The amount of people who don’t have a basic understanding of science in the comment section who seem to think their opinion is right compared to that of some of the greatest scientists in the world is actually quite concerning
By which yardstick do you measure "great scientists"? At one point of time "great scientists" were people who believed that the earth was flat and that earth was at the centre of the universe and that the sun revolved around the earth. Don't forget that in the world of sheep the sheep at the head of the flock is a "great scientist", even if all the sheep are all on their way to the slaughter house! If all thought as you there would be no progress in science. It's not a crime to put forward an alternate theory, even if it turns out to be wrong, but complacency is a HUGE crime in science. As you SEEM to be satisfied with what the uploader had to say please read the comment by "clownface 88" and my reply to his comment.
Perhaps what’s more concerning is that the majority of the public places the very meaning of their existence into the hands of a community of people that they have never met for themselves and of who’s work they can never examine for themselves aside from (reading, hearing and regurgitating what they have been told) . If this said community were to ever systemically inherit bias in its analysis of the facts, the reliant majority of the people would be none the wiser. You are absolutely right….. There is extreme ignorance concerning not only scientific understanding but critical thinking and just plain good sense…. Dear I say, this type of ignorance is far more pervasive than I think you realize…. Yes there are people speaking about things they do not understand….. ….. but I think the real problem here is not just people thinking that they know what they know not, but people who believe they have knowledge that consider it proper not to think for themselves……
I can't believe you didn't mention Georges Lemaître, as he was the one who formulated the initial Big Bang hypothesis and spent a lot of time and effort to make it a serious contender to the then steady state model of the universe.
Science says there was no space no darkness and no light no sound before the big bang? it sounds like blind faith. In that case, you can create a tiny star with compressed hydrogen and helium in a lab. Where did the matter come, where did the light come, where did the air come, where did the water come. Can you think of an ocean of water becoming one single atom, it sounds like you got the idea of creating something from nothing from the bible and blind faith.
Great video, great audio, TYVM! PS It doesn't look cold there, but at 00:52 it looks like we could see your breath. Where are you? Was it cold that day?
If galaxies are all moving away from one another then how is that evidence of a big bang happening everywhere? If we reversed time the matter contained inside of each galaxy would go back to the center's of every galaxy making it appear as if the matter in a galaxy originated from the core or the supermassive black hole in their centers. And because every galaxy is not the same age, per the size of the supermassive black holes in their cores and the stars in the galaxies then it would indicate again that there was no single big bang from which all matter originated from. Even the fact that new stars are being born near supermassive black holes indicates that the universe did not start from a big bang. The fact that galaxies furthest away are accelerating away from our perspective indicates only one thing. The volume of space is increasing everywhere. In order for the volume of space to increase exponentially with distance is a clear indicator that energy and matter is constantly being made. And since the supermassive black holes in the cores of every galaxy is located at the centers of all the expansion taking place, IE galaxies moving away from each other then all the evidence indicates that galaxies grow and expand, increasing in energy and matter over time and the energy and matter originates or is coming from the supermassive black holes in each galaxy.. This too would indicate that a single big bang did not occur and would also indicates that the laws of thermodynamics are wrong to assume that energy and matter cannot be created. If energy and matter cannot be created then the universe would be void of all energy and matter. but the universe is full of energy and matter. So we must conclude that energy and matter is slowly being created by the supermassive black holes in every galaxy. Is there any direct evidence to support this postulate that energy and matter is being created by the supermassive black holes in every galaxy? Yes there is. In 2019 ALMA Radio Telescope released a Doppler image of Sgr A*, the supermassive black hole in the core of our galaxy showing the motion and velocity of the gas near it. The Doppler data showed that massive amounts of energy and gas was flowing directly away from the black hole in every direction. This observation was completely contrary to Einstein's predictions made by general relativity. I thought that actual observations were empirical evidence which supersede every theory, even laws of physics? Yet the actual observation of gas and energy quickly moving away from the supermassive black hole has not even sparked controversy among astrophysicists and their theoretical beliefs. Astrophysicists are still clinging the incorrect notion that a big bang happened. Which now with all the evidence appears to be a massive delusion on their part. Is there not just one person or qualified astrophysicists who can debunk the Doppler image made by ALMA Radio Telescope in 2019? That image is empirical evidence indicating a big bang did not happen, general relativity and the laws of thermodynamics are wrong! Denying this evidence would be like denying the facts based on one's beliefs, which in psychology there is actually a term used to describe when a person denies actual evidence because it does not conform to their beliefs. It's called cognitive dissonance.
how do you explain the CMB then? I get that you seem to be addressing the Redshift of galaxies, but what about the CMB being everywhere you look in the universe? I assume that we can also measure the wavelength expansion (even if very small) every year for the CMB. Wouldn't the fact that the CMB exists mean that there had to be a pretty uniform source for this to occur from? Not separate galaxies all forming at different times?
@@mikeofstedal The CMB is a weak microwave signal, a vibration that occurs to all matter. All protons vibrate at the low energy microwave signal measured by the WMAP satellite. The solar system contains massive amounts of hydrogen gas in the sun's solar wind. In order to get away from all the particles created by our sun the WMAP satellite would have to be located outside the solar system. The WMAP is measuring protons floating around inside the solar system, not the cosmic background. The CMB would not have a polarity if it was left over from a big bang for it would have encased the solar system. The CMB should be the same no matter what direction it is measured, that was the prediction. But the WMAP satellite discovered the signal they're pinning on the CMB is polarized, indicating it is coming from a source today, not from a big bang. It debunks the entire idea that it's left over from the beginning of the universe. Research the CMB axis of evil. Also, the Voyager spacecraft when it got to the sun's Heliopause, where the sun's solar wind comes to a halt measured hot dense charged particles. the particles were more than 54,000° F. Voyager 2 measured the same thing. If particles just outside the sun's influence is extremely hot, in a bubble around the solar system then how the heck would the WMAP be able to measure a colder temperature of just a few degrees above absolute zero beyond all the hot material?
It sounds like a lot of the argument is of the form “If the Big Bang theory is true, then (statement). Since (statement), then BBT. I’m not dismissing the BBT (far from it), but any argument using the fallacy of the converse is invalid. Give me more “If (statement), then BBT” and less “If BBT, then (statement).”
I don't believe in Big Bang and I don't consider that the evidence is flawless. 1) About Redshift: I don't think we can assume for certainty that it is caused by Doppler effect and that it shows expansion. Plus there are hundreds of galaxies who have a blueshift which contradict the expansion of Universe. 2) About Cosmic Microwave Background: It may be produced by other causes than Big Bang, for example we can guess that galaxies heat up the Universe in a homogeneous way. 3) About abundance of light elements : Mathematics can prove a lot things that don't even exist. So maybe scientists can just vary the calculations of their computers until it matches with reality, but that doesn't mean their theory is true. 4) About Evolution of Universe: Obviously no human can observe the universe's evolution, we can only make guesses. So when we look a galaxy aged 10 billion years, it looks different, but how can we be sure that it is a galaxy in formation ? Maybe it's just that galaxies evolve and were different. And even if we assume that it is a galaxy in formation, and that all galaxies were created at this time, it only proves that Universe evolves, and not that it had a beginning.
Well - 1) - please offer an alternate explanation _WITH_ evidence. 2) You *could* be right - but it must match the present 3 degrees Kelvin which fits nicely with the BB Theory. 3) Light elements - these are produced FIRST and longest in the fusion process - please explain why you think they don't! 4) Fortunately, we have all the observational evidence of varieties of galaxies at various stages in their development - like looking back in time to observe early development. QED I think.
Something I have always wondered about this idea is how can anyone who believes the big bang doubt that the universe is a black hole? If all matter and energy was only in the form of energy, and compressed to a plank length how could it help to be a black hole?
That's just the observable universe. There was more Universe around that, maybe an infinite amount. So there wasn't enough of a local overdensity to collapse into a black hole.
Q: The larger the distance to a galaxy, the larger the redshift. And then there are several theories about what causes that redshift? And: If there would be a redshift because of the distance, then galaxies that are moving away seem to move away with increasing speed? Or not?
I think it is still sensible to think that perhaps this is only what happened to our section of the universe. Perhaps this patch of around 4000 galaxies originated in a single point. But perhaps this is but a very small fraction of the full universe.
Bah, this is all nonsense. Obviously a supernatural being made everything with his magic powers. -Bronze age cultist... or a modern american. can't tell them apart most of the time.
I found you by searching for a way to understand what the dark era was. It gave a nice intuitive idea in this video when you talked about it being like the light inside a star where the photons keep bouncing and eventually escape, except everything was a star. There was more than that though, right? Was there something in particular about early ionized hyrogen/helium that resulted in the energy from early photons being absorbed? Do you have a video that covers this mechanism?
If everything is moving away from us does that mean that we are the center of the universe? Or is the expansion something else because some should be moving towards/with us if it started in a different location.
there's red and blue shift of the light off objects moving away and towards us respectively. if the universe is expanding, no matter where the point we are in the universe, it will be a red shift. think of a 2 dimensional circle and draw a point wherever you'd like. expand the radius of the circle and you'll see what i mean.
