravity or mass. I guess according to modern science there is no natural curvature in space unless you through a red giant star out there somewhere....which it then would bend your 'space triangle' inward causing positive curvature.

If the universe isn't infinite like we learned in preschool, then what is outside of it? Just empty space? Or is our universe like one huge galaxy in space and there are other universes? So many questions...

@robby5267g

8 жыл бұрын

+Hurr Durr It's expanding so fast you cannot get to the edge of it

@krmnfc

8 жыл бұрын

+robby5267 but if it is expandig it has the egde, right?

@urekmazino6519

8 жыл бұрын

If the universe is infinite, it has no edge. That's the definition of infinite. If it is finite, well then its best to watch a debate among the leading minds in regards to theories about space, and the universe. But the evidence of the research points towards an infinite universe. We're limited to seeing the observable universe. The observable universe is basically like if you had a sphere, we're at the center of this sphere. You put it in a never ending ocean. The ocean is the actual universe in this analogy. Our range of observation is the radius of the sphere we're in. This analogy of course isn't perfect as the "ocean" would be expanding in all directions, and our sphere is purely an observational range, not a physical boundary. meaning even objects that we can currently see can in the future disappear from our range of detection as their distance becomes too great and their light takes longer and longer to reach us. I think people often think of an edge to the universe because they picture something like a balloon that's expanding. And a balloon has a surface. Or because terms like Observable universe are, just as I previously described it, a sphere. Which is an object with an outer surface. But keep this in mind. We're trying to describe literally the biggest thing, and we're using analogies of house hold objects and marbles in water... Because that's all we can relate to. That's what our learning methods are like. It's our analogies that are limited. If I had to come up with a new analogy I'd say: Picture a sphere or balloon that is getting bigger and bigger at a faster and faster rate. Now picture that without its outer surface. What do you call this shape or object? I don't know. That's the universe.

@magister.mortran

5 жыл бұрын

The video answers just that. If the universe is absolute flat, it is infinite. A finite universe would have to be curved in some way.

This video is misleading, he is talking about OBSERVABLE universe. The whole universe might be so big that even if the whole universe is curved, the curvature doesn't show on such a "small" scale than observable universe.

@nblax41

8 жыл бұрын

+Timo Aun We don't need to see the whole thing. The cosmological principle tells us that the universe is homogeneous and thus looks the same everywhere. We only need our observable universe to tell us everything about all of it.

@timo4258

8 жыл бұрын

nblax41 Not if our observable universe is too small for a curvature to show. The homogeneity (spelling?) is about the structure of the universe, isn't it?

@nblax41

8 жыл бұрын

Timo Aun Which includes whether or not it's flat. That's structure. The universe is the same everywhere. Looks the same, has the same amount of energy, information, whatever metric you want to use or thing you want to look for. We can measure it using our small observable section, make no mistake. Astronomers and physicists are pretty smart people.

@timo4258

8 жыл бұрын

+nblax41 No, it includes how matter is spread across the universe and what structures baryonic matter forms. Curvature is not part of the structure.

@a64738

8 жыл бұрын

+Timo Aun If we believe this universe we live in started with the big bang, that would make big bang the center of the universe and the universe is basically expanding much like a supernova (with the term universe I mean all matter including what is beyond the horizon of what we can see because of the limited speed of light). The part of universe we can observe would be just a tiny part of it and it can be hard to determine where we actually are located in relation to where the big bang started. If the part of universe we can see looks flat to us from our perspective that could mean we are the "surface" of the supernova like explotion, much like being on the surface of an expanding balloon and the part we can see would look relatively flat. The reality of it is that we actually know little about how the universe looks like but the cosmologist like to give the impression that they know more then they actually know...

Thank you science for enlightening us.

thx 4 uploading.

One time we thought the Earth was flat and found out it wasn't. Some time passes and we decide the whole universe is flat. My god people are stupid.

@culwin

10 жыл бұрын

Good thing we have smart guys like you to set us straight.

@billyblanks9250

10 жыл бұрын

It's stupid, period.

