Lots of hand motions I am sold. Totally not hand grabbling

Good stuff. Max is great to listen to.

Top shelf CTT : )

@longcastle4863

Жыл бұрын

@@ROForeverMan What you call "materialism" is just life and the world, man. And consciousness is just a pretty cool part of it. But by focusing just on consciousness as the only real thing and thinking everything thing else is just illusion you miss out on a huge part of the wonders of the world. You really miss out on a lot.

All that energy just showed up one day

For the space expanding at beginning of universe, what are the virtual particles in vacuum of space?

What was causation at planck time and space? Since causation is space squared less time squared, how does the negative time happen at planck time?

@cravenmoorehead7099

Жыл бұрын

Causality

Was there a quark - gluon plasma just after universe begin?

Where can I buy one of those globes of the infrared background radiation?

Whare did the first energy come from

I was 2 weeks late taking my book on Neutrons back to the library. Luckily there was no charge

5:57 Did Dr. Tegmark modify or revise this statement of his that there would have been "blindingly bright light from all sides" inside the early universe, aged between a few minutes & 400,000 years?

Were there any particles created right at very beginning, such as before or during inflation? When did first particles appear?

@karagi101

Жыл бұрын

@@ROForeverMan I wish you didn’t exist in my consciousness… you repetitive, annoying drone.

@tonyatkinson2210

Жыл бұрын

No . It was way too hot . Immediately (much less than a second) after the Big Bang, the universe was both too hot and too dense for elements to form. Hydrogen didn’t appear until the universe had spread out - and subsequently cooled - enough for the first protons and neutrons, and later simple atoms, to form. Between about 10-12 and 10-6 second after the Big Bang, neutrinos, quarks, and electrons formed. Protons and neutrons began forming shortly after, from about 10-6 to 1 second after the Big Bang. Within about 3 minutes after the Big Bang, conditions cooled enough for these protons and neutrons to form hydrogen nuclei. This is called the era of nucleosynthesis. Some of these nuclei combined to form helium as well, though in much smaller quantities (just a few percent). But after about 20 minutes, nucleosynthesis ended and no further nuclei could form. The problem at this point was that electrons couldn’t stay in orbit around any atomic nucleus because of the immense heat and radiation still flooding the universe. Shortly after any neutral atoms would form (neutral atoms simply contain the same number of protons and electrons, and thus carry no overall charge), they were knocked apart again by energetic radiation. Finally, after 380,000 years or so, the universe had again expanded and cooled enough for conditions to favor electrons staying in orbit around atomic nuclei. This is when recombination occurred - neutral hydrogen (and helium) finally appeared because they could “recombine with” (hold on to) electrons without easily losing them to stray radiation. If that number sounds familiar, it should - 380,000 years after the Big Bang is also the time when the cosmic microwave background was generated, because the atoms that formed entered their lowest energy state quickly after, releasing excess energy in the form of photons that could finally travel freely through the universe without knocking into anything along the way. This is the light that makes up the cosmic microwave background.

@m00nch11d

Жыл бұрын

and why?

Could the early particles, like quarks and gluons, contribute to expansion of universe?

If particles are part of space and not expanding with it, how do we know that particles are not shrinking in fixed size space?

@xenphoton5833

Жыл бұрын

Shhh... Let them figure it out for themselves. Delete your comment.

@nissimhadar

Жыл бұрын

We see far objects moving away from us. The distance to near objects in not changing.

@karagi101

Жыл бұрын

@@ROForeverMan Your ideas are in your conscious. Unfortunately they are all wrong.

@longcastle4863

Жыл бұрын

Fun idea, but how would our shrinking in size result in galaxies further away from us appear to be moving away from us at a faster rate than galaxies near to us?

@karagi101

Жыл бұрын

@@ROForeverMan Fundamentally, everything is fields. Hence, Quantum Field Theory.

Is there a space-time causation that turns energy into matter?

@karagi101

Жыл бұрын

It’s just energy turning into matter the same way it occurs every day in particle accelerators. Smash particles together at high speed and the kinetic energy turns into particles.

@longcastle4863

Жыл бұрын

@@karagi101 But is that just the particles being smashed into smaller particles -- or the real transformation of kinetic energy into new particles? I mean if we could weigh all the particles (and maybe we can) resulting from the collision, would they weigh more than the two initial particles that crashed? In other words, would it be the weight of the two original particles plus whatever the weight of the particles produced by the kinetic energy would be -- presumably as determined by Einstein's E=MC2 equation.

The lithium expected is not what's observed. So he's a tad off with the fantastic agreement statement. I also think it's a little strange that in the last few decades we were all "uh we're like 90%off on actual matter based on observation." How couldn't that have shown up earlier I wonder (would make a. Great video)

One story of many.

We exist inside a explosion so big that it is still happening.

@jamalgogo3794

Жыл бұрын

Bro im high as fk reading this🤣🤣

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

Жыл бұрын

@@jamalgogo3794 *"Bro im high as fk reading this"* ... !emit ni kcab gniog er'uoy woN

@ALightOn

Жыл бұрын

😂

Dons Scotus's explanation for God's existence is long, and can be summarised as follows: 1. Something can be produced. 2. It is produced by itself, something or another. 3. Not by nothing, because nothing causes nothing. 4. Not by itself, because an effect never causes itself. 5. Therefore, by another A. 6. If A is first then we have reached the conclusion. 7. If A is not first, then we return to 2). 8. From 3) and 4), we produce another- B. The ascending series is either infinite or finite. 9. An infinite series is not possible. 10. Therefore, God exists.

@mikel4879

Жыл бұрын

Dogsheet / You just proved that my fart exists! Unbelievable! You're a genius!🥴🤣

@abelincoln8885

Жыл бұрын

Everything is a Function ... is simple & definitive proof ... that God exists. This is what Sir Issac Newton saw over 300 years ago with the Watchmaker Analogy. The Function, Intelligence & Mind Categories ... prove without any doubt ... the Universe & life are Functions composed entirely of Functions .. and can only be made by an intelligence with an UNNATURAL & nonphysical Mind (ie spirit/soul). The Universe & Life are Thermodynamic Systems. All thermodynamic Systems ... are Functions ... and originate from the surrounding System(s) which must provide the matter & energy and the time, space, & Laws of Physics to exist & to function. A Function is simply a SYSTEM ... that processes inputs into outputs with clear PURPOSE, FORM, design & properties which are all .... INFORMATION that every functions possesses to exist & to function. Man has known for thousands of years ... what a "function" is ... and who makes them. Anything that has clear PURPOSE & FORM is a function and can only be made by an intelligence because a functions requires information to exist & to function. Machine Analogies are only possible because everything is a Function. Science( a function) relies on the Laws of Nature(functions) for Man ( a Function) to explain (function) natural phenomena (functions). All of the Universe is INFORMATION from the mind of an intelligence. The evidence has always been ..... "only an intelligence makes Functions."

@mikel4879

Жыл бұрын

Abe Lincoln / Yes, the function of my fart, and it's bean variable.

@tonyatkinson2210

Жыл бұрын

How do you get from an infinite series not being possible , to a god must exist ? That’s quite a leap

The universe, and everything it contains, simply exists and that's that. An explanation isn't needed because there isn't an explanation. There will never be a proper end-all answer. Because that answer would also require an explanation. Repeat infinitely. We all want an answer, obviously. And we want that answer to be what we already hope it to be. But there isn't one. We'll just have to accept that the universe is and that's that.

@longcastle4863

Жыл бұрын

And by your attitude we never would have invented even the first steam engine or telegraph system

@Dion_Mustard

Жыл бұрын

i agree. have an infinite universe (or indeed multi verse) and you do not need to answer the above question.

@Sergei_Gusakov

Жыл бұрын

To receive (produce) an answer, one needs some sort of a language. Who says there's a language that can fully and adequately describe the universe, let alone it's "cause"? It would actually be very strange, because language is a (limited, emergent and temporal) product of the universe, not vice versa. Unless, of course, we agree to religious or some sort of extreme idealistic stuff.