@@crazycraver No not nessescarily from his explanation. We don't have to be in the center for every to be moving away in his explanation. Its interesting that he used a circle, just like pattern an explosion makes.
I’VE GOT A THEORY! What if God saw a beautiful waterfall and accidentally released his seed all over the earth, causing trees and animals to burst out of the ground? Science got nothing on that.
"Even tough it's a theory , we should regard it in the same way that we regard gravity , evolution and general relativity." You should rather take evolution out of there. Because besides all the scientific evidence that proves evolution , I HAVE A BOOK THAT SAYS OTHERWISE!!
I personally don't think that the theory has enough solid evidence to be considered a theory. Most of the pieces of evidence that it has are actually just assumptions. Who's to say that the red shift is actually showing expansion? Even if the universe is expanding, it is completely assumed that everything started at a point. The CMB also isn't concrete enough for me because we assume what it is and what it means. I personally believe that the universe just always was. It had no beginning. Or if it did, it came about in a completely different way. Just my thoughts.
@@frasercain The CMB may be the black body radiation of the superfluid. How do we really know how far those microwave photons traveled anyway? johnmarkmorris.com/2019/07/16/cosmic-inflation-is-wrong-long-live-inflation/
dread true : Superfluid is an idea for how spacetime could be implemented by a very lightly interacting, universe permeating fluid or gas of cold low energy photons, neutrinos, and perhaps gravitons. I wrote a lot about it on my blog: johnmarkmorris.com
you're right in a sense, but also wrong. See the big bang, is entirely theoretical, and the evidence pointing to the big bang is also theoretical. But the universe did have a beginning, when God created it, "In The Beginning God Created The Heavens And The Earth" Genesis 1:1
No point asking that question you'll never get an answer from an einstein believer. Because he will only tell you that time did not exist before the big bang so you cannot or are NOT ALLOWED ask what came BEFORE that. UTTER RUBBISH! People who believe in einstein prefer to believe that all the matter in the universe came out of a singularity, in other words a point that has no physical dimensions, rather than admit that einstein was and is wrong! To those people einstein is none other than God Himself! Think of this: At the point of the big bang there would have been no time, no space and, therefore, NO GRAVITY TO HOLD EVERYTHING TOGETHER so your question is EXACTLY the right one to ask: "How did all of that condensed stuff get there before the big bang"! LONG LIVE FREE THINKERS LIKE YOU!
no one created God because if someone created "God" Then "God" is not "God". God cannot be limited by 1.space 2.matter 3.time For big bang to have happened, there had to be "space" for "matter" to exist in. For example my house is where i keep my bed in. Space being my house nd my bed being the matter in this case. And "time" being when this matter was put into this space. Ie when my bed was moved into my house. For God to be the creator, he had to be outside of time space and matter. He has be everywhere at once, see past present and future at once, and he has to be able to create anything he wishes. Because he is outside of time space and matter. So God has always existed, and that is something our human minds could not even grasp before our bodies would fall to the ground as our minds drift into madness. But yeah that's my explanation to the popular question "who created God" No one. God has always existed. But this theory makes way more sense than the atheist version, wich suggests Something blew up out of nothing into absolute perfection for no reason at all. I thought there had to be space for matter to exist in. But according to atheists that space either magically appeared or has always existed.
@@10ksubswithoutavideo23 What's wrong with you? Just because he referred to a Muslim he is now a terrorist??? People like are wants wrong with society. Just waiting for you to realize what you said and claim "It was a joke"
Some of the comments here misinterpreting the meaning of "nothing". There is no such thing as a philosophical, absolute "nothing". In the context of the Big Bang, would you really call something that has the mass of the universe, pack in an unimaginably small volume a "nothing"?
Is Earth not also moving away along with it? Or are we just standing still while all other galaxies move away? Sure makes us special.. What if other galaxies we're largely moving together in an oval whirl pool fashion and so we're we, we would think there moving away but we're all just circle
It seems like a lot of assumptions to me. To think we know what happened 13.8 billion years ago and trillions and trillions and trillions of miles away is arrogant, at best this is a guess.
Who is claiming to "know" this? Yes. It is a guess. Based on data. And until someone comes up with a better theory with better supporting data, this will probably continue to be the most accepted theory. At least in the scientific community.
When I look at the big bang theory and the vast size of space, I can't help but feel that we might just not be able to see far enough to make a theory like this. I can't help but feel that the symptoms of the big bang where definitely triggered by an external force that is either to big or to far away for us to understand. If the theory was all of known space comes from one point then great, but as it stands I doubt that all of creation started with a big bang.
The name "Big bang" is a misnomer, nobody actually thinks the universe started with a random explosion. What we do know is that the universe started out much smaller and hotter than it is now. That's it. A scientific theory is not a random guess people throw around, it's concrete stuff we can measure. When it comes to how that small, hot universe originated - that's where we enter the realm of hypothesis, and are actually just guessing at this point.
Maybe we are like the smallest thing in something bigger. For example we see an atom as the smallest thing in existence (so far) so I think it could be possible that we are something like that for a other existence
If the observable universe is 96 billion lightyeares in diameter, then the most distant objets are 43 billion light years away. If the "whole universe" is just 13.8 billion years old, then how much time it takes for light to reach us from 43 billion light years away? ~~~~~ Considering Rayleigh scattering happening within our atmosphere at distances of few light seconds, and considering opposite effect on sunlight on Mars, can we be sure that Red Shift can not be the result of intergalactic medium effect on the light coming through billions of lightyears of it? ~~~~~ Considering Law of Conservation of Energy, and taking into account that more distant galaxies are going away faster, what is increasing their speed? Where that energy comes from? ~~~~~ Are we sure that Background Radiation is not simply manifestation of Olber's paradox? Or, if we can not reach exact temperature of absolute zero in any laboratory we have, can we really expect to have absolute zero in intergalactic space with all those stars with temperatures of thousands or more Kelvin around? ~~~~~ Can we exclude the possibility of another local Big Bang that happened at about, say, 150 or 1500 billion light years away?
I always get confused about seeing something like the cosmic radiation background, as It's moving away from us. So, how old is the radiation we are receiving from it now? And if I may ask, if It's traveled all the way here, now, then I assume that radiation source was closer to us than where this field exists now. And I find it hard to understand why the radiation never dissipated over this time and distance. Let's say this pattern repeats. Maybe then some really old radiation abounds that turned into dark matter...
The reason we embrace the big bang theory is because it explains the universe how we expect it to be and the only way we can conceive it to be. With a beginning our brains are hardwired to believe everything must have a beginning we can not mentally accept a universe with no beginning of having always existed
No the proper question is what caused the big bang? , because it had a begening, and the answer is easy from a Christian perspective because we all believe that someone was there before and he must be spaceless because he created space, he must be immaterial because he created material, he must be timeless because he created time, and I have a question if you are timeless do you have a beginning? , those are the attributes of God in Christianity because we all know that God exist whether we like it or not. God bless you.
@@frasercain "WE"?. 'You' don't know, don't speak for others! Coz I know that God created everything, and if you can't tell me where Time, Space and Matter came from, I can it share it with you. Time, Space and Matter are what we call a continuum, they have to come into place simultaneously because If there wasn't Matter but not space where would you put it?, and when there is Space and Matter but not Time, when would you put it? And the God who created all of those is outside of them, HE isn't affected by them! HE's God 😤
thanks for this video. im doing a project on the big bang for science class. although i really still dont understand the evidence theory, dumbing down all the big words helped me rephrase things at least lmao pray i get a good grade
Nobody seems to address the existence of Arp's peculiar galaxies. If the redshift is always an indication of distance, how can objects with massively different redshifts be joined together? The most obvious answer is that the redshift may have more than one possible cause. But the astrophysicists answer is to just ignore Arp's findings because they put the BB theory in doubt.
One day, far in the future, you'll be outside with your friends, look up and be able to explain some of the cool things in the sky. You'll be glad you learned astronomy. I can handle your dislikes.
Dylan D'Souza 1 second ago The BIG BANG THEORY is a model of the history of the universe, tracing the evolution of the cosmos back to its very earliest moments. I really liked this video. Keep up the great work Fraser C.
Why is it so illogical to think that such a fine tuned earth perfectly suited for life was designed? Is a person dumb because they think a computer was designed and built by someone, and not just exploded out of nothing? Because if you look at the human body and all nature, that’s exactly what it is, we are made up of tiny biological machines working in perfect harmony to keep us alive. You can’t study biology and seriously say, “oh yeah, that was just some accident”.
@@Gayboy21 I think God’s like a 3D object in a 2D world, to the people of the 2D world, The 3D object is incomprehensible. Passing through the 2D world layer by layer, but the people of the 2D world only see a fraction of what’s going on, I think it’s similar, God’s outside of the realm of time and space, he always was, and always will be.
@@Elijah-Bravo Alot of planets are in the habitable zone of their solar system. Life changes to fit around their surroundings and that's called natural selection. Literally if all of the oxygen has disappeared from the earth there will still be life(mainly organisms that doesn't require oxygen to live).
How are those speculations? They are evidence based calculations, following mathematical formulas and the ratio and nature of elements. The picture of the CMB is backed up by what we see in our universe. Everything is calculated. The only speculations are anything pertaining to the time when our physics can't apply, or quantum gravity. The scientific community doesn't make predictions during that time period though; they admit their limitations. Even then, that pertains to less then a second after the big bang. After then we are able to know what would happen due to the nature of physics, and the inflation of the big bang backs up our calculations.