@BasicShapes

10 жыл бұрын

slartie42 He never said there weren't people before Christopher Columbus who thought the earth was flat. His comment doesn't imply that he's falling for any myth, either. He's merely comparing the viewpoints expressed in this video to the viewpoints commonly expressed right before Columbus's voyage.

@culwin

10 жыл бұрын

Yeah he's wrong about those viewpoints. Most people didn't think the Earth was flat. He's also wrong about what scientists think about the universe and why. He's a loudmouth know-nothing.

@rcchristian2

5 жыл бұрын

It's possible that the universe is so large, much larger than we think it is, that it's actually not flat, but curved. So large in fact, just like the explorers who first set off on earth, thought they could travel in one direction forever or fall off an edge... but we eventually found, we would come back to where we started because the earth was curved. The universe could be so large ... that even with the largest triangles, made from the very light from the beginnings and edges of our visible horizon, is just way too small, so that the universe appears flat. That would mean the universe is much more larger than we could ever imagine.

I still don't get why we use the term "flat". I tend to think of it as infinite, and to me that means there is no shape. If it had a shape, that would imply that there are "walls" or some type of outer limit, but there are none (assuming the universe is in fact infinite). So with this theory, why can't we just say it is an endless amount of 3D space without shape? All this crap about parallel lines and triangles would still apply in that case, wouldn't it?

@BackInTheLab2011

9 жыл бұрын

***** They KNOW it's infinite. That's why they keep RENORMALIZING it...LOL!!!

@SpriteBat

9 жыл бұрын

***** That's another thing I'm confused about. Is the vacuum of space actually expanding, or is physical matter just spreading out? If a group of people are standing close together in a room, and then they start spreading out over time, that doesn't mean the room is expanding.

@DeathToTheDictators

6 жыл бұрын

they should use the word 'straight', not flat...space is 3d, but flat implies 2d. Scientists are good at figuring stuff out, not so good at describing it well.

@magister.mortran

5 жыл бұрын

Gadgets7777777, did you not watch the video? This is exactly what they proved. It is not curved. The empirical evidence shows that the universe is infinite in size. Your theory about a warped universe has been falsified by the observation described in the video.

Why the egg shape to the cosmic microrave background map instead of a circle?

@Nehmo

8 жыл бұрын

+Mekratrig - That part I understand. It's just a representation of a sphere's surface (the inside surface of a sphere), like a Mollweide (= elliptical = Babinet = homolographic) map projection of the world.

LOL. Science is funny. Was time dilation considered in the equation. Sense the universe is expanding? Is the expansion always the same? How do we measure the time dilation? Just asking. Thanks.

@user-gv6rs3yt8p

9 жыл бұрын

From what i understand, the universe is like a torus spiral, so from our perspective it appears to be expanding when we exit one way but when we come back around and approach the center again it appears to be contracting, which makes sense. This was the testimony of 11LAVETTE11 here on yt, who died and was shown by a being, what she was told was the heart of God which was this universe,a torus spiral. Just food for thought :)

@lennysmileyface

9 жыл бұрын

Naked Eyez lol what a bullshit story. Someone's anecdote.

@user-gv6rs3yt8p

9 жыл бұрын

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) could be :)

In 400 years people will be like: "Haha, to think the people in the 21st century believed the universe was flat, how ridiculus!"

@Commievn

9 жыл бұрын

haahahah! you could be right, and who know ? 2000 years later and Einstein could be considered as a delusional dat speculated lies like those who written the Bible & Qu'ran lol.

@Flyingtart

9 жыл бұрын

***** No reason to believe in it really, because there is no proof the Qu'ran was sent by god. If it was sent from god, he should have included detailed explainations on science and concrete thing that could help humanity instead of mumbo jumbo suspiciously reflecting the knowledge and morals of the ancient middle east.

@nakyer

9 жыл бұрын

***** Mariam? Could I ask a very simple question? WHAT IN THE WORLD DOES THE WORD "WAUSE" MEAN? It's not English, of that I'm pretty sure.