@Sergei_Gusakov

Жыл бұрын

@@ROForeverMan How do you know that logic is necessary though? Logic is a product of the mind (try to find it anywhere else), and the mind is the product of the human species which in turn is nothing but a product of reality. So trying to pull something that is so limited and conditional on all the universe is a doubtful effort at least. A pebble on the beach is a necessity, otherwise it wouldn't exist. So? From what we observe, human mind is a survival tool. Has some use all right. Not a universal swiss knife for everything though.

@Sergei_Gusakov

Жыл бұрын

@@ROForeverMan besides, it is circular reasoning. To justify the necessity os consciousness, you have to rely on a product of counsciousness (like "logic" ot "necessity"). Does not make much sense.

(9:10) *MT: **_"So, in summary, it's really remarkable how we humans trying to think about where things came from have been able to put together a story which takes us all the way back to when the universe was less than a second old."_* ... Remarkable, yes, but that's not enough to satisfy our curiosity. We want to know what was going on just _prior_ to that first second. As opposed to an infinitely existing universe (Steady State), an infinitely recycling universe (Big Bounce), and an infinite number of universes (Multiverse), I propose yet another explanation that takes us back to before the Big Bang. In my book I take you to a nondimensional arena of *raw information* where the beginning of Existence emerged immediately prior to the physical universe you enjoy today. In the beginning there was a timeless juxtaposition of *Existence* and *Nonexistence* as this is as far back as logical conceivability allows you to regress. Existence represented the smallest, logically conceivable bit of self-data with Nonexistence representing whatever is not being represented by this data. *Existence = data* (1), (energy) *Nonexistence = no data* (0), (no energy) Logic emerged the instant this smallest, logically conceivable bit of data (energy) enacted a self-assessment (self-awareness) by counting itself as *1.* This rudimentary numerical assessment also required a minimum amount of energy (Landauer Limit). Each mathematical operation that followed required the production of even more energy. This caused an instantaneous "chain reaction" of information that ultimately moved from nondimensionality into multidimensionality (Big Bang). This same 0-1 juxtaposition was later made manifest in the form of Hydrogen (proton 1, electron 0) and is continuously reexplored via positive-negative, matter-antimatter, black-white, life-death, good-evil, theist-atheist, democrat-republican, dualism-monism, etc. Fast forward 13.8 billion years and *"YOU"* now represent the latest stage of this ongoing evolution of information. Humans are the newly emerged arbitrators of *value* in Existence. We are deciding whether or not that "first logical move" enacted by existence was justifiable. So, ... _was it?_

@grijzekijker

Жыл бұрын

@@ROForeverMan I bought and read it and it was certainly worth it!

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

Жыл бұрын

@@ROForeverMan *"For you certainly because you don't know any better. But from the looks of it, it sounds just like another random materialist theory."* ... This is why people don't want to engage you in a debate. I've exchanged emails with Grijze and he's very articulate, passionate, and knowledgeable about life. More than anything, he's open-minded to concepts. And once again, your presuppositional claim that it's "another random materialist theory" without ever reading it speaks volumes about your lack of perception. *"But I would still like to have a look."* ... No, you wouldn't. The only reason you would want to read my book is to marginalize it.

@longcastle4863

Жыл бұрын

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC I have suggested to ROF before that he needs to work on his people skills ... Well that and to quit calling himself, God ; _)_

@lucofparis4819

Жыл бұрын

Hi there, I have questions. Hopefully you will read and answer them earnestly. '[...] I propose yet another explanation that takes us back to before the Big Bang. In my book I take you to a nondimensional arena of raw information where the beginning of Existence emerged immediately prior to the physical universe you enjoy today. In the beginning there was a timeless juxtaposition of *Existence* and *Nonexistence* as this is as far back as logical conceivability allows you to regress. Existence represented the smallest, logically conceivable bit of self-data with Nonexistence representing whatever is not being represented by this data. Existence = data Nonexistence = no data Logic emerged the instant this smallest, logically conceivable bit of data (energy) enacted a self-assessment (self-awareness) by counting itself as 1.' ▪︎ So, how do you propose to explain... Existence? You present it in a state of juxtaposition with Non-existence, without really explaining how or why this state would be the default state of reality, and this too, cries out for an explanation. ▪︎ How is it 'prior' to the physical universe and 'before' the Big Bang if it is a nondimensional 'arena' (yet another spatiotemporal term)? And how is it a 'beginning' of Existence (without time?), especially when this proposed _raw information_ already contains Existence, implying Existence was already there, but somehow coexisting with Non-existence (so Nonexistence was... existing? That doesn't sound right does it?)? What I aim to do when pointing out the spacetime-laden language you employ and existence-laden concept you offer is to show you that, at least when you summarise it here, you are in fact assuming these concepts, not explaining them, since you're using them to describe a presumed beginning thereof, which doesn't quite work does it? ▪︎ Similarly, you use logical conceivability to regress back to a state of timeless juxtaposition, which you place _prior_ to the emergence of Logic (as an existing entity, sorry what? 🤔), meaning you are yet again assuming, not explaining, a concept (Logic here being used to probe whatever state is 'prior' to Logic in your view). How is this an explanation? ▪︎ What does the term 'self-data' mean? If Existence is data and Existence is also self-data, this would imply data is self-data, how are these two things different? You equate Existence, data, and energy, and give it the capacity to enact 'self-assessment', which you take it as 'counting itself as 1', which somehow causes the emergence of Logic in this scenario, yet this isn't how any of these concepts operate with one another. ▪︎ Does a property of Existence involve self-computing in your proposition? If so, how does this work, and how is it not implying that "self-assessment" and "Logic" with a capital L are equally part of the default state of reality in your proposition? Again, this paragraph reads like you're assuming - not explaining - each of these concepts that you're employing, and consequently I am perplexed as to what I am supposed to understand as an explanation in this otherwise interesting narrative? Would you mind explaining your explanation for me? 😅

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

Жыл бұрын

@@lucofparis4819 *"Hi there, I have questions. Hopefully you will read and answer them earnestly."* ... You have a lot of questions. I don't have the time to answer them all, so I'll answer the questions that are best suited for a simple comment thread. *"So, how do you propose to explain... Existence?"* ... By writing a 282-page book on it. That's how. *"What I aim to do when pointing out the spacetime-laden language you employ and existence-laden concept you offer is to show you that, at least when you summarise it here, you are in fact assuming these concepts, not explaining them, since you're using them to describe a presumed beginning thereof, which doesn't quite work does it?"* ... I have no idea what you are asking. *"You present it in a state of juxtaposition with Non-existence, without really explaining how or why this state would be the default state of reality, and this too, cries out for an explanation."* ... I explained this in my original comment. This E-NE juxtaposition represents the lower-limit of conceivability. The only condition beyond this would be a single state of Nonexistence which cannot be conceived nor satisfactorily communicated. You are incapable of conceiving or communicating "nothing." To do so would require you to make the claim "nothing exists" which is a self-conflicting statement. In order for information to be present, it must be able to be communicated. Anything that's unable to be communicated is not information. *"What does the term 'self-data' mean?"* ... Exactly what the words convey: "self-data." Strip existence down to its lowest conceivable state and all you have is whatever raw information is available. An example would be a "mathematical point" which is only known to exist by its coordinates. The point's coordinates indicate the presence of "something," but it does not define what that something is. The absolute minimum amount of information this point can yield is "self-data" (Its own data). *"Does a property of Existence involve self-computing in your proposition?"* ... Existence is orchestrated by logic (mathematics). Whatever can be accomplished through mathematics can equally be accomplished within Existence. "Acellular division" is a perfect example. A female rabbit producing ten offspring is another. The entire periodic table works like an existential abacus for structure. The rest of your questions are asking for far too much "information" out of a comment thread. I've written a book to explain it all, and that should suffice.

Are there quarks and gluons outside protons, neutrons and nucleus of atoms?

@longcastle4863

Жыл бұрын

I think only very early on at the beginning of the big bang. I could be wrong though

What a wonderful Teacher! Tegmark visualizes and articulates what is so distant and abstracted and makes it...penetrable!