Of all scientific theories I dislike the Big Bang hypothesis the most. The "evidence" for it does not hold up without assumption. The only evidence is observable wavelengths of light and radio static which the promulgation of is known to be objects extremely distant. If they could travel to at least half the distance to these objects and measure these phenomenon at that point also and reach the same conclusion then I would find the theory plausible. For now simple logic says what they have observed and measured so far is not enough for me to take it seriously.
The big bang is a theory, not a hypothesis. We can literally see into the past by looking at lower wavelengths and verify that the universe used to be smaller and hotter, we aren't just guessing what they mean. As the video mentioned, this is also supported by other fields of cosmic research, such as the formation of galaxies, percentages of different materials in the universe etc. If this was just a wild guess it wouldn't have been supported by the vast majority of researches today.
@@commenturthegreat2915 Your only helping to make my point. "Observing" any energy of any wavelength that we can detect from our little spot in the universe at this "time" is about the same as assuming we can currently measure the chemical composition of the fluids on the nearest 1000 planets. The big bang "theory" is cosmologies weakest assumption because the potential changes in that energy over such distances along with the velocities of the bodies we can observe cannot be even closely measured, only assumed. We can only see past energy patterns from our position in the short sighted present. We have never "observed" the formation of galaxies we have snapshots of galaxies in early development. Scientific theory requires more than a good assumption. To me right now the big bang theory is an interesting philosophical debate but hardly science.
@@Zaekyr We can literally see into the past by looking at lower wavelengths further away and see every stage of the universe from the first time light appeared up until the current day. We see red shift in distant galaxies in a way no other model properly explains and know that they're moving away from us, using two different calculation methods wielding the same results (definitely not "assumed"). We run simulations that show the model is compatible with all current observations. This is already enough to make the incredibly straightforward conclusion that the universe used to be smaller and hotter. It would take a huge coincidence for all of these facts to align by chance. If this is model works, can lead us to new scientific discoveries, and has never been disproven - this is a scientific theory. Why should we ignore it if it's the very best we have?
So the big bang theory says that all the universes floating away were once ONE much larger thing, or much closer together and blown apart by something else?
what i want to know is how do we know the universe "is" 13.8 billion years old, yet we weren't there. For example, grab a water bottle, and fill it half full with cold water, and the other half with warm water, last Tuesday. What I'm saying in we can't measure the age of something through operational science. Operational science is something you can experiment or use in the present. So that's why i believe the universe is only 6,000 years old, and not 13 billion. When we start with the Bible, now that gives us something to go on, creationists estimate that the universe is only 6,000 years old. Which there's a lot of evidence that points to it, we believe God created the universe, and everything within it. a example of evidence for you is, 1) the moon moves 2 inches away from the earth every year due to tidal forces, as the moon moves further away it slows down, so if we trace back, it would have speed up going towards earth, and within 1.4 billion years, the moon would have collided with the earth. there are many more examples of evidence, to learn more, go to Answers In Genesis.
Scientist don't know how old the universe is. The believe it's that old based on supporting evidence. Without the evidence the belief would be blind. And only arrogant people blindly believe in things right?
Now can you explain where the big bang originated? Big Bang theory states that it comes from Singularity but where did this "Singularity" come from. Big Bang theory doesn't explain our origins if you explain that the galaxy was one star. Where did that one star come from? I also have a question about how scientists know the age of a star.
Curiously never mentions In 1927, the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître proposed an expanding model for the universe to explain the observed redshifts of spiral nebulae, and calculated the Hubble law. He based his theory on the work of Einstein and De Sitter, and independently derived Friedmann's equations for an expanding universe.
Didn't you watch the video? Here's an explanation a 5 year old can understand. Every thing in the universe is moving away from eachother. You can see which way things are flying. Now you can theoretically reverse the direction everything is travelling. Voila, everything unites in the center. Imagine a cake with TNT inside it. Film it with a slow mo cam. Blow it up. Play the clip in reverse and see all the little cake bits come together.
Its amazing how these guys say everything the Bible says... yet at the same time deny it. The Bible says God created the universe & the earth at 1 point in time
My major issues with the theory, which I hope someone smarter than I can explain to me, is with the first pillar. 1) it's very odd to me that we would be the center of the universe. All galaxies are moving away from... us? The chances of being the absolute center - the mass that didn't move - is so small as to not even be feasible. 2) "Almost all galaxies are moving away from us" okay... but what's the story with those that aren't? Why aren't they?
A bit late but no matter what perspective you have, galaxies are moving away from you. Imagine drawing a bunch of points on a deflated balloon and blowing it. No matter what point you view from, the other points move away. For your second question, galaxies that aren’t moving away are those in the local group. For them, they are so close to us that gravity overcomes the expansion of the universe and they are falling towards us
The antagonism against creationists here (not the video) is really uncalled for. Not to mention, creationists aren't always (or even mostly) young-earth creationists.
How come an infinite universe originate from a single point? If it did originate from a single point doesn't it like actually makes a strong case for the argument that Universe is finite and we will end up from where we started? I am interested to know what will break the argument above?
The fact that galaxies are moving away is not a good enough reason to assume that at one time, they were much closer, and even before that, started from a single regularity. You cant make that assumption based on a couple hundred years of data. That amount of time is not even a blip in time compared to the age of the universe. We dont know if the universe has been expanding since its existance based on a few hundred years. We dont even understand dark matter or dark energy yet. We are getting waaaay too ahead of ourselves thinking we know how it all began. This is similar logic as a meteorologist telling us what the normal high temperature is supposed to be based on records we've been keeping for the last couple hundred years if that. Theres no way to know what normal tempetature is. This big bang theory isas reliable as the multiverse theory.
You people say that the universe is constantly expanding, so why, after the countless times we've seen stars being destoryed- supernova- why have we never seen a star being born??? Don't say that we just can't see that far out, becuase it's nonsense. If you were to hold your thumb out in front of you up to the sky, in that tiny little space the hubble telescope could see at least 20 galaxies.
if the big bang theory is correct it should be pretty easy to see if all matters in the universe is in form of a sphere with a vast empty space inside, if one single point of all matter suddenly 'explode' we should see this as a linear movement away from this point, the universe should look almost like those craters we see on the moon, an empty hole in the middle and all matter from the impact thrown evenly out in all directions, how come this is not reported?
Your model for the expansion of the universe is wrong. The Big Bang was not an explosion at one point in empty space expanding out into that empty space. If it were then your explanation for what we should see would be correct. However the so-called "Big Bang" is really a nickname that stuck. A more precise term is *cosmic expansion*. There is no hole in the middle of our universe because space itself has expanded as well as all the energy and matter [matter came later than energy] that our known universe contains. Also there is no middle of our universe, nor an outer edge where the universe expands into empty space. The geometry of spacetime has the universe wrapped around on itself so that everywhere is expanding outwards but without the universe having an outer edge. This is hard to imagine, but an analogy is the way that the earth also has no edge because it's two dimensional almost flat surface over short distances is actually a three dimensional sphere [technically speaking it's an oblate spheroid] taken as a whole.
wheresmyoldaccount - but if this it so, you can say I am in the middle of a universe which is expanding out from me, how come I am not squeezed flat from the expansion when I am in the center?
There is a force pushing the universe apart but it is so poorly understood that scientists call its source *dark energy* - "dark" in this context means unknown. You ask an intelligent question: Why there is no 'equal and opposite force' pushing back as is the case, for example, when a cannon fires a cannonball. I don't know the answer. Cosmic expansion is unlike a explosion that has a pressure wave, but that is an observation, not an explanation / answer for your question.
wheresmyoldaccount - ok, thanks, this is really strange and difficult to understand, and probably it is wrong to use our daily live experience here on earth to understand the universe
I'm an atheist; so I don't buy into theories about the cosmos, without hard evidence. Guess what? - there isn't enough evidence to suggest one big bang - the concept may have biblical underpinnings; and therefore, should be suspect. There isn't enough evidence that the universe came about a central point, a central time point - that is thinking like a human. There may be several big-bangs, happening at different time points, and still happening...all around us. And, it may be the nature of the universe to spread apart...until nothing becomes of it. The gravitational constant is or could be directly related to the average temperature of the universe...therefore, those areas where the temperature is higher, the gravitational constant is greater...and, the expansion faster.
The observations about the Big Bang have nothing to do with religion. Also, it doesn't mean that the entire Universe came from a single point. We did a recent video about this: ruclips.net/video/x2A4yYeurGk/видео.html
''The observations about the Big Bang have nothing to do with religion''...in your opinion. Bible says what: ''In the beginning there was nothing''... - the concept of time is somehow connected with mortality; a beginning and an end - this is sheer nonsense. And the Big Bang has religious underpinnings, why wouldn't it? - religion is a system of control, to support an authoritative and 'moral' posture. Time doesn't begin and end in the entire scheme of things; that is so that 'we' may say it does; that is a concept from the scientific-elites, that underpins their authority...it is not based on pure findings nor argument, it has a bias to it.