@Peterwhitlock

6 жыл бұрын

correct it is clearly visible as a sphere expanding from an event... what kind of idiot comes out with singularity then lies it is flat? that is what they have to do!!!! the big bang was no flat and so nothing after is ether... plain and simple to know... ever see a collision of stars? it is still a a sphere in the end and the more far the jets go the more they connect to the event and form a sphere... so Universe is shame shape as when it started just bigger and that is sphere a ball a LOT like a nuclear detonation first shape! We have that and know what shape it is and it is NOT flat! flat is sort of insulting to the intelligence of everyone!

@stefantheconqueror8710

6 жыл бұрын

Brock McClain Whoa now buddy slow down XD

Flat geometry is defined as one with a zero Riemann-Christoffel tensor. But that's too difficult for Americans to understand, so flat to them means 6-pack abs.

@theultimatereductionist7592

5 жыл бұрын

It's too difficult for cuntservatards to understand. Don't be bigoted against Americans.

I don't understamd how we could determine the shape with a triangle. yes from a 4d perspective the angle would be different than 180deg if the universe isnt flat, but wouldnt it always look 180 to us no matter the shape because the light and ourselves would curve with the universe? for example, if a 2d flatlander flashed a light along his tightly curved universe, the light from his perspective would just go straight right?

This guys voice is aaaawesome!

How can the universe be flat if space is three-dimensional? And if its flat then whats around it?

@StrangerrDanger

9 жыл бұрын

jason mathias It's flat on the surface. If you look at a cloth resting on a balloon vs a paper vs a horse saddle, the triangle area they use to measure the angles is one dimensional. Thus the flat is from one surface of thee-dimensional space, like a cube i guess.

@jasonmathias5343

9 жыл бұрын

Nikhil H I'm having a hard time visualizing that.

@stephenkillingsworth174

9 жыл бұрын

It's far too complicated for me to explain well but it's not flat like a pancake (I hear this comparison made a lot) but more that light moves in straight lines

@benjaminsmith2698

9 жыл бұрын

***** But the surface of a balloon is not flat.

@lillillill9758

9 жыл бұрын

jason mathias It's like a mirror.

Universe is not flat, There are 3 dimensions. We can travel up, down, and side to side. You cannot travel up or down in a flat surface

@KinguCooky

10 жыл бұрын

"You...prat at the back...have you been listening?" "Not really, Sir, no. Does it show?"

@Spurrr

10 жыл бұрын

***** Sarcasm much?

@Spurrr

10 жыл бұрын

yea

@Dannys99887

10 жыл бұрын

***** Not quite sure what's the sarcasm and what's about science here. "Flat" is a term from geometry. A better term is "Euclidean." "Euclidean," in the context of a universe with three spatial dimensions, refers to the behavior of light. Parallel light beams remain parallel across a Euclidean universe, and the included angles of a cosmic-sized triangle of light beams total 180 degrees. A universe with such large-scale topology is infinite and without a boundary, and it's infinite in three spatial dimensions. Yes....FLAT is simply a terrible term to use to describe the behavior of light in a three dimensional universe, but you hear it all the time.

@bomber9912

10 жыл бұрын

no everything wrong ^^ actually the universe doesnt have a shape because theres nothing beyond it. in fact the universe cant be compared to a geometrical object. Every point of the universe is the middle of the universe.

i never get this videos completely. can some one recommend some good book or some thing

How far does space go out?mater might be ever expanding but what about space? Is it infinite in a way we're it loops it's self, or is it expanding? Maybe it's doing both? But if it's doing both that means more space is being created how dat work?

@nacho74

9 жыл бұрын

because it is flat ,it means either an infinitely large universe ( what i suggest) or a hypertorus like shape. But even if the second one should be true,then the universe is contained inside a hypersphere which means it is embedded inside an infinetly large space somehow. In the infinite model of the universe ,space can expand inside itself.

If the universe is flat, what would happen if we could go "up"?

@540iDavid

9 жыл бұрын

It is not paper flat, it is a retangle-type flat if you kind of get what I mean. A 3d flat, not a 2D one

@nirshalmon1646

9 жыл бұрын

Viral Pyro I think he is asking about a 4D(or more) up.