He starts in the wrong place - he says "let's start with the big bang and work forward"...BUT lets assume the multi-verse is the correct theory, or let's assume there was never a starting point (infinite) then the question of how matter formed becomes quite irrelevant. Perhaps Matter and consciousness have always existed or perhaps if we are to believe in the multi verse theory, then we can go back and back infinitely.

@keithrelyea7997

Жыл бұрын

Believe away and as you do, throw consciousness in just to show how little you understand.

@Dion_Mustard

Жыл бұрын

@@keithrelyea7997well considering we know absolutely nothing about the origin of consciousness , or indeed the universe (just theory), I'd say all options and theories are plausible. I certainly don't accept everything came about by chance ,by a vast explosion. That makes no sense what so ever.

What is the reason for very small differences in temperature in homogenous universe? Was it random, or something from big bang start?

@ingvarhallstrom2306

Жыл бұрын

Without random quantum fluctuations you get a completely deterministic universe. There must be a random state otherwise there would be no free will.

@jonathanwalther

Жыл бұрын

@@ingvarhallstrom2306 That's still a very very bold claim, random quantum fluctuations would a premise for free will. (I agree with your first sentence, though.) You should listen to some lectures by Sean Carroll. He explains very well, that it's a big fault to mix what he calls "levels of description". If you want to describe free will you are in the makroscopic world and you should avoid mixing it with quantum mechanical or QFT ideas/descriptions, bc this describes the world on a totally other level.

@ingvarhallstrom2306

Жыл бұрын

@@jonathanwalther Yes, I've listened to a lot of Sean Carroll, and I like him a lot. I believe in a cyclic universe. I also believe the universe is some kind of game, a sort of Sandbox Universe that is played over and over with different settings and thus different results. The end goal seems to be to create life within the game? But withouth random quantum fluctuations, the game will give the exact same results if played on the same setting. There needs to be a random component, otherwise the end result of the game could be forecasted at the beginning of the game if the player knew about the start up state of all the parametres.

@jonathanwalther

Жыл бұрын

@@ingvarhallstrom2306 Thx for the reply, I very much agree. The sandbox is a nice idea/hypothesis (however, most likely not testable). I don't think there is a "goal" or "to create life". It just happens. I take a rather sparse stance: our Universe just is, it does not need life to exist. The quantum randomness is consesus. Or put in other words: Laplace's demon does not exist. I only disagreed with the (to my knowlegde) rather bold leap, this quantum randomness is what is needed to explain free will (your second sentence). What we describe or experience as free will most likely has nothing to do with quantum randomness per se. You could try to describe free will by biochemistry, but this is not a quantum realm, bc biochemistry is makroscopic. Not everything, which is very small (like cells or proteins), is subject to the quantum world. You have to be very careful, which tools you use to describe certain phenomena. QFT is the (current) most fundamental level, but it's not appropriate (and even false) to describe everyday objects (tables, planets, brains) with it. Listen to Sean again ;)

@ingvarhallstrom2306

Жыл бұрын

@@jonathanwalther I agree. No, the universe doesn't need life to exist, we just happen to live in a universe where it does. The Goldielocks scenario is only a paradox if there had only been one universe, but it makes perfectly sense if there had been countless of iterations before it where life did not evolve. What I mean is, I believe there's a positive feedback loop between the different universes, making every iteration even more finetuned. If not for life, so for what?

Simple answer: “no body knows” All speculations interesting though!

Youch, I am positive that those miniscule limits are due to our inability to peer further.

@longcastle4863

Жыл бұрын

You should get a patent on your name ; _)_

Robert, many many years ago you were only a tiny, tiny, seed, and then boom, you expanded like crazy. Where did all the meat come from?

@TurinTuramber

Жыл бұрын

Food.

So, basically the universe becomes cooler over time. 😎 And everything is made of frozen matter.

@longcastle4863

Жыл бұрын

Or cooler matter? Compared to the heat at the big bang.

@karagi101

Жыл бұрын

Anything solid is “frozen” matter. But no, everything is not made of solid matter. Stars still produce photons. The photons will not turn into matter. And we still have gases and liquids.

@lucofparis4819

Жыл бұрын

@@karagi101 This is just a witticism comparing the early state of the Universe with its current state of affairs, wherein the proverbial Quark-Gluon-Plasma has cooled down enough to condense and "freeze" into hadrons, yes, even those within stars (with the exceptions of neutron stars and black holes). Again, this is not meant as a super accurate view, just as a fun thought. 😉

@karagi101

Жыл бұрын

@@lucofparis4819 ok

So Max said stuff attracts other stuff while I was under the impression that mass warps space and its this warping of space that causes objects to be attracted to one another.

I am not a physicist but I am just trying to understand the concept of the big bang. Right before the big bang happened there was energy stored somewhere, atoms, neutron, protons, etc So can I conclude that the universe existed but in different "form or shape"? we don't know for how long since time did not exist. This is very confusing 🙂

@longcastle4863

Жыл бұрын

This interview is over 10 years old, I believe... The thinking's kind of changed into our particular Universe being just one of a continually erupting (take this word with a grain of salt -- it's just how I think of it) series of Universes making up a Multiverse. So, yes, there were things going on before our Universe began -- but we're not sure what, exactly. However, what the guest speaker says about the beginning of our Universe is still considered valid -- and for which there is a lot of observational support. Understand, however, that I'm speaking here just as a layman from my understanding. Not everybody, I think, would agree with the "continually erupting" part. Not sure...

@nissimhadar

Жыл бұрын

There were no atoms, protons, neutrons ...... that is exactly what Tegmark explained.

@nissimhadar

Жыл бұрын

@@ROForeverMan What would make you realize that?

@tremelgrant4134

Жыл бұрын

@@nissimhadar the journey inward. Consciousness may or may not be all there is, but in existential terms it’s all we have.

@nissimhadar

Жыл бұрын

@@tremelgrant4134 Imagine that humans go extinct and reappear in a billion years. Will the universe appear to be 14.7 billion years old, or 13.7?

Let's take a look at perhaps an analogous "universe" that suddenly appeared seemingly out of nothing, how did the early matter of that universe form, that is, you? You didn't exist, then suddenly you did exist after your matter formed... There is a relationship between forming matter, and the physical environment it is forming in, with both being necessary.

@keithrelyea7997

Жыл бұрын

Be patient and stay tuned for futher discoveries.

@prestonbacchus4204

Жыл бұрын

@@ROForeverMan I like that notion as a hypothesis but I would need to ask: "What is existence?" What is an "idea" in the context you are using it? Otherwise, it would be hard to know what meaning you are intending.

@prestonbacchus4204

Жыл бұрын

@@ROForeverMan OK, thank you, your meaning is better understood with that explanation. Now to better understand I ask, is there anything that is "conscious", "experiences", "thinks" or has "ideas" (I assume that means "creativity"), that is not "alive"?

@prestonbacchus4204

Жыл бұрын

@@ROForeverMan You used the expression: "Existence is consciousness. Idea is something that consciousness experiences or thinks about." Only living things can do what you just described. If it is alive, it was born.

@prestonbacchus4204

Жыл бұрын

@@ROForeverMan "Eternal"? What is that?

Meh, I reckon some kind of omnipotent being that exists in unknown dimensions is what did it.

@UlfilasNZ

Жыл бұрын

I reckon (most likely) some kind of perfect in some respects (omnipotence being a very vague and somewhat unspecific term) creative force has had some role in all of this.

@jarrettesselman8144

Жыл бұрын

Mark Zuckerberg made the claim that by the year 2045 human consciousness can be downloaded into his box. You are already in a box. Reality is not real. Never has been.

@Dug6666666

Жыл бұрын

Sounds like the "The Great Green Arkleseizure" you are speaking of. A popular belief of the Jatravartids.

exactly, easy peasy.

We've always been intelegent

See the confidence of making speculations and he himself is not sure.

@TurinTuramber

Жыл бұрын

This isn't a trivial question to answer.

From where energy came in nothingess ? When there was no time from where billionth of second came ? Who did it in nothingess?

Is it just me or did he not answer your question. He only described matter.