If we look deep into space and see stars how they were 13.5 billion yrs ago and we know stars explode and new stars form from their dust how can we trust that everything is still expanding and not already contracting?
Because almost all of the galaxies are accelerating away from us, and there is not enough mass in the known Universe to cause a gravitational contraction.
But not ALL Galaxies are moving away from us , and unless we are at the centre of the ' universe ' wouldn't one ' Side ' of what we see ,be further away from us than the other ' side'.....Hmmmm
First of all, let me correct this: a black hole is at the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. Second, there is no center of the universe. That is why our galaxy is scheduled to collide into Andromeda(another galaxy in the local group) in 4.5 billion years or so. So no, we are not the center of the universe, because there is no center of the universe.
Landen Velasco one question we’re did god come from and we and scientists don’t say the big band came from nothing we gust say that’s how the universe was created and it’s way more plausible then god I would like to hear if you have any arguments
I AM EVIL! !!!!!!!! God is infinitely powerful so it would make more sense for him to defy our logic by having no creator. That makes more logical sense than something from nothing. When you walk into a store, you don’t look at the oranges and think “those oranges came from nothing” you think “somebody put them there” or its subconscious that somebody put them there because any other explanation would be preposterous. I’d love to hear what you have to say about that.
I have a question, why wouldn't the single point in space with infinite mass just be a black hole for eternity? It would have the masses of quadrillions of stars that become/became black holes when condensed.
Black holes don't contain it's matter and energy forever. Quesars are regular events when black holes are pulling in too much matter too quickly, causing the atoms and energy holding them together to spew out in powerful ejections. If a supermassive class black hole is enough to cause energy to erupt that violently despite the massive gravitational force of the black hole, every bit of energy in the universe condensed in a single spot couldn't possibly just stay put.
I just wanted to ask if you know the 14 evidence that supports big bang theory. The evidences that the scientists figured out for it to be the most accepted theory and considered as scientific theory?
ohhh okau i get it , a big point to use ina argument would be on how the light is traveling outwards and away from us beyond our “observable universe” that makes sense. it’s just the ... what caused the explosion. edit: now i’m thinking of “matter cannot be created nor destroyed, it will always exist and always has”
The big bang describes the original state of the universe, not how that original state was created. We still don't know how it originated, and there's a chance we never could know. The universe's creation does break the laws of conservation as you said, which is a major point in how scientists try to address the problem. The thing is, this problem is present in any creation model we can think of. For instance saying god made the universe doesn't solve anything - we're still stuck with an entity that was created out of nothing / is infinitely old, which breaks the exact same laws of nature.
The big bang remains to be a theory. A crappy one. From what we observe, all of te universe seems to expand. In this aspect, the big bang is a good theory, that fits current observation. But then we have to say that all matter originated from a single point and then, we have to figure out how that could be even remotely possible. So then we come up with the idea that time and space did not exist yet. But, of course, nothing comes from nothing, so the must be membranes or other dimensions, where matter, time and space came from. It's a little like Occam's raisor: The more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely the explanation is. Maybe the universe was a lot denser in the past, but I think it is very unlikely, the big bang is correct. We make up nice stories, from observations of a unviverse, while we have not even been outside our little bubble of our solar system. We cannot even tell how skewed these observations can be. Maybe we live inside a gravitational lense from our star and galaxies just seem to move away, kinda like the rear view mirror in our car. We understand about 4% of what's going on in the universe, I'm told. We try to explain what the beach looks like, from observing a grain of sand. Kind of pathetic, imo.
So you agree that the Universe is decreasing in density. That's literally all the Big Bang says. The Universe is less dense today and it was more dense in the past. What caused this expansion will be the job for a future theory, but for right now, the only answer is: "nobody knows".
@@frasercain No, It is said, the universe expanded from a single small point. But even the expansion of the universe could be wrong, because we observer the universe from a single location. I mean to say, we observe an expansion, but a gold fish could say the same thing from it's bowl. We still do not know enough about the nature of space to be certain of anything. Therefore, there are only theories, sometimes borderlining to opinions. Nobody "knows" , is the correct term.
@@crazycraver That's the easy way out. It's the unbelievable age of all things that's so incomprehensible to our conditioned thinking that we produce little glass and wooden figures for our mantles. Being in a state of realization is completely foreign to the mind that responds to reality with time, as psychological conditioning, as the self. Our neural networks expand when we learn. We are very much like our world.
the universe is one huge mathematical equation meaning the Creator had infinite Intelligence, imho. the big bang was nothing more than the initial boot-up of the program or simulation.
I still have one question, that doesn't seem to be answered here. How did all of the mass (in the form of gas), get here before light from distant galaxies? Does that mean we are operating on an assumption that the gas was just here? then the big bang caused it to start condensing into filaments? It seems strange that light has to travel but mass just IS where it is. Can someone explain this to me?
Andromeda Galaxy is not speeding away, it will hit our Galaxy some scientist said. Atheists say Big Bang created everything, but how does Big Bang explode on such a huge scale? As I know, when there is an explosion, there is gravity. When there is gravity how could matter expand in the whole Universe? Now what about space? Big Bang needed space to boom. What created space then if there is no intelligent being somewhere?
Some galaxies get too close to each other cos their trajectory is not totally radial like cart-wheel spokes. Some galaxies will cross each other's path and the gravity will attract them (like the Milky Way and Andromeda). And some huge galaxies are swallowing nearby galaxies. But this is a local effect and in general most galaxy systems are receding each other. It's like sultanas in a cake (rising in an oven) and there is no center where they are all receding from. There was at the start but space has expanded with it, making no center. It's like the space is expanding, and making it all expand.
***** It is much easier to believe somebody has created everything, then to believe matter has created everything, even life! I don't want a debate now. I believe in what I believe not because my parents said so when I was a little kid.
Sealblaighter Steven "It is much easier to believe somebody has created everything, then to believe matter has created everything, even life!" But that's only cos you arrogantly deny evidence. You could be right if there was no evidence for evolution. But when there is evidence, it's a different story. With mountains of evidence for evolution, doesn't that force you to believe in the one that is (inherently) harder to believe. I would think that is far more logical than ignoring evidence. How could it not be? By assuming all the evidence for evolution is "bunk"? Just assuming evolution evidence is "bunk" cos you can't believe it, is not logical, it's an assumption. And you won't even look at the evidence cos of your assumption. In the real world it's much easier to believe the scenario that has the evidence supporting it. It's that simple. e.g. The fossils are in a tree-of-life sequence in the ground. The fossils themselves (individually) are not what I'm talking about, but the sequence they are in is what I'm on about. But the sequence of the fossils is clearly self-assembly. Creationists emphatically reject self-assembly, but there-it-is, in the ground that anyone can witness. How did the fossils get into the sequence? How can the flood self-assemble the fossils into a sequence, like that? Evolution (over a long period) is the only natural explanation. What are you going to say? "Self-assembly is impossible and it's easier to believe God waved a magic wand, than believe in evolution"? Then you are forced to believe God arranged the fossils into a sequence with a magic trick. Is that a reasonable answer? The only reasonable answer is evolution.
Justwantahover There is evidence for evolution but you assume evolution isn't true, so your circular "reasoning" is that evolution isn't true (cos it didn't happen). Great proof isn't it. The fossils are in a tree-of-life-sequence. How did that happen? It's self assembly into a sequence. Self-assembly isn't possible, is it. But there it is, in the ground for anyone to witness. How could your flood self-assemble the fossils into a sequence?
Fraser Cain Not sure if i agree with you there even though i find both events as unproven. At least with the big bang, they (physicists) can present some ideas and calculations on why they think the big bang occurred whereas the multiverse theory has no basis whatsoever. They can present what they call reasons why they THINK there is a multiverse but nothing more. Personally, i consider this type of science to be pseudo science, no offence.
Out of the billions of galaxies out there, how do you know for sure there is not another intelligent life form out there who has a better theory than you ? Did you guys compare notes ?
that tree behind you is gorgeous
Yeah, that's a friend's farm that we shot at. :-)
It is huge
I am tree
It’s God’s creation everything exists because God let’s it
Thanks, I planted it.
The amount of people who don’t have a basic understanding of science in the comment section who seem to think their opinion is right compared to that of some of the greatest scientists in the world is actually quite concerning
hopefully they're just a vocal minority
listen here buddy
By which yardstick do you measure "great scientists"? At one point of time "great scientists" were people who believed that the earth was flat and that earth was at the centre of the universe and that the sun revolved around the earth.
Don't forget that in the world of sheep the sheep at the head of the flock is a "great scientist", even if all the sheep are all on their way to the slaughter house!
If all thought as you there would be no progress in science. It's not a crime to put forward an alternate theory, even if it turns out to be wrong, but complacency is a HUGE crime in science.
As you SEEM to be satisfied with what the uploader had to say please read the comment by "clownface 88" and my reply to his comment.
Perhaps what’s more concerning is that the majority of the public places the very meaning of their existence into the hands of a community of people that they have never met for themselves and of who’s work they can never examine for themselves aside from (reading, hearing and regurgitating what they have been told) .
If this said community were to ever systemically inherit bias in its analysis of the facts, the reliant majority of the people would be none the wiser.