@Heulerado

9 жыл бұрын

Not necessary that it's flat. What would happen if we went to the center of the sphere? or left the saddle? (assuming it's not time travel)

@EebstertheGreat

9 жыл бұрын

Gravity represents a curvature of 4-dimensional spacetime. Note that this 4D bulk is not curving "into" any larger space (although one could construct flat representations in 5-space), it simply follows a different geometry than we are used to. To say that the "universe is flat" in a global sense is to say that the mean curvature of the universe is very close to 0, if not exactly 0. But locally, space is NOT flat. While it is very nearly flat in "ordinary" conditions, if you are very close to an extremely dense object, space is not even close to flat, and even a moderate distance from a moderately massive object, it is not exactly flat.

@live4christ295

9 жыл бұрын

EebstertheGreat Everyting youv been taught is a lie. How did they get it over on you? God bless

We used to make calculations the best we could before and found the earth to be flat too.

@Devilofdoom

9 жыл бұрын

People have know the earth was round since at least the time of the ancient Greeks who made the observation that the bottom of a ship disappears over the horizon before it's sails. The whole people used to think the earth is flat thing is a myth. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

@live4christ295

9 жыл бұрын

Devilofdoom Lol You people have been pulled so far from the truth its not even funny. Now, with this way of thinking, ma probably made himself and come back in time to do it sooner...the only truth is God. Open a Bible and prove it wrong if you don't believe me. Satan has taken the Bible and exiled it from our society for this purpose. If you believe in NASA being in space, then this is the beginning of more to come from you NASA friends. Itll be aliens next.

@live4christ295

9 жыл бұрын

Devilofdoom What proof do you have that the earth isn't flat? Im just curious

@Devilofdoom

9 жыл бұрын

The bottom of an object dissapears over the horizon before the top. There are pictures of earth from space. You can loop around it. Stars are different depending on wereabouts on the planet you are. Every other planet in the solar system is round. Are you getting it yet?

@hplovehandle

6 жыл бұрын

Thick. As. Shit.

in a tight enough space that it is regularly bumping into other gas particles. The gases being discussed in an interstellar medium that eventually condense to form stars do not start out at a sufficient density for the particles to bump into each other that regularly. Simply put they are not at sufficient density to generate very much outward pressure. There are enough of them, however, to generate a very large center of mass to which they are bound. When figuring out how gas particles are

Great video. Anyone that wants a great book on this, and more, read Lawrence Krauss, A Universe From Nothing! He covers lot's of the historical events leading up to this conclusion of flatness, and history of discovery of big bang since Hubble. Great read.

You summed it up!

If a map of the density of matter of the areas of the observable universe is made from light, how are black holes accounted for? How can a part of the map that shows little matter be proven to have little matter instead of a black hole keeping all light from spreading from that location?

I was debating with myself about the universe and containers. From our perspective, we seem to put everything into containers. We pour water into a glass. We live in a city, which is in a country. We're in the world and our word is in a salary system. Our galaxy is in the universe... what about the universe? Am I being biased because, from my perspective, everything seems to be in something? However, can it be possible that everything that existence, that's the universe, is not in something? This having been said, the concept of infinity becomes irrelevant. In fact, if the universe is all that exist, all that exist cannot be infinity... can it? Wow, I love this!

@nblax41

8 жыл бұрын

+Noe J Nava If we accept that the universe is infinite, then asking what it's expanding into makes no sense. It's like asking how many oranges I can get by smashing an apple with a hammer. There is nothing outside of it, there can't be. There is no edge or ending. Expansion is being driven by dark energy being created and occupying it's own space in spacetime. Think of it like this, if you add 1 to infinity, you don;t get infinity+1, it remains infinity.The universe began at a finite point and time, but so does infinity, so there's no contradiction in saying the universe is infinite even if it has a measurable age right now.

@josephmarlin9827

8 жыл бұрын

+Noe J Nava Imagine that the universe is like a stage of pacman. If you start off in the middle of the screen and go up, you'll eventually come back around the bottom of the screen and end up where you began. In that way, the size of the level is finite, however it has no bounding edges. That's the currently most accepted model of the universe, and as such the universe is both finite, but endless. I felt the same way you did when I was younger in that I felt like everything must have a container, but the important thing to realize is that something 'seeming right; has no bearing on whether or not it is, in fact, true.