Maybe God can show us one day how he started it all. Great to listen to this conversations about our origins.

where do they bring all that confidence from ?! probably because they know that no one can prove or disprove !

@longcastle4863

Жыл бұрын

Scientists work on proving and disproving each other all the time. It's called peer review and it's a brutal process. You make an obviously inaccurate conjecture as a scientist and your fellow scientists will be on you like a shiver of sharks in an eating frenzy devouring one of their own when it has a fatal injury. Also, you obviously weren't listening: see, for example, 4:23 to 5:18. That and the fact that you wrote your ill thought out comment on a device who's technology is based on results from the very kind of scientific method you denigrate kind of says it all. And the fact that your comment has any likes at all means either that you have multiple KZread accounts or that CTT has definitely been having way too many religious thinkers on the show -- for whon the criteria for being able to back up ones ideas with evidence really is much lower.

@haroonaverroes6537

Жыл бұрын

they go too far while their understanding of the fundamentals of physics still very weak, it is not wrong to build a model based on the current very humble understanding. I talk only about where they got all that confidence from! I mean they are not humble like their level of understanding, humans are up to it no doubt but still too early for such high confidence.

@longcastle4863

Жыл бұрын

@@ROForeverMan Sure, find out how religion ever came up with global positioning systems, rocket ships, or even plain ol' penicillin ... Get back to me and we'll talk.

@longcastle4863

Жыл бұрын

@@ROForeverMan Your whole schtick is making assertions without evidence. Like you're some prophet making proclamations from on high. Again, get back to me when you can explain how technology is a logical fallacy. If you can't, you're just making stuff up, talking off the cuff -- hoping to impress I can't imagine who. Because as someone who switches back and forth from claiming to be either God or a physicist you're failing like a wiener on septuagenarian who's forgotten his little blue pills.

@abelincoln8885

Жыл бұрын

@@longcastle4863 BS. If the majority of the peers share the same "paradigm" and understanding of existence then their reviews of studies will be biased and will allow the proliferation of ... BS ... as a fact of science. There is zero evidence in the the Fossil records ... back in the 1850's and today ... of the origin of the species by natural selection from a common ancestor over 3 or 4 billions years. The Fossil records have always shown the the RAPID appearance & extinction of COMPLEX life for each layer of the geologic column ... with ZERO ... evolutionary transitions forms or precursors. This is a fact that most are deliberately ignoring or are keeping secret ... because most believe in a 13.7 billion old Universe not a 6 day creation less than 6 000 years ago. Radiometic dating is used by these clowns to prove the "old" age of things ... but they fail to mention that they fudge any dates that don't agree with what they were expecting .... and .... that you must know the actual initial parent & daughter isotope concentration, and the sample being dated has never been contaminated with foreign isotopes over 100 000s or millions of years. Good luck proving that. lol. Biased peer review ... and allowed BS to become a fact of Science ... and lead to Abiogenesis also being declared as a fact of science ... even though they have no idea how it happened or any proof. The 13.7 billion year old Universe and all the BS associated with it ...is linked to the rise of Darwin's "racist" theory of Evolution and materialism but even can be tied to the rejection of Sir Issac Newtons' Watchmaker Analogy in the late 1600's. The Universe was either made by God ... or ... by natural processes. And scientists started to take a side and study, research, experiment & peer review according to their ... beliefs. The Function, Intelligence & Mind Categories .... fully explains Newton's watchmaker Analogy ... where he effectively was saying the Universe is a Function composed entirely of functions & requires a Function maker to exist & to Function. Universal Functions is the only logical Hypothesis for the Watchmaker Analogy or any machine analogy ... and this is easily tested by fully defining the Categories that identify anything that is a Function ... Intelligence ... or Mind. The Universe is an isolated thermodynamic system .. with finite matter & energy ... and increasing entropy. All thermodynamic Systems are Functions ... and originate from the surrounding system(s) which must provide the matter, energy, space, time, & laws to exist & to function. How long have Astrophysicists known the Universe is a isolated thermodynamic system? Why is there zero origin theories which has the Universe being a Natural System that began & is expanding in an UNNATURAL System? Again. I call BS. There is clear & obvious bias in all of the sciences .... for a 13.7 billion year old Universe , Abiogenesis, Emergence, Evolution, Materialism and an intolerance of anybody who doesn't tow the line .

If matter is made of energy than what is energy

@longcastle4863

Жыл бұрын

Matter : ) What are both, then? Maybe a physicist will visit this thread and let us know. Layman's language only, please...

Matter can’t form itself. Matter can’t direct itself and neither can energy.

@TurinTuramber

Жыл бұрын

So what are you saying exactly?

@JungleJargon

Жыл бұрын

@@TurinTuramber What do you want to hear? Until someone gets an answer from the scientific community about where matter and energy came from there is no need to try to placate them since they are believing in magic and not science. You can’t have a natural cause for natural things. It’s nonsensical irrational and unscientific. Matter and energy cannot make or direct themselves. Also there is no absolute measure of time or distance in the universe eliminating the need for dark matter and dark energy. The universe is not expanding, it is already expanded where there is no matter between us and distant galaxies. Time also runs at a faster rate where there is no matter between us and distant galaxies. The outer spiral arms of galaxies move faster where there is less matter to slow down time. The scientific community has many problems of their own. They believe in magical morphing monkeys. They believe information comes from mindless matter which is idolatry. They believe mistakes write instructions that aren’t there.

I'm much more interested in seeing someone answer how God could have caused the universe before "before" was even a thing. How can time have a cause if the cause has to go before the effect?

@kennethmalafy503

Жыл бұрын

That's because time doesn't really exist. It is a human measurement.

I have a problem here. We are told there is zero energy in the universe because energy is cancelled out by the negative energy associated with matter through the force of gravity. If at the very start of the universe there was only energy and no matter, the energy could not be cancelled out by negative energy associated with matter through the force of gravity as there was no matter. Therefore my question is where did this energy come from? Gravity would not have manifested itself until matter arose. We are also led to believe that at the time of the singularity gravity was infinite. How could it have been if there was no matter around at the time? Furthermore if gravity had not manifested itself at this stage how could it have been in reverse in order to initiate the Big Bang. What caused the quantum fields to form and what is the basis of space expanding and the so called inflatons? Surely this would also require large amounts of energy, something we now pass off as dark energy. I cannot see how it can just be an intrinsic quality of space time. My last question is this, is time facilitated by the expansion of space and should the universe ever start to contract would time run backwards, and would any future Big Bang simply be the same time and space being formed again forming an identical universe and occurrences over and over again? Any help with this would be appreciated.

@derekansell7039

Жыл бұрын

If the last point is correct this could explain the block universe concept and lack of free will. The universe could have contained all the information ‘the seed’ for the development of the universe, everything in it and everything that has happened. Information is not lost so the universe could be cyclical in all respects.

@tac6044

Жыл бұрын

I have a dog.

@abelincoln8885

Жыл бұрын

He said its all a story which it is. Fiction. The Universe is an isolated thermodynamic System with finite matter & energy & increasing entropy. All thermodynamic Systems are Functions ... and ORIGINATE from the "surrounding" System(s) which must provide the matter & energy and the space, time & Laws of Physics to exist & to function. The Universe is a Natural System that began & is expanding in an UNNATURAL system. The Universe was never infinite & always existed because this would enable reversible thermodynamic processes causing CONSTANT entropy. A Function is simply a SYSTEM that processes inputs into outputs with clear PURPOSE & FORM and properties which are all INFORMATION that every Functions possesses to exist & to function. Information can only come from the Mind of an Intelligence. Only an intelligence makes Functions with information. Only an intelligence extracts Information from a Function. The Laws of Physics are common INFORMATION that Man ( an intelligence) extracted from various types of Functions made only by an intelligence ( like God). Everything from the quantum to the cosmic level is a Function .. with clear & obvious purpose, form & design. This is why most people believe in a supernatural entity that made everything. Either all of the religions are wrong ( eg Darwinism, Materialism, Evolution, Abiogenesis) ... or ... there is one that has correctly identified the "Almighty" Intelligence that made the Universe & Man and fully explained why? Either the God of the Jews & Christians created the Universe less than 6 000 years ago ... or ... some UNKNOWN intelligence did. We know for a fact nature & natural processes can never make & operate the simplest Function.