You are absolutely right….. There is extreme ignorance concerning not only scientific understanding but critical thinking and just plain good sense…. Dear I say, this type of ignorance is far more pervasive than I think you realize…. Yes there are people speaking about things they do not understand…..
….. but I think the real problem here is not just people thinking that they know what they know not, but people who believe they have knowledge that consider it proper not to think for themselves……
Greatest scientists ? Are nothing compare with the Power of the force..
I can't believe you didn't mention Georges Lemaître, as he was the one who formulated the initial Big Bang hypothesis and spent a lot of time and effort to make it a serious contender to the then steady state model of the universe.
Science says there was no space no darkness and no light no sound before the big bang? it sounds like blind faith. In that case, you can create a tiny star with compressed hydrogen and helium in a lab. Where did the matter come, where did the light come, where did the air come, where did the water come. Can you think of an ocean of water becoming one single atom, it sounds like you got the idea of creating something from nothing from the bible and blind faith.
I had to watch this shit in class and I still don't know wtf
same . God made everyting not bomb
Lmfao same they just having us copy it down like imma understand this like that
@@EfraimBotondHK not bomb XD
@@EfraimBotondHK If Allah made the universe, it makes sense if it started with an explosion
@@juanjoyaborja.3054 Lol 72 virgin's
Great video, great audio, TYVM! PS It doesn't look cold there, but at 00:52 it looks like we could see your breath. Where are you? Was it cold that day?
If galaxies are all moving away from one another then how is that evidence of a big bang happening everywhere? If we reversed time the matter contained inside of each galaxy would go back to the center's of every galaxy making it appear as if the matter in a galaxy originated from the core or the supermassive black hole in their centers. And because every galaxy is not the same age, per the size of the supermassive black holes in their cores and the stars in the galaxies then it would indicate again that there was no single big bang from which all matter originated from. Even the fact that new stars are being born near supermassive black holes indicates that the universe did not start from a big bang.
The fact that galaxies furthest away are accelerating away from our perspective indicates only one thing. The volume of space is increasing everywhere. In order for the volume of space to increase exponentially with distance is a clear indicator that energy and matter is constantly being made. And since the supermassive black holes in the cores of every galaxy is located at the centers of all the expansion taking place, IE galaxies moving away from each other then all the evidence indicates that galaxies grow and expand, increasing in energy and matter over time and the energy and matter originates or is coming from the supermassive black holes in each galaxy.. This too would indicate that a single big bang did not occur and would also indicates that the laws of thermodynamics are wrong to assume that energy and matter cannot be created. If energy and matter cannot be created then the universe would be void of all energy and matter. but the universe is full of energy and matter. So we must conclude that energy and matter is slowly being created by the supermassive black holes in every galaxy.
Is there any direct evidence to support this postulate that energy and matter is being created by the supermassive black holes in every galaxy? Yes there is.
In 2019 ALMA Radio Telescope released a Doppler image of Sgr A*, the supermassive black hole in the core of our galaxy showing the motion and velocity of the gas near it. The Doppler data showed that massive amounts of energy and gas was flowing directly away from the black hole in every direction. This observation was completely contrary to Einstein's predictions made by general relativity.
I thought that actual observations were empirical evidence which supersede every theory, even laws of physics? Yet the actual observation of gas and energy quickly moving away from the supermassive black hole has not even sparked controversy among astrophysicists and their theoretical beliefs. Astrophysicists are still clinging the incorrect notion that a big bang happened. Which now with all the evidence appears to be a massive delusion on their part.
Is there not just one person or qualified astrophysicists who can debunk the Doppler image made by ALMA Radio Telescope in 2019? That image is empirical evidence indicating a big bang did not happen, general relativity and the laws of thermodynamics are wrong! Denying this evidence would be like denying the facts based on one's beliefs, which in psychology there is actually a term used to describe when a person denies actual evidence because it does not conform to their beliefs. It's called cognitive dissonance.
how do you explain the CMB then? I get that you seem to be addressing the Redshift of galaxies, but what about the CMB being everywhere you look in the universe? I assume that we can also measure the wavelength expansion (even if very small) every year for the CMB. Wouldn't the fact that the CMB exists mean that there had to be a pretty uniform source for this to occur from? Not separate galaxies all forming at different times?
@@mikeofstedal The CMB is a weak microwave signal, a vibration that occurs to all matter. All protons vibrate at the low energy microwave signal measured by the WMAP satellite. The solar system contains massive amounts of hydrogen gas in the sun's solar wind.
In order to get away from all the particles created by our sun the WMAP satellite would have to be located outside the solar system. The WMAP is measuring protons floating around inside the solar system, not the cosmic background.
The CMB would not have a polarity if it was left over from a big bang for it would have encased the solar system. The CMB should be the same no matter what direction it is measured, that was the prediction. But the WMAP satellite discovered the signal they're pinning on the CMB is polarized, indicating it is coming from a source today, not from a big bang. It debunks the entire idea that it's left over from the beginning of the universe. Research the CMB axis of evil.
Also, the Voyager spacecraft when it got to the sun's Heliopause, where the sun's solar wind comes to a halt measured hot dense charged particles. the particles were more than 54,000° F. Voyager 2 measured the same thing. If particles just outside the sun's influence is extremely hot, in a bubble around the solar system then how the heck would the WMAP be able to measure a colder temperature of just a few degrees above absolute zero beyond all the hot material?
@@BigNewGames if galaxies are moving away from each other, then they used to be close to each other.
It sounds like a lot of the argument is of the form “If the Big Bang theory is true, then (statement). Since (statement), then BBT.
I’m not dismissing the BBT (far from it), but any argument using the fallacy of the converse is invalid.
Give me more “If (statement), then BBT” and less “If BBT, then (statement).”
I don't believe in Big Bang and I don't consider that the evidence is flawless.
1) About Redshift: I don't think we can assume for certainty that it is caused by Doppler effect and that it shows expansion. Plus there are hundreds of galaxies who have a blueshift which contradict the expansion of Universe.
2) About Cosmic Microwave Background: It may be produced by other causes than Big Bang, for example we can guess that galaxies heat up the Universe in a homogeneous way.
3) About abundance of light elements : Mathematics can prove a lot things that don't even exist. So maybe scientists can just vary the calculations of their computers until it matches with reality, but that doesn't mean their theory is true.
4) About Evolution of Universe: Obviously no human can observe the universe's evolution, we can only make guesses. So when we look a galaxy aged 10 billion years, it looks different, but how can we be sure that it is a galaxy in formation ? Maybe it's just that galaxies evolve and were different. And even if we assume that it is a galaxy in formation, and that all galaxies were created at this time, it only proves that Universe evolves, and not that it had a beginning.
Inconvenient truths are rejected if nonconformant with the BBT.
Well - 1) - please offer an alternate explanation _WITH_ evidence. 2) You *could* be right - but it must match the present 3 degrees Kelvin which fits nicely with the BB Theory. 3) Light elements - these are produced FIRST and longest in the fusion process - please explain why you think they don't! 4) Fortunately, we have all the observational evidence of varieties of galaxies at various stages in their development - like looking back in time to observe early development. QED I think.
Something I have always wondered about this idea is how can anyone who believes the big bang doubt that the universe is a black hole? If all matter and energy was only in the form of energy, and compressed to a plank length how could it help to be a black hole?
That's just the observable universe. There was more Universe around that, maybe an infinite amount. So there wasn't enough of a local overdensity to collapse into a black hole.
Q: The larger the distance to a galaxy, the larger the redshift. And then there are several theories about what causes that redshift?
And: If there would be a redshift because of the distance, then galaxies that are moving away seem to move away with increasing speed?
Or not?
the comment section is a warzone XD
I think it is still sensible to think that perhaps this is only what happened to our section of the universe. Perhaps this patch of around 4000 galaxies originated in a single point. But perhaps this is but a very small fraction of the full universe.
Bah, this is all nonsense. Obviously a supernatural being made everything with his magic powers. -Bronze age cultist...
or a modern american. can't tell them apart most of the time.
I found you by searching for a way to understand what the dark era was. It gave a nice intuitive idea in this video when you talked about it being like the light inside a star where the photons keep bouncing and eventually escape, except everything was a star. There was more than that though, right? Was there something in particular about early ionized hyrogen/helium that resulted in the energy from early photons being absorbed? Do you have a video that covers this mechanism?
I bet 80% of dislikes are from flat earthers
And creationists.
kyrie irving
@noot2111 And people who believe that because they don't understand something then it can't vibe true. I call them intellectually lazy.
If everything is moving away from us does that mean that we are the center of the universe? Or is the expansion something else because some should be moving towards/with us if it started in a different location.
there's red and blue shift of the light off objects moving away and towards us respectively. if the universe is expanding, no matter where the point we are in the universe, it will be a red shift.
think of a 2 dimensional circle and draw a point wherever you'd like. expand the radius of the circle and you'll see what i mean.
Good question! Alex Filippenko has a good TED Talk for that answer: ruclips.net/video/gniDHWq0R_Q/видео.html
Yes, that's what he said.....we are the center?
@@crazycraver No not nessescarily from his explanation. We don't have to be in the center for every to be moving away in his explanation. Its interesting that he used a circle, just like pattern an explosion makes.