@charlesbarr3437

8 жыл бұрын

like we are just a particle in an atom in a molecule and so on...

at the very beginning, exactly the :45 mark, it asks: "Why does Gravity only Pull". I've seen other videos trying to explain Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, and in the last one I saw it says Einstein discovered that Gravity does not pull, but is a Pushing force. Which is telling the truth? It says it is a Pushing force, and that is what causes objects of mass to bend and warp the spacetime around it. So Pushing force, or Pulling force? Seems to make more sense as a Pushing force.

@ThazRuler

7 жыл бұрын

Actually gravity is not a ''force''. It's just the bending of space and time. The newtonian way of thinking about gravity sees it as a force, but we all know that this model doesn't exactly represent reality.

That's a weird question, obviously time only makes sense to our work if viewed from our perspective. It's as old as we calculate it to be from our relative point in time/space. Why is that confusing to you? I suppose we could calculate it's age from another point where time "ticks" differently, but how would that help our continuing research?

Liddle et. al published a riveting paper ("Cosmic Microwave Background Anomalies in an Open Universe") with the APS recently on the possibility of the Universe having negative curvature - albeit with a very large radius of curvature.

That would be weird if the axis on the CMB lined up with Earth in someway. Then couple that with Hubbles initial observation of the expansion of fleeting galaxies moving outward from the position of the earth and you get the idea that the earth is at or near the center of the entire universe. Assuming you're free of bias of course and atheistic presupposition

Doesn’t the universe extend infinitely in all directions? And if so if there was a beginning or a big bang as many people say where are we on earth in the timeline of that big bang? In other words where is the center of the big bang where did it start?

what many people don't understand regarding the big-bang is that it is NOT an explosion of matter INTO space. It is an explosion of SPACE-TIME from NOTHING. The term space-time is the preferred description because space & time are highly coupled in a very peculiar way. This is the topic of Special Relativity. Matter condensed within this space-time (think of matter as raisins in raisin bread with the bread being space-time). When we talk about a 'perfect vacuum,' we are referring to space-time which is devoid of matter. Nevertheless, that apace-time volume is not "nothing." empty space-time is "something." Furthermore, even a theoretical vacuum has particles that come into existence and then disappear. They are called virtual particles, but they do exist - even in a 'perfect vacuum.' This is a topic of Quantum Mechanics. Finally, we have this video. This video is a topic of General Relativity (GR). The three curvatures (Positive, Flat, Negative) are solutions to the Einstein Field equations. All three are allowed, but experiments are looking like space-time is indeed flat. But we still aren't certain. What we do know is that space-time continues to stretch and it is doing so at an accelerated rate. The raisin-bread is getting bigger.

@tholc21

9 жыл бұрын

***** I'll never look at raisin bread the same

@ZoeTheCat

8 жыл бұрын

me1970 Good question. My own personal opinion is that all of our known conservation laws will not be violated. We might discover new mechanisms for changes of State, but they will still obey our known laws. An example might be matter & anti-matter. Anti-matter is not theoretical - it really does exist. an electron/positron pair annihilate and all conservation laws are obeyed. I don't think our local universe began from absolutely nothing. I think the Energy was there, but in a different State.. I say "local universe" because I believe our observable universe may be only one of an infinite set (think infinite sponge). I believe there is something in the voids of space-time. Until we figure out what DE/DM are, we won't understand it completely. When I stated NOTHING in the OP, I was referring to "No Space-Time." But it might have been a change of State from something else - possibly DE/DM. String theory suggests that BB may be initiated by the collision of two Branes (Brane Cosmology). The 2nd law of thermodynamics talks about Entropy. Entropy is a statistical measurement of randomness. I seriously doubt this "law" is ever violated.

@theuncalledfor

8 жыл бұрын

***** Some scientists have kind of a skewed definition of the word "nothing". What they really mean is a thing or set of things that is/are so far removed from anything we understand that we have no words for it. They don't literally mean "no thing".