@ronharrison6552

Жыл бұрын

Does your dog make more sense than all these theories? I know mine does.

@waldwassermann

Жыл бұрын

Zero is a synonym for ....

Gravity stable

The first question would be "what caused the initial amount of energy and why did it begin or become so concentrated when energy diffuses naturally?"

@AXSofHFDS

Жыл бұрын

i a;ways like to think of it, in that situation...a negative times a negative equals a positive. in an space of non exsistance, assuming quantum physics is a thing, something would eventually happen.

@20july1944

Жыл бұрын

@@AXSofHFDS No, nothing isn't a negative, it's "NOTHING."

@firstaidsack

Жыл бұрын

You're here for speculations? Because that's all physics can offer at the moment with regard to your first question. Max Tegmark said there was a large amount of energy, but I'm pretty sure he meant large energy density because that's what would be the case if we would shrink our observable universe to the small size it had shortly after the big bang.

@DeanHorak

Жыл бұрын

The total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero. The amount of positive energy equals the amount of negative energy. It is the draw toward equilibrium which allows energy to do work.

@dongshengdi773

Жыл бұрын

@@20july1944 it is only logical that there is a Creator God because the reality that we know is derived from our knowledge of karmic laws, in other words, the Law of cause and effect. Nothing can come from Nothing. There has to be the First Cause , the UNmoved Mover, the Prime Mover, the Initiator of the Big Bang, the Ultimate Observer who collapses the wave function , the programmer of our Simulated universe, etc.

He doesn't mention where the energy comes from, that's ludicrous.

@TheLionFarm

Жыл бұрын

Or the water world that is earth as there is no answer for how we got a ocean world.

@johnyharris

Жыл бұрын

He wasn't asked to say where it came from. He was asked to describe the early universe and how it evolved. If he had have been asked, as he was in another CTT episode, he would have likely said mathematics, as Max is a proponent of an abstract mathematical universe.

@user-ei1ym1lq6h

Жыл бұрын

@@TheLionFarm Water is part of planetary framework. We have water because the Earth was molten, then slowly cooled, surrounded by cold empty space. Earth's gravity didn't allow that steam to escape, as a result, our atmosphere formed and water accumilated and cooled Earths surface. From there, a framework that didn't exist, revealed itself in the form of life.

@babyellabay

Жыл бұрын

It came from GOD

@OBGynKenobi

Жыл бұрын

It came from vacuum energy and the inflation field.

For twenty years my wife and I have been on the trail of something big, something really big. She's Japanese. I'm American. It's like we each had a missing piece of the puzzle and somehow were able to connect by way of gravity. Most of the credit goes to her. She comes from a well-known family of bizenyaki artists. They are experts on time and spin. In tracing out how matter forms the universe we can't assume a single big bang. We generally have a good idea how stars and planets form but have hit a roadblock at quantum scales. Kumiko Krchnak's model, 935-qkk, offers a picture of highly regenerative waves at quantum scales allowing for clumping together of atoms, molecules, and the entire range of chemicals and compounds that comprise our universe. What's more the model works at large-scales, too, to the extent it portrays the universe as in constant motion between orbital and expanding paths.

@karagi101

Жыл бұрын

You’ve been on the trail for 20 years? The trail must have led to a cliff and you fell off into wacko land.

@PrinceBlake

Жыл бұрын

@@karagi101 Please feel free to come back anytime you want to hurl an insult. It would at least be time better spent than watching your playlist recommendation.

@longcastle4863

Жыл бұрын

@@PrinceBlake Are you thinking of publishing your findings in a peer reviewed accredited scientific journal?

@PrinceBlake

Жыл бұрын

@@longcastle4863 Absolutely. A good theory, in my opinion, will resonate with a wide and diverse audience. Telling Kumiko's history, her story and how the theory grew out of it in such a way as to appeal to such an audience has been my primary focus of late but we are certainly at the point where publishing with one of the most accredited journals is on the table.

@karagi101

Жыл бұрын

@@PrinceBlake Deepak Chopra’s journal of woo-woo?

The Big Bang is a misleading metaphor: an explosion is the conversion of matter into energy and the origin of the universe was the opposite, the conversion of energy into matter. The conversion of energy into matter is more appropriately described as a 'Big Downpour' such as occurs with the conversion of water vapor in the sky to a thunderstorm. In effect, the origin of the universe occurred as a cooling process of condensation from energy to plasma which generated a massive expanse of space-time. We also need to rethink the evolution of the universe in terms of space-time dilation in considering the age of the universe.

@TurinTuramber

Жыл бұрын

People do have a habit of getting hung up on the language.

@ComeCleanAmerica

Жыл бұрын

@@ROForeverMan Consciousness doesn't exist without a biological nervous system to translate sensory input into behavior. Physical and chemical reactivity is stretching the notion of consciousness into some religious realm of fantasy.

@ComeCleanAmerica

Жыл бұрын

@@TurinTuramber Language does convey different meanings.

@abelincoln8885

Жыл бұрын

The Big Bang was named by an Atheist who realized the expanding Universe data supported the Creation of the Universe by God ... when almost all at the time believed the Universe was infinite & always existed. There is no "big" explosion in Genesis billions of years ago .. but simply a 6 day Creation less than 6000 years ago. The Function, Intelligence & Mind Categories .... prove the Universe & Life ... are Functions composed entirely of Function ... and were made by an intelligence with an unnatural & nonphysical mind ( spirit or soul). Man is Natural Intelligence and therefore the Mind of Man is natural (brain) & unnatural ( soul). This is the simple & obvious evidence that God did create Man in His likeness with a body & Soul. And Jesus (Son of God) did confirm 2000 years ago with the Great Commandment that the Mind of Man ... is the body & soul ... which is why the Messiah had to be born of a virgin( made by God) and not actually be descended from King David. A 3400 year old Book told us that the Nature of Man is his corrupt Body .. and even the Son of God would think & do evil ... if he had a corrupt human body. Again. Atheists in the sciences are deliberately ignoring any evidence that supports God & a Creation, or calling it fake science by Theists. We have known for over 120 years ... that the Universe, Sun, Earth, Atmosphere, Life ... are thermodynamic systems with increasing entropy. All thermodynamic Systems ... are Functions ... and originate from the surrounding System(s) which must provide the matter & energy and space, time & Laws of Physics to exist & to function. A Function ... is simply a SYSTEM ... that processes inputs into outputs with clear PURPOSE & FORM and properties ( Information). The Universe was never infinite and always existed. Everything indeed came from something. The Universe is a Natural System ... that began & is expanding in ... an UNNATURAL System(s) which must provide the "everything" for the Universe to exist & function. See. The Laws of thermodynamics support Creation ... and so the Atheists completely ignore them or accuse Theists of "fake science." Likewise any Machine Analogies are ignored and considered fake science from Theists ... like Sir Issac Newton and his Watchmaker Analogy of 300 years ago. A Machine is simply a Function. Everything in the Universe is a Function ... processes inputs into outputs with clear & obvious PURPOSE & FORM ( design) and possess information to exist & to function. Mater & energy are physical functions Time, space, & the Laws of nature are abstract Functions. Only an intelligence makes Functions with information Only an intelligence extracts information from Functions The Laws of Physics are common INFORMATION that Man ( an intelligence) has extracted from various types of Functions only made by an intelligence. The Universe is not 13.7 billion years old ... and iatrogenesis, evolution, emergence, inflation are fake science from Atheists. God created the Universe ... over 4 days .... in an UNNATURAL System with unnatural Laws. Day 1 God instantly created the Heaven( space) and Earth ( matter & energy) in complete darkness. God then created a "Big Light" of matter & energy and called it "Day" and the darkness of space "Night." This Light was not the Sun or a star ....because on Day 4 all the stars are in the Heaven (space) and then God made the Solar System & put Earth into its orbit .... establishing the Earth day, month, year and seasons. God created the Universe over 4 days staring Day 1 with the Space of the Universe, Earth all alone ... and ... the energy & matter of the Universe is a vast "hollow" sphere of LIGHT. The CMBR ... is what remains of the "sphere" of Light that surrounded Earth. Inflation or formation of the cosmic bodies was over 4 x 24 hour days even though God doesn't define a Earth day until day 4. God had a reason for the 6 day creation & the 7th Day is for God .... for saying 1 day is like 1000 years ... and for Jesus(God's Son) to return to rule for 1000 years before Judgement Day .. with 144 000 male Jews who died in end times believing the Son of God is the promised Messiah. The current Jewish year since the Fall of Man is 5 782. 6 x 1000 years Man rules the Earth 1 x 1000 years God rules the Earth. Finally Judgement Day. Atheists are completely wrong with the science & their theology because Materialism is a religion with a firm belief in UNNATURAL processes. Nature can never make a Function. Everything in the Universe is a function.