I’VE GOT A THEORY! What if God saw a beautiful waterfall and accidentally released his seed all over the earth, causing trees and animals to burst out of the ground? Science got nothing on that.
I like your thinking, child.
... *i like your thinking*
Genius
"Even tough it's a theory , we should regard it in the same way that we regard gravity , evolution and general relativity."
You should rather take evolution out of there. Because besides all the scientific evidence that proves evolution , I HAVE A BOOK THAT SAYS OTHERWISE!!
Nope. The Boible of the Flying Spaghetti Bonster.
Olcay Alp Bayram I love you. No homo.
bahah
Olcay Alp Bayram the scientific definition of theory is different than the normal definition. Look it up
Notice it's only atheists mocking religion, and not vice versa. Grow up, neckbeard.
I personally don't think that the theory has enough solid evidence to be considered a theory. Most of the pieces of evidence that it has are actually just assumptions. Who's to say that the red shift is actually showing expansion? Even if the universe is expanding, it is completely assumed that everything started at a point. The CMB also isn't concrete enough for me because we assume what it is and what it means.
I personally believe that the universe just always was. It had no beginning. Or if it did, it came about in a completely different way. Just my thoughts.
The CMB matches the predictions of the Big Bang perfectly. If not, why is there light in all directions?
@@frasercain The CMB may be the black body radiation of the superfluid. How do we really know how far those microwave photons traveled anyway?
johnmarkmorris.com/2019/07/16/cosmic-inflation-is-wrong-long-live-inflation/
dread true : Superfluid is an idea for how spacetime could be implemented by a very lightly interacting, universe permeating fluid or gas of cold low energy photons, neutrinos, and perhaps gravitons. I wrote a lot about it on my blog: johnmarkmorris.com
you're right in a sense, but also wrong. See the big bang, is entirely theoretical, and the evidence pointing to the big bang is also theoretical. But the universe did have a beginning, when God created it, "In The Beginning God Created The Heavens And The Earth" Genesis 1:1
Needed this for my science test
Im so glad that i am not the only one who thinks the big bang sounds like straight bologna.
Very interesting video. Thanks.
Thanks for watching.
How did all of that condensed stuff get there before the big bang
No point asking that question you'll never get an answer from an einstein believer. Because he will only tell you that time did not exist before the big bang so you cannot or are NOT ALLOWED ask what came BEFORE that. UTTER RUBBISH!
People who believe in einstein prefer to believe that all the matter in the universe came out of a singularity, in other words a point that has no physical dimensions, rather than admit that einstein was and is wrong! To those people einstein is none other than God Himself!
Think of this: At the point of the big bang there would have been no time, no space and, therefore, NO GRAVITY TO HOLD EVERYTHING TOGETHER so your question is EXACTLY the right one to ask:
"How did all of that condensed stuff get there before the big bang"!
LONG LIVE FREE THINKERS LIKE YOU!
Big Bang never happened. Theres so many ways to debunk this THEORY and everyone thinks it's true. Its dumb
@@LnR4ever please explain
CamiemEngineer your ignorance upsets my brain
@@kttnkllr1502 and in the end so is everyone else
no one created God because if someone created "God"
Then "God" is not "God".
God cannot be limited by
1.space
2.matter
3.time
For big bang to have happened, there had to be "space" for "matter" to exist in. For example my house is where i keep my bed in. Space being my house nd my bed being the matter in this case. And "time" being when this matter was put into this space. Ie when my bed was moved into my house.
For God to be the creator, he had to be outside of time space and matter.
He has be everywhere at once, see past present and future at once, and he has to be able to create anything he wishes. Because he is outside of time space and matter.
So God has always existed, and that is something our human minds could not even grasp before our bodies would fall to the ground as our minds drift into madness.
But yeah that's my explanation to the popular question
"who created God"
No one. God has always existed.
But this theory makes way more sense than the atheist version, wich suggests
Something blew up out of nothing into absolute perfection for no reason at all.
I thought there had to be space for matter to exist in.
But according to atheists that space either magically appeared or has always existed.
So everything was formed by gravity.
Question is, where did gravity come from?!
It's impossible to know everything sadly.
Maybe in a billion years we will.
try to see what muslims said
@@10ksubswithoutavideo23 What's wrong with you? Just because he referred to a Muslim he is now a terrorist??? People like are wants wrong with society.
Just waiting for you to realize what you said and claim "It was a joke"
Gravity isn’t even true lol
NAWW I’m just joking relax
Ooh I dig the aesthetic intro!
Classic fallacy of Appeal to Authority.
@@dadsdailydose Yup.
Can someone type the four pieces of evidence, I dont fully understand :,)
lying ass. if youre too lazy to do ur hw just saydat
@@politochavez7971 lmao
Some of the comments here misinterpreting the meaning of "nothing". There is no such thing as a philosophical, absolute "nothing". In the context of the Big Bang, would you really call something that has the mass of the universe, pack in an unimaginably small volume a "nothing"?
There is no evidence
Who elce has to wach this!
For school? That's cool. :-)
@@frasercain yes for school. online school rn :)
Is Earth not also moving away along with it? Or are we just standing still while all other galaxies move away? Sure makes us special..
What if other galaxies we're largely moving together in an oval whirl pool fashion and so we're we, we would think there moving away but we're all just circle
Quick question: where in the world did the random particles that quite literally exploded at random and made all of this by chance?
the big bang wasn't exactly an explosion; it was an expansion. and are you asking how the earth itself got here by chance?
@@troys4445 I like to think that the universe is like a big balloon. The bigger the balloon is the farther everything is.
It seems like a lot of assumptions to me. To think we know what happened 13.8 billion years ago and trillions and trillions and trillions of miles away is arrogant, at best this is a guess.
Who is claiming to "know" this? Yes. It is a guess. Based on data. And until someone comes up with a better theory with better supporting data, this will probably continue to be the most accepted theory. At least in the scientific community.
When I look at the big bang theory and the vast size of space, I can't help but feel that we might just not be able to see far enough to make a theory like this.
I can't help but feel that the symptoms of the big bang where definitely triggered by an external force that is either to big or to far away for us to understand.
If the theory was all of known space comes from one point then great, but as it stands I doubt that all of creation started with a big bang.
The name "Big bang" is a misnomer, nobody actually thinks the universe started with a random explosion. What we do know is that the universe started out much smaller and hotter than it is now. That's it. A scientific theory is not a random guess people throw around, it's concrete stuff we can measure. When it comes to how that small, hot universe originated - that's where we enter the realm of hypothesis, and are actually just guessing at this point.
Maybe we are like the smallest thing in something bigger. For example we see an atom as the smallest thing in existence (so far) so I think it could be possible that we are something like that for a other existence
Same thinking 🤏
@@KARMANEVERDIE why the emoji
@@thunderb0ltplays we are too small 🥺
You are trying to tell me how old the universe is, and they don't even know how big it is, ya right
If the observable universe is 96 billion lightyeares in diameter, then
the most distant objets are 43 billion light years away. If the "whole
universe" is just 13.8 billion years old, then how much time it takes
for light to reach us from 43 billion light years away?
~~~~~
Considering Rayleigh scattering happening within our atmosphere
at distances of few light seconds, and considering opposite effect
on sunlight on Mars, can we be sure that Red Shift can not be the
result of intergalactic medium effect on the light coming through
billions of lightyears of it?
~~~~~
Considering Law of Conservation of Energy, and taking into account
that more distant galaxies are going away faster, what is increasing
their speed? Where that energy comes from?
~~~~~
Are we sure that Background Radiation is not simply manifestation
of Olber's paradox?
Or, if we can not reach exact temperature of absolute zero in any
laboratory we have, can we really expect to have absolute zero in
intergalactic space with all those stars with temperatures of
thousands or more Kelvin around?
~~~~~
Can we exclude the possibility of another local Big Bang that happened
at about, say, 150 or 1500 billion light years away?
Looks like your still waiting for the answer... Science is a religion that you must believe, for it to work.
I always get confused about seeing something like the cosmic radiation background, as It's moving away from us. So, how old is the radiation we are receiving from it now? And if I may ask, if It's traveled all the way here, now, then I assume that radiation source was closer to us than where this field exists now. And I find it hard to understand why the radiation never dissipated over this time and distance. Let's say this pattern repeats. Maybe then some really old radiation abounds that turned into dark matter...
The reason we embrace the big bang theory is because it explains the universe how we expect it to be and the only way we can conceive it to be. With a beginning our brains are hardwired to believe everything must have a beginning we can not mentally accept a universe with no beginning of having always existed
the evidence dosn't care what we expect or what we can conceive...
I do indeed regard it as I do gravity, evolution, and general relativity.
As far as I know the theory of evolution has not been proven only theorized
@@creolecajun9988 this guy gets it
@@creolecajun9988 is this a joke
Hi Fraser love your show! Any ideas what was before de Big Bang? And how big was this first "star"? Thanks ;-)
We have no idea.
@@frasercain Thanks for your answer! Well maybe someday we will.
No the proper question is what caused the big bang?
, because it had a begening, and the answer is easy from a Christian perspective because we all believe that someone was there before and he must be spaceless because he created space, he must be immaterial because he created material, he must be timeless because he created time, and
I have a question if you are timeless do you have a beginning?