@ZoeTheCat

8 жыл бұрын

theuncalledfor The classic notion is: "Nature abhors a vacuum." (especially Hoovers - they figuratively suck, but literally...don't suck ;-) The better way to say it is: "Nature abhors "Nothing"

How do you think we discovered that time ticks at different rates? If we know it does this, then it's not hard to figure that we could compensate for that and determine the true age, or at least get close to the true age.

yeah i understand that there is no physical edge,my comment was sort of a retorical question. its fun to think about these things because they will seriously blow your mind cause we are too insignificant in the scale of the universe to comprehend the reality beyond our own solar system! have a nice day my friend :)

Everytime i think about the border of the universe my mind blows up! damn!

I always thought that the positive curvature is necessary for the universal expansion into itself, rather than the flat universe that is expanding into something else with more dimentions. Am i right? Or the universe can expand into itself without being flatly curved?

How many times do I need to go through this? It doesn't require a leap of faith. What makes you think it does?

Very impressive.

the thing is the explanation, about gas is on the NASA website, on how stars are formed, and stars burn hydrogen, and stars are formed in giant gas nebulae, affectionately called stellar nurseries which contain gasses and heavier elements.

The universe is much longer in the length and width dimensions?

If the universe is expanding in all directions(or maybe it isn't?) If it is, how can it be flat? Also what is the universe expanding into?

The Cosmic Microwave Background is not randomly spread, it's carefully divided into cold and hot regions, that's according to Planck , a major discovery that's still ignored by scientists.

@alexluke6665

6 жыл бұрын

It isn't, its uniform to 1 part in 10^5. It is incredibly uniform, and the deviations are minute.

I don't understand, if there was a big bang why isnt the universe expanding in spherical shape? The unierse is muh farther in the length and width dimensions?

what are you on about buddy? there is no friction/air resistance in space so when things get moved they carry on moving via their own inertia until a countervailing force force is applied (in this case its the gravitational forces between collections of gas molecules attracting each other with greater force as more molecules are added to the 'collective') i only said it was 'nudged' by solar winds as that's the only thing rolling about in space, with too much force the molecules would disperse

What if it has no particulair shape, but is expanded by light?

I think even 13.7 billion light years is very small distance relatively with the universe that when we measure with respect to it, we find it straight line

solid spherical body of particles. The farther out you get from the center the more area of particles is acting to attract you to a common center and the closer you are to the center the more the mass of particles around you is acting to nullify any gravity of the core. This means for particles within a certain radius of the core of a gas cloud with enough mass the path of least resistance is to fall towards the common center of mass, while particles outside said radius will likely disperse.

Wait, if there was an accuracy of 15% and an error of 2% then... what was the 83%? (or am I just miss understanding it?)

@84ND3R5N4TCH

9 жыл бұрын

"We're 15% sure of this, give or take 2%".

Relativistic effects only come into play in extremely high gravity or extreme velocities relative to another reference frame. Since the Universe can't be said to have a relativistic velocity and it is by and large comprised of empty space, time ticks at relatively the same rate across the vast expanses of the Universe.

I am sure, later when we will get more data, when we will be able to see greater distances we will realize that the universe is much more complex then what we are assuming now...

good stuff

In what equation does an explosion or 'bang' equal 180 degrees?

And I didnt say that light "does" travel at different speeds, I said it's possible that it could in places we're not familiar with. To rule out the possibility is to limit your amount of possible understanding.

Convergence and divergence are mutually exclusive with parallel lines mathematically. Nothing like math there in the talk or the knowledge of flat geometry of the universe.

Trying my best with all this physics stuff. Neil de Grasse Tyson always refers to the universe as though it were like 'blowing up a balloon' but here it's saying it's flat? If it is flat why after the big bang would material not shoot out in all directions rather than just 'across' creating a flat shape?

could just mean the observable universe hence the picture of the microwave background is really really small compare to the whole of it (universe)?

because to fly from andromeda 6 to the orion belt you have to refuel at polaris

Sound not working on this one (got it on all your others).

force as there is no objects pushing back with the same force causes the gas to contract and gain even more centripetal force and it is the combination of both gravitation and increasing centripetal force that causes the star to contract. Essentially by the time the gas has the ability to push back against itself its meager centrifugal force compared to a solid and gravity makes it impossible for it to escape back into a vacuum like state. As to its fuel: the first stars condescended out of