@ComeCleanAmerica

Жыл бұрын

@@abelincoln8885 Fake like your assumed name.

What is it about the comments section, that 90% of the comments seem to be very off. It's so much gibberish, instead of discussing decently or trying to understand the world with valid and reliable insights. How come?

Blessings to Max. One my favorite teachers today says there was no big bang, and there are no such things as electrons. Modern scientists talk about energy all the while they cannot define energy, light or a field. I'm told that the space of the universe is not energy persay rather the release of energy or inertia -- like a mushroom cloud of smoke after an atom bomb explodes. People think the cloud or space of to be energy, when it is only the release of energy.

@firstaidsack

Жыл бұрын

"...they cannot define energy, light or a field..." Those things have rigorous mathematical definitions. It's just hard to translate them into everyday language. Saying there was no Big Bang or that there are no electrons is denying overwhelming scientific evidence.

@S3RAVA3LM

Жыл бұрын

@@firstaidsack let me reiterate more clearly. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF A BIG BANG OR OF ELECTRONS, AND NOT ONE MODERN SCIENTIST TODAY CAN DEFINE ENERGY, LIGHT OR A FEILD. Did you get it this time or still confused with opinion, conjecture vs facts. Just because some clown flaunts a PhD or whatever doesn't validate what they claim to be true as the TRUTH.

@scambammer6102

Жыл бұрын

@@S3RAVA3LM You saying something doesn't mean squat. Neither does your caps key.

@thisguynijat

Жыл бұрын

@@S3RAVA3LM go girl, embarrass yourself even more

@ohioisastate8574

Жыл бұрын

@@firstaidsack prove it

0:35 “ First trillionth of a second there was an enormous amount of energy”. Firstly where did this come from? Secondly if the universe in its entirety is indeed infinite then there must have been infinitely energy.

@sinebar

Жыл бұрын

I think it may have came from a primordial particle that held all the energy of the universe and became unstable and decayed in the release of the energy of the Big Bang.

@ingvarhallstrom2306

Жыл бұрын

But the amount of matter in the universe isn't infinite, but finite?

@mitseraffej5812

Жыл бұрын

@@ingvarhallstrom2306 The visible universe is finite for sure but there is no way of ever knowing what or how much lies beyond.

I f I were to believe all this it would be a big leap of faith since I just dont know how any of it can be known

@keithrelyea7997

Жыл бұрын

First you gotta listen>

@longcastle4863

Жыл бұрын

A lot of what physicist and other scientists come up with eventually trickles down to having practical effects that benefits our lives. That's one way you can give physicist the benefit of the doubt they're genuinely and legitimately trying to understand this stuff.

@jarrettesselman8144

Жыл бұрын

@@longcastle4863 Bullshit. This channel is about overthrowing faith in God and replacing it with scientism.

@jarrettesselman8144

Жыл бұрын

All of you are a bunch of science worshipers

@mrshankerbillletmein491

Жыл бұрын

@@keithrelyea7997 And then beieve things I dont understand taking the word of experts

Why did it give you both such glee to say, "let there be light?"

Already start with 'mass of energy' is totally wrong, It is spiritual not mechanical yes creation is spiritual.

Things don’t add up ….. for what purpose universe began? And have these 4 forces running it flawlessly…. If a wooden chair can tell who was the Carpenter that made it, the one day human maybe able to tell about this whole purpose….

@waldwassermann

Жыл бұрын

The answer to your first question can be found in genesis 2 18.

What happened to all the anti matter 😕

@longcastle4863

Жыл бұрын

Maybe it formed it's own part of our Universe -- hopefully a far ways off and getting farther all the time -- where some sentient creatures on some obscure planet in one of a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion galaxies are just getting around to asking themselves, _What happened to all the matter?_

@longcastle4863

Жыл бұрын

@@ROForeverMan Obviously it was meant to be just fun speculation... Which, btw, is that what you would say your claims to be God are that you keep making in all these recent CTT episodes? Or are you going to claim your declarations about being God are serious?

I saw the biggest unbeliveable objects......all are reminents of the first stars and only a few remain, they are the great attractors. :)

science... "give us one free miracle and we can run it from there"

@kennethmalafy503

Жыл бұрын

If science had some more information about the "miracle" I am sure they could explain that too.

@showponyexpressify

Жыл бұрын

@@kennethmalafy503 is science going to invent a time machine and go back to make some direct big bang observations and get some "more info"...? . The reality is that science is a very limited enterprise, not an all encompassing explanatory system. It has a victorian era tea party arrogance about it after becoming drunk on simple Newtonian equations which strictly hold for only the most basic and trivial of events. It gets ahead of itself.

Hydrogen would attract to itself and then repel. You don’t have measurable time until you vast amounts of matter.

A man from the future

@ajeashg

Жыл бұрын

@@ROForeverMan but am not enthusiastic

You guys are trolling us with this.

@waleeddandan

Жыл бұрын

Why do you say that?

@theliamofella

Жыл бұрын

How do you come to that conclusion?

@TheAndersonjosh

Жыл бұрын

@@theliamofella By watching the video. The guy was overflowing with asinine unfounded claims and doing it in a very poor way. This cannot be serious.

@theliamofella

Жыл бұрын

@@TheAndersonjosh thanks for your reply , but what part of what he spoke about do you think is unfounded?, The way that matter first formed in the early universe? I don’t think many physicists or cosmologists would disagree with him as he is giving the standard accepted model of the formation of matter and it’s also a working model as it’s cause and effect is still at play right now And there is far more stranger phenomena and theories and findings in science than this

@TheAndersonjosh

Жыл бұрын

@@theliamofella For the cause and effect to be still taking place you make it sound as if actual scientific experimentation is taking place. I guess what you have identified here is that I am not satisfied with the fundamental direction we have headed in general as opposed this specific video. He was speaking so "matter of factly" about things from a time we couldn't possibly have that level of confidence behind. I came from a background where I was forced to go to church every week and forced what to think. I'm done believing things that I cannot verify myself. There is nothing wrong with speculation but pretending this stuff is fact is crossing the line (for me). Watching this video I felt like I was back in Church listening to a sermon as opposed to science. The false confidence is beyond bizarre to the level of religious status. Should we just continue into this realm of make believe and let flat earthers and climate change deniers overtake us with intellectual honesty? Who is going to reel this thing in?

1. Every contingent fact has an explanation. 2. There is a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts. 3. Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact. 4. This explanation must involve a necessary being. 5. This necessary being is God. (Creator, Designer, Programmer, Initiator, First Cause, Unmoved Mover)

How did life emerge from non-life? Scientists don't speculate on this because any answers makes them look silly. They are content to say, "It just did". Not a very scientific answer, I'd say.

@DeanHorak

Жыл бұрын

So, I assume you believe there is a creator. If so, you’d be just as silly when I ask how the creator got created and you answer “he just did”.

@johnyharris

Жыл бұрын

*"How did life emerge from non-life? Scientists don't speculate on this because any answers makes them look silly."* Search KZread for Nick Lane. An influential and prolific biochemist who is using his scientific methods to speculate how chemistry became alive. *"They are content to say, "It just did"* No they are not, this is a common parroted untruth. They say that they _currently_ do not know. Which is very different and very much a scientific answer.