, those are the attributes of God in Christianity because we all know that God exist whether we like it or not.
God bless you.
The Answer is, before Everything was created God was there and HE's still here forever.
@@frasercain "WE"?. 'You' don't know, don't speak for others! Coz I know that God created everything, and if you can't tell me where Time, Space and Matter came from, I can it share it with you. Time, Space and Matter are what we call a continuum, they have to come into place simultaneously because If there wasn't Matter but not space where would you put it?, and when there is Space and Matter but not Time, when would you put it? And the God who created all of those is outside of them, HE isn't affected by them! HE's God 😤
thanks for this video. im doing a project on the big bang for science class. although i really still dont understand the evidence theory, dumbing down all the big words helped me rephrase things at least lmao pray i get a good grade
sludgesucker did you do well?
so you want us to pray for something immensly secular? logic does not exist.
@@gp3328 yes, that was the joke thank you 🍇🍇
hey i don't believe in this nonsense but i have a astro exam tomorrow so i gotta know this
honestly don't go to school and just go to your local religious edifice, because you clearly don't believe in science.
Is there any physical evidence?
It's all in the palm of your hand. How you look at it makes all the difference.
Nobody seems to address the existence of Arp's peculiar galaxies. If the redshift is always an indication of distance, how can objects with massively different redshifts be joined together? The most obvious answer is that the redshift may have more than one possible cause. But the astrophysicists answer is to just ignore Arp's findings because they put the BB theory in doubt.
I disliked this video because I had to watch it for an astronomy class I did not want to take. Nothing personal
One day, far in the future, you'll be outside with your friends, look up and be able to explain some of the cool things in the sky. You'll be glad you learned astronomy. I can handle your dislikes.
Science has lots of evidence
Dylan D'Souza
1 second ago
The BIG BANG THEORY is a model of the history of the universe, tracing the evolution of the cosmos back to its very earliest moments.
I really liked this video.
Keep up the great work Fraser C.
There is absolutely none evidence tho
@@isacaubert5564 If you don't understand any of the evidence, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means you don't understand it.
where is the evidence?
How did motionless everything all in one small point infinity still suddenly explode? What's the catalyst?
They don't know.
It's made up.
A timless, spaceless, personal and inmaterial influence had to have made a choice.
🙄
@@rc7625 wow, amazing point dude thanks for clearing it up. 🤦
@@bible1st maybe, or there could be no beginning and no end.
Can't believe people still think that god made earth and everything else
Why is it so illogical to think that such a fine tuned earth perfectly suited for life was designed? Is a person dumb because they think a computer was designed and built by someone, and not just exploded out of nothing? Because if you look at the human body and all nature, that’s exactly what it is, we are made up of tiny biological machines working in perfect harmony to keep us alive. You can’t study biology and seriously say, “oh yeah, that was just some accident”.
@@Elijah-Bravo what’s the explanation for god’s existence then... how does god exist?? I don’t understand
@@Gayboy21 I think God’s like a 3D object in a 2D world, to the people of the 2D world, The 3D object is incomprehensible. Passing through the 2D world layer by layer, but the people of the 2D world only see a fraction of what’s going on, I think it’s similar, God’s outside of the realm of time and space, he always was, and always will be.
@@Elijah-Bravo Alot of planets are in the habitable zone of their solar system. Life changes to fit around their surroundings and that's called natural selection. Literally if all of the oxygen has disappeared from the earth there will still be life(mainly organisms that doesn't require oxygen to live).
CAN SOMEONE JUST WRITE THE ANSWERSSSS UGGHHH
Jame lol pandemic schooling for ya!
not how it works lol i’m doing research i’m crying send help or videos or sites ajjdndndjskdk
The title should say "What are all the speculations that the Big Bang theory is based on?"
Jeb Atman: Exactly😂👌🏻🔥#savage
Jeb Atman better evidence than any religion
it should say evidence if anything. the evidence of the big bang.
How are those speculations? They are evidence based calculations, following mathematical formulas and the ratio and nature of elements. The picture of the CMB is backed up by what we see in our universe. Everything is calculated. The only speculations are anything pertaining to the time when our physics can't apply, or quantum gravity. The scientific community doesn't make predictions during that time period though; they admit their limitations. Even then, that pertains to less then a second after the big bang. After then we are able to know what would happen due to the nature of physics, and the inflation of the big bang backs up our calculations.
The universe goes back and forth. Time isn't lineer its cyclic. Just because its moving out now doesn't mean that it won't change direction.
The universe is accelerating.
They thought that might be the case, but now they are going for the big rip.
Almost all astronomers are wrong. There were wrong when they said the Sun went round the Earth.
How do you know they're wrong? Are you saying their evidence is incorrect?
Of all scientific theories I dislike the Big Bang hypothesis the most. The "evidence" for it does not hold up without assumption. The only evidence is observable wavelengths of light and radio static which the promulgation of is known to be objects extremely distant. If they could travel to at least half the distance to these objects and measure these phenomenon at that point also and reach the same conclusion then I would find the theory plausible. For now simple logic says what they have observed and measured so far is not enough for me to take it seriously.
The big bang is a theory, not a hypothesis. We can literally see into the past by looking at lower wavelengths and verify that the universe used to be smaller and hotter, we aren't just guessing what they mean. As the video mentioned, this is also supported by other fields of cosmic research, such as the formation of galaxies, percentages of different materials in the universe etc. If this was just a wild guess it wouldn't have been supported by the vast majority of researches today.
@@commenturthegreat2915 Your only helping to make my point. "Observing" any energy of any wavelength that we can detect from our little spot in the universe at this "time" is about the same as assuming we can currently measure the chemical composition of the fluids on the nearest 1000 planets. The big bang "theory" is cosmologies weakest assumption because the potential changes in that energy over such distances along with the velocities of the bodies we can observe cannot be even closely measured, only assumed. We can only see past energy patterns from our position in the short sighted present. We have never "observed" the formation of galaxies we have snapshots of galaxies in early development. Scientific theory requires more than a good assumption. To me right now the big bang theory is an interesting philosophical debate but hardly science.
@@Zaekyr We can literally see into the past by looking at lower wavelengths further away and see every stage of the universe from the first time light appeared up until the current day. We see red shift in distant galaxies in a way no other model properly explains and know that they're moving away from us, using two different calculation methods wielding the same results (definitely not "assumed"). We run simulations that show the model is compatible with all current observations. This is already enough to make the incredibly straightforward conclusion that the universe used to be smaller and hotter. It would take a huge coincidence for all of these facts to align by chance. If this is model works, can lead us to new scientific discoveries, and has never been disproven - this is a scientific theory. Why should we ignore it if it's the very best we have?
So the big bang theory says that all the universes floating away were once ONE much larger thing, or much closer together and blown apart by something else?
what i want to know is how do we know the universe "is" 13.8 billion years old, yet we weren't there. For example, grab a water bottle, and fill it half full with cold water, and the other half with warm water, last Tuesday. What I'm saying in we can't measure the age of something through operational science. Operational science is something you can experiment or use in the present. So that's why i believe the universe is only 6,000 years old, and not 13 billion. When we start with the Bible, now that gives us something to go on, creationists estimate that the universe is only 6,000 years old. Which there's a lot of evidence that points to it, we believe God created the universe, and everything within it.
a example of evidence for you is, 1) the moon moves 2 inches away from the earth every year due to tidal forces, as the moon moves further away it slows down, so if we trace back, it would have speed up going towards earth, and within 1.4 billion years, the moon would have collided with the earth.
there are many more examples of evidence, to learn more, go to Answers In Genesis.
Scientist don't know how old the universe is. The believe it's that old based on supporting evidence. Without the evidence the belief would be blind. And only arrogant people blindly believe in things right?
Now can you explain where the big bang originated? Big Bang theory states that it comes from Singularity but where did this "Singularity" come from. Big Bang theory doesn't explain our origins if you explain that the galaxy was one star. Where did that one star come from? I also have a question about how scientists know the age of a star.
No one knows what came before the big bang
@@Gayboy21 shouldn't we be a little humbler then and accept the possibility that maybe religion is right that there is a God behind it all? 😂😂
Curiously never mentions In 1927, the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître
proposed an expanding model for the universe to explain the observed
redshifts of spiral nebulae, and calculated the Hubble law. He based his
theory on the work of Einstein and De Sitter, and independently derived
Friedmann's equations for an expanding universe.
so your saying evidence is that galaxies are moving away vs towards us? THEN that makes earth the epicenter of the big bang.
But anywhere you go you'll see the same thing. Galaxies moving away from you.
Still confused as hell.
Thanks for the proofs now atleast I have confidence to prove that I'm right.
We can't based a theory on other theories that haven't been proven to be correct and expect it to be correct in turn.
Its better than believing a book written by a human thousands of years ago.
+Fraser Cain What are those EVIDENCES that scientists have collected that prove the Big Bang?
+Matthew Anderson It's not better, it's the SAME.
Apoorv Salar God made earth and if you don't know now you know nigga.
Didn't you watch the video? Here's an explanation a 5 year old can understand.
Every thing in the universe is moving away from eachother. You can see which way things are flying. Now you can theoretically reverse the direction everything is travelling. Voila, everything unites in the center.