@20july1944

Жыл бұрын

@@DeanHorak The Creator is the brute fact of theistic cosmogony like mine. The Creator does not have a cause, He "just exists" IF He does. That's different from energy "just existing" because energy that "just exists" would be infinitely old and infinitely dissipated rather than in an insanely dense/hot point.

@firstaidsack

Жыл бұрын

Science is not about speculation.

@DeanHorak

Жыл бұрын

@@20july1944 , Nonsense. Time is a dimension of spacetime and did not exist prior to the start of the inflationary period. While that concept may be hard to wrap your mind around, it’s certainly no more difficult that imagining (and it is imagining) that some being simply a always existed and one day just decided to create the universe. While theoretical physics often deals in speculative ideas, they are at least extrapolations of what we do understand about reality. Theistic cosmology relies on fairytales and faith - so, believe what you will, but I will stick with science with a heavy amount of skepticism for its speculative positions.

I would give this conversation 5 thumbs up if I could !!

@danielmcneill13

Жыл бұрын

@@ROForeverMan I just can't help myself !😆

People want to know two things: 1) Where did the universe and life come from? 2) want to know what is outside the universe and beyond time, space and matter ? But the problem? People living on earth, especially secular scientists, want to know about the creation and existence of the universe only in the way they want to know. But whoever wants to know how the universe and life came into existence, one must study not only philosophy but also theology. Man cannot know about the creation or existence of the universe unless he goes back to his own existence or creation. Man is the product of two components, heavenly and earthly. But very few have come to make this a reality on this earth. Especially from the academic world. A person who wants to know the " TRUTH" must first accept or know the truth" before arriving at the desired " reality" through research and study. The reality is that results don't just come the way a person wants them to. If there is a person who thinks that he will reach the truth without knowing the truth, that person will never be able to reach the truth that he wants. A person who thinks that he can reach the truth by thinking only one idea does not know where the universe came from and where life began, to reach this fact, it is necessary to think like beyond the speed of light. When one thinks at the speed of light, not only understands many things hidden in man, but also could reach the ultimate reality. But in order to think faster than the speed of light, it is necessary first to get to the truth. Many people do not know where the universe came from or where life began because they think of it as a gradual change, not at the speed of light. To understand the difference between thinking like "the speed of light and gradual change". a person must look at the other world point of view otherwise that individual opens the door to only 50% of what they want to know. A person who can think at the speed of light is better than a research scientist who thinks about slow or gradual change.

@keithrelyea7997

Жыл бұрын

Really, really, really profound, not so much. think you failed basic high school science courses.

@getayalewe1009

Жыл бұрын

@@keithrelyea7997 Spiritual things are foolishness to a worldly man. only a person with spiritual understanding can understand what I have written. Since a spiritual person has not only a physical body but also a spiritual body, he observes things not only with his mind, but also with his spirit. So I know you can't understand my point. Most of the ideas I have written do show spiritual understanding but not material understanding, but If you believe that the physical body of man is created on earth and does return dust to dust, you can associate time with consciousness or spirit with space. at least. you could Understand 1%, even though this idea is hard to grasp.

@longcastle4863

Жыл бұрын

Religious thinking has led to more harm than good in this world. Even now, for example, it is the religious who deny climate change -- and vote in ways that keep us from doing the things we need to do to ensure a healthy planet for those who come after us.

@longcastle4863

Жыл бұрын

@@ROForeverMan Nope. Homosapiens invented bombs and guns. And also arrow heads and throwing spears and flint knives. And it had nothing to do with being a "materialist" or woo woo spiritualist navel gazer. It's just what humans do. They invent things that generally serve some immediate need or want.

William Lane Craig gives this argument in the following general form: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The Universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

@scambammer6102

Жыл бұрын

but he can't prove any of it. He doesn't even define the terms.

@TurinTuramber

Жыл бұрын

Let me guess number 4. - The god in my Bible is the cause. Lol.

@keithrelyea7997

Жыл бұрын

Who cause the causer? You are caught in the infinite regression trap.

I think these astrophysicists had a bit way too much magic mushrooms before coming up with the Big Bang theory.

How did matter form? At the first trillionth of a second there was enormous energy and einstein told us e=mc^2, so there's your matter then there was lots of quarks up and down and they stuck together like legos... it was at this point that I had to switch off.

How did your nails grow, when you were baby ?

Dark matter wasn't predicted. It just popped into existence, when the model could not account for observations. The Axis Of Evil, was not predicted, but was the opposite of what was predicted.

@TurinTuramber

Жыл бұрын

Relax, dark matter is just a place holder.

60two infinate

Who was there to see and to test that? These are only hypothesis. Tomorrow they will be different hypothesis....and in 100 years they will be different...and so on....Briefly, if you believe that, you believe anything....

Time itself became so old that it condensed itself into all the matter we see. Everything is made out of time energy.

@longcastle4863

Жыл бұрын

@ Bassotronics _:_ Now if you could just work out the mathematics for that, you might have something ; _)_

@Bassotronics

Жыл бұрын

@@longcastle4863 (T)*E=MC2

@longcastle4863

Жыл бұрын

@@Bassotronics Haha! Alright then! _:_ DDD

Bwahaha!

But what caused the Big Bang to bang? My idea is that maybe the universe began as some kind of particle that had the energy of the Big Bang locked up within and became unstable and decayed in a catastrophic release of energy now known as the Big Bang. I call it the Genesis Particle. Of course it's just an idea, however, even if my idea is wrong Genesis Particle sounds pretty darn cool.

@karagi101

Жыл бұрын

Cool doesn’t cut it in science.

@longcastle4863

Жыл бұрын

It is a pretty cool name : )

“Einstein told us E=mc^2, SO THIS ENERGY WAS ABLE TO GET TRANSFORMED into various forms of matter.” How can a person with a brain hear that and nod their head as if that makes any sense whatsoever?

@keithrelyea7997

Жыл бұрын

Sorry buddy, but you ain't worth he bother.

@tonyatkinson2210

Жыл бұрын

You are doubting relativity ? This is the most accurate description of the universe man has formulated

@ingvarhallstrom2306

Жыл бұрын

Matter is energy in a "frozen" state. Energy is matter in an "agitated" state. Matter can become energy and vice versa.

I would say matter is only an appearance / artefact of perception. In other words the Universe did not unfold 13.8 billion years ago how we humans are conceptualizing and visualizing it. A bats depiction of the Universe evolving from the Big Bang would be entirely different to ours, unrecognizable in fact. Which one is more correct? Neither, they are both an incomplete picture of reality (whatever that may be) guided by their particular perceptual aperatus. So it's a nice story to think that's how the Universe unfolded 13.8 billion years ago, but that's all it is - a story of how the Universe would look to A HUMAN, if they were there 13.8 billion years ago watching from the sidelines.

@longcastle4863

Жыл бұрын

Yes, while since Locke, Berkeley, Hume and Kant philosophers and scientists have pretty much understood that time, space, cause and effect and even things like matter and energy are all just appearances in our brains by means of our sensory perceptual apparatuses, wouldn't you agree that they --- while not being a hundred percent accurate --- still nevertheless correlate fairly well with the reality that is out there --- what Kant called the _thing in itself?_ Otherwise, our ideas and inventions would never work. The same appearances, in fact, that allowed us in our Evolutionary past to see that water buffalo over there and come up with a successful plan on how to hunt it, is what allowed us to come up with a successful plan to send members of our species to the Moon and back. And if so, then doesn't our perception of the Universe -- even if it looks nothing like the real reality that is out there -- still bear some weight and have some value -- as those perceptions and appearances have been working pretty well so far? We can at least say, it seems to me, that within our system of perceptions and appearances, 13.8 billion years as the age of the Universe is the best we got -- and like the guest here says, it is also an estimate backed up by a lot of data and predictions.

@xenphoton5833

Жыл бұрын

Truth

he's missing the very very beginning.....who does that?....where is it? what happened?....your story needs fluctuation hahaha

If the universe always existed, which was Stephen Hawking's theory, then matter and consciousness also always existed. When in 1927 the Catholic priest Georges Lemaître created the Big Bang theory, it followed that the Big Bang theory would be enmeshed with the idea that the universe was created by a god, as Stephen Hawking learned when he visited the pope. ... "In 1985, I attended a conference on cosmology at the Vatican in Rome. The gathering of scientists had an audience with Pope John Paul II. He told us that it was okay to study the workings of the universe, but we should not ask questions about its origin, for that was the work of God." Stephen Hawking

@keithrelyea7997

Жыл бұрын

The heavy hand of the true believer edits and selects out of context. Shame on you.

@junevandermark952

Жыл бұрын

​@@keithrelyea7997 What do you mean by the words "out of context?" Out of what context?

@junevandermark952

Жыл бұрын

@@keithrelyea7997 What do YOU believe is in proper context?

I like Max. I don't like PBS Space Time Mr Bean. The German gal is okay as is Ash. I do like Closer. I have a question: Why do so many science related KZreadrs feel the need to insert so many stupid jokes into their videos? I have a hard time making it through the angry German woman's videos because every other sentence is a forced joke, in my mind this is unnecessary, annoying and cheapens the content. Its a popular trend amongst almost all of these science KZreadrs. Someone tell me why. WHY? I think I'll go mountain biking today.

@longcastle4863

Жыл бұрын

Well, if you're talking about pet peeves, I gave up on PBS Science because there seemed to be a rule that the word _"weird"_ had to be used twelve times every episode. So tired of quantum physics constantly being described as "weird". That and the music they insisted on playing behind the narrative was often annoying and distracting.

What?!! No magic Man in the sky?!!

You can not get something from nothing

@tonyatkinson2210

Жыл бұрын

How do you know ? How many examples of nothing do we have to be able to make this claim ?

@longcastle4863

Жыл бұрын

I think it absolutely makes sense mathematically, actually...

@tonyatkinson2210

Жыл бұрын

@@longcastle4863 Math is a language we developed to describe this universe and the things in it . Given that “nothing “ makes no sense in this universe , then it’s perfectly understandable that math is unable to conceive of “nothing “ when describing reality . Like I said . We have no examples of “nothing “ in this universe . It’s a mystery to us . And it’s clearly something very rare . Maybe it’s unstable ? Regardless. there no current way to determine whether something can or can’t come from nothing .

Speculation based on assumptions based on a world view that has little to do with actual science.

People will believe ANYTHING, unless is written in the Bible.

@longcastle4863

Жыл бұрын

No, the _Epic of Gilgamesh_ is considered all legend and fable as well. Just better written ; _)_

LMAO 😂😂🤡🤡

*Max Tegmark - How Did Matter Form in the Early Universe?: no one knows for sure and it is a mere speculation and guessing* .

A frontier of ignorance,,. I read about that in the Bible.

Bang Bang is misinterpretation based on faulty concept of identity and time. Time is object specific. Identity of visible matter is function of dark matter.

I can’t believe that much nonsense can be tolerated in one interview

@GreatwhiteWale

Жыл бұрын

There doing what magicians doo. Look at my hands wizard spell casting. It's all an illusion. Lol

@MadebyJimbob

Жыл бұрын

@DM tell me when someone directly observed the beginning of everything. Haha we’ll wait

@johnyharris

Жыл бұрын

@@MadebyJimbob Why would that prove the observed cosmic microwave background radiation wrong? Would it prove inflation theory wrong? Or perhaps it would it prove wrong whatever your fundamental causal theory is?

@firstaidsack

Жыл бұрын

@@MadebyJimbob Science isn't limited to direct observations. If you don't want to appear ridiculous you should learn about the stuff you're trying to ridicule.

@MadebyJimbob

Жыл бұрын

@@firstaidsack oh really, you can do the scientific method without observation? Haha

Yet they can't tell you how we came from a world of WATER. Did you know there is kore water inside the earth then what is outside it? Yet long ago this was a ocean world. Where did it come from? The Word Genesis 1:1-2

@TheLionFarm

Жыл бұрын

Your task is to prove how we could of got a world filled with water As biblically we can explain it But can you explain the most foundationally basic thing needed in life as water (not just droplets) specifically how we got so much of it? "Scientists have found evidence that Earth was covered by a global ocean that turned the planet into a “water world” more than 3bn years ago. Telltale chemical signatures were spotted in an ancient chunk of ocean crust which point to a planet once devoid of continents, the largest landmasses on Earth.Mar 2, 2020" (We know the years are exaggerated even if it wasn't where did all that water come from) How did continents rise out of the water ball? The question is can you even explain how we got so much water or even find that answer from a scientist lab_coat when you find that answer to how we got a water world let me know; till then your risking yourself thinking this world had no intelligent Creater but could be explained by change that out of nothing came something from nowhere going into what is space yet where did we get so much water?

. "I still believe the universe has a beginning in real time, at the big bang. But there's another kind of time, imaginary time, at right angles to real time, in which the universe has no beginning or end." -Stephen Hawking Black Holes and Baby Universes

What a bunch of word salad BS.

These 10 year old interviews are getting lame

@user-ei1ym1lq6h

Жыл бұрын

It's because he only takes time to speak with the "experts" in their field of expertise. He should take time and interview his audience on their thoughts and allow others to share their theories that challenge people like the Max Tegmarks of the world.

Science vs. Religion Science looks for causes and mechanisms (what & how), Religion for “why”, for meaning. That is why, “Closer to truth” will never get closer to “Why”? The show excels in reason, and lacks meaning. It has a purpose, but no lasting value. And that is what you expect from an ego driven commercial enterprise.

I have heard 5 year olds come up with better versions of "what happened".

@ingvarhallstrom2306

Жыл бұрын

Please put that five year old on KZread, I promise you it will become a sensation ...

Thats how far Science can take us, we can go far back as to , Universe started with an intense heat wave , quarks-proton/neutron/electron-Hydrogen etc but who created these quarks, why this person created quarks and why this person planned to build the universe this way, nobody knows or can possibly understand. Thats the dead end.

@ahirbhairavorai7793

Жыл бұрын

@@ROForeverMan A book exists, A table exists, A chair exists, may not forever but for now they do and what name we call these objects is subjective, nonetheless it helps explain certain idea/s.

but why and how did the universe started out as hot with so much energy....a Given ?

Why should the beginning of the universe be remotely intuitive for us to understand. Could be like explaining general relativity to a ladybird.

@keithrelyea7997

Жыл бұрын

Come on man. Didn't you even try to listen to the guy.He gave you some good information. Open up and enjoy.

This comment section is a clear sign that Robert's been having way too many religious thinkers on his show. It's inundated with spiritual nut cases who think just making woo woo sounding proclamations -- like they're some kind of self proclaimed prophet from on high -- amounts to anything.

@tc3383

Жыл бұрын

Science is a religion one based on faith at this point as all it has now is theories. The Big Bang is a Theory gravity is also a theory maybe you should try delving in facts sometime. Because Science seems to not be doing that much anymore.

@longcastle4863

Жыл бұрын

@@tc3383 Any yet still somehow science got us to the moon and back, gave us Hubble and the James Webb Space Telescope, jet travel, lung transplants, air conditioning, cell phones and computers, alternative energies, improved hospital conditions, flu shots and good ol' penicillin. And have increased our overall life span 40 to 50 years over the past century... Just off the top of my head. And Religion, real Religion has given us... ?

@tc3383

Жыл бұрын

@@longcastle4863 you mean the moon We haven’t gone back to since the advent of actual technology that we only showed footage that was broadcast on a projector screen and media only allowed to film the projector screen not the live feed and we haven’t made it past low earth orbit since?

@tc3383

Жыл бұрын

@@longcastle4863 Reciting fake statistics with the life expectancy because the majority of deaths were actually in childbirth it wasn’t uncommon to live into your 60s that any point in human history nice try.

@tc3383

Жыл бұрын

@@longcastle4863 You do realize the man who created DNA Francis crick was a Christian and attributed the whole thing to his religion and LSD?