Imagine a cake with TNT inside it. Film it with a slow mo cam. Blow it up. Play the clip in reverse and see all the little cake bits come together.
How do you know it was 13 billion years ago. Could be 2 billion or 13 million.
Calculating the ammount of radiation and acceleration.
Its amazing how these guys say everything the Bible says... yet at the same time deny it. The Bible says God created the universe & the earth at 1 point in time
6 days
My major issues with the theory, which I hope someone smarter than I can explain to me, is with the first pillar.
1) it's very odd to me that we would be the center of the universe. All galaxies are moving away from... us? The chances of being the absolute center - the mass that didn't move - is so small as to not even be feasible.
2) "Almost all galaxies are moving away from us" okay... but what's the story with those that aren't? Why aren't they?
Cause we aren't the center of anything. We're sitting in a spinning ring..one of billions.
A bit late but no matter what perspective you have, galaxies are moving away from you. Imagine drawing a bunch of points on a deflated balloon and blowing it. No matter what point you view from, the other points move away.
For your second question, galaxies that aren’t moving away are those in the local group. For them, they are so close to us that gravity overcomes the expansion of the universe and they are falling towards us
@@fctucycy8v8yvy67 Now, at least, I understand the theory of it. Thanks.
The antagonism against creationists here (not the video) is really uncalled for. Not to mention, creationists aren't always (or even mostly) young-earth creationists.
How come an infinite universe originate from a single point?
If it did originate from a single point doesn't it like actually makes a strong case for the argument that Universe is finite and we will end up from where we started?
I am interested to know what will break the argument above?
Here you go, we did a whole video, just for you: ruclips.net/video/x2A4yYeurGk/видео.html
Thank you sir! Mind Blown....
Aizaz Ali YES if you move in a strait line faster than the expansion of the universe you will end up back were you started
That is a guess backed up by nothing.
Existence and the universe are two different things
The fact that galaxies are moving away is not a good enough reason to assume that at one time, they were much closer, and even before that, started from a single regularity. You cant make that assumption based on a couple hundred years of data. That amount of time is not even a blip in time compared to the age of the universe. We dont know if the universe has been expanding since its existance based on a few hundred years. We dont even understand dark matter or dark energy yet. We are getting waaaay too ahead of ourselves thinking we know how it all began. This is similar logic as a meteorologist telling us what the normal high temperature is supposed to be based on records we've been keeping for the last couple hundred years if that. Theres no way to know what normal tempetature is. This big bang theory isas reliable as the multiverse theory.
The Big Bang and the multiverse aren't exclusive. In fact, the inflation model of the Big Bang depends on the multiverse.
Where did the 'really big star' originate?this theory has many gray areas
You people say that the universe is constantly expanding, so why, after the countless times we've seen stars being destoryed- supernova- why have we never seen a star being born??? Don't say that we just can't see that far out, becuase it's nonsense. If you were to hold your thumb out in front of you up to the sky, in that tiny little space the hubble telescope could see at least 20 galaxies.
My uneducated guess is that it takes thousands of years for a star to form, so there is no exact point where a heap of superheated gas becomes a star.
why did you not mention Georges Lemaître?
if the big bang theory is correct it should be pretty easy to see if all matters in the universe is in form of a sphere with a vast empty space inside, if one single point of all matter suddenly 'explode' we should see this as a linear movement away from this point, the universe should look almost like those craters we see on the moon, an empty hole in the middle and all matter from the impact thrown evenly out in all directions, how come this is not reported?
Your model for the expansion of the universe is wrong. The Big Bang was not an explosion at one point in empty space expanding out into that empty space. If it were then your explanation for what we should see would be correct. However the so-called "Big Bang" is really a nickname that stuck. A more precise term is *cosmic expansion*. There is no hole in the middle of our universe because space itself has expanded as well as all the energy and matter [matter came later than energy] that our known universe contains. Also there is no middle of our universe, nor an outer edge where the universe expands into empty space. The geometry of spacetime has the universe wrapped around on itself so that everywhere is expanding outwards but without the universe having an outer edge. This is hard to imagine, but an analogy is the way that the earth also has no edge because it's two dimensional almost flat surface over short distances is actually a three dimensional sphere [technically speaking it's an oblate spheroid] taken as a whole.
wheresmyoldaccount - but if this it so, you can say I am in the middle of a universe which is expanding out from me, how come I am not squeezed flat from the expansion when I am in the center?
There is a force pushing the universe apart but it is so poorly understood that scientists call its source *dark energy* - "dark" in this context means unknown. You ask an intelligent question: Why there is no 'equal and opposite force' pushing back as is the case, for example, when a cannon fires a cannonball. I don't know the answer. Cosmic expansion is unlike a explosion that has a pressure wave, but that is an observation, not an explanation / answer for your question.
wheresmyoldaccount - ok, thanks, this is really strange and difficult to understand, and probably it is wrong to use our daily live experience here on earth to understand the universe
Yes. And quantum mechanics is even stranger!
I'm an atheist; so I don't buy into theories about the cosmos, without hard evidence. Guess what? - there isn't enough evidence to suggest one big bang - the concept may have biblical underpinnings; and therefore, should be suspect. There isn't enough evidence that the universe came about a central point, a central time point - that is thinking like a human. There may be several big-bangs, happening at different time points, and still happening...all around us. And, it may be the nature of the universe to spread apart...until nothing becomes of it. The gravitational constant is or could be directly related to the average temperature of the universe...therefore, those areas where the temperature is higher, the gravitational constant is greater...and, the expansion faster.
The observations about the Big Bang have nothing to do with religion. Also, it doesn't mean that the entire Universe came from a single point. We did a recent video about this: ruclips.net/video/x2A4yYeurGk/видео.html
''The observations about the Big Bang have nothing to do with religion''...in your opinion. Bible says what: ''In the beginning there was nothing''... - the concept of time is somehow connected with mortality; a beginning and an end - this is sheer nonsense. And the Big Bang has religious underpinnings, why wouldn't it? - religion is a system of control, to support an authoritative and 'moral' posture. Time doesn't begin and end in the entire scheme of things; that is so that 'we' may say it does; that is a concept from the scientific-elites, that underpins their authority...it is not based on pure findings nor argument, it has a bias to it.
If we look deep into space and see stars how they were 13.5 billion yrs ago and we know stars explode and new stars form from their dust how can we trust that everything is still expanding and not already contracting?
Because almost all of the galaxies are accelerating away from us, and there is not enough mass in the known Universe to cause a gravitational contraction.
Hey Fraser! I'm a new subscriber. Can you do a video about why we don't see stars forming today?
But we do see stars forming today. en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stellar_nursery
Where’d the energy for the explosion come from
Nobody knows.
Yet all your info is based on light in the Observable Universe and we barely even looked at 5% of it.
Yup, and if we find new evidence that overturns our understanding so far, that would be great.
But not ALL Galaxies are moving away from us , and unless we are at the centre of the ' universe ' wouldn't one ' Side ' of what we see ,be further away from us than the other ' side'.....Hmmmm
First of all, let me correct this: a black hole is at the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. Second, there is no center of the universe. That is why our galaxy is scheduled to collide into Andromeda(another galaxy in the local group) in 4.5 billion years or so. So no, we are not the center of the universe, because there is no center of the universe.
So a big explosion of nothing made something.....makes sense to me
Landen Velasco one question we’re did god come from and we and scientists don’t say the big band came from nothing we gust say that’s how the universe was created and it’s way more plausible then god I would like to hear if you have any arguments
I AM EVIL! !!!!!!!! God is infinitely powerful so it would make more sense for him to defy our logic by having no creator. That makes more logical sense than something from nothing. When you walk into a store, you don’t look at the oranges and think “those oranges came from nothing” you think “somebody put them there” or its subconscious that somebody put them there because any other explanation would be preposterous. I’d love to hear what you have to say about that.
I mean that the unvierse is expanding is faaaaaar from evidence
Yes it is... go back in time and the universe will shrink and shrink
I have a question, why wouldn't the single point in space with infinite mass just be a black hole for eternity? It would have the masses of quadrillions of stars that become/became black holes when condensed.
Look up the hawking theory. The theory is that particles shoot back out also and the evaporate
Black holes don't contain it's matter and energy forever. Quesars are regular events when black holes are pulling in too much matter too quickly, causing the atoms and energy holding them together to spew out in powerful ejections. If a supermassive class black hole is enough to cause energy to erupt that violently despite the massive gravitational force of the black hole, every bit of energy in the universe condensed in a single spot couldn't possibly just stay put.
I just wanted to ask if you know the 14 evidence that supports big bang theory. The evidences that the scientists figured out for it to be the most accepted theory and considered as scientific theory?
If you could travel to the very spot or center where the Big Bang occurred, what would you find today?
The Big Bang happened everywhere. ruclips.net/video/dcxdgTam-40/видео.html
I like that bro some people say everythings is god
KING STUDIO every this is GOD
KING STUDIO ok than explain to me where the big bang came from and proof to me that god doesn’t exist
Mohamed SR we don’t know we’re did god come from?
I AM EVIL! !!!!!!!! Can you answer my question? Yes or no
I AM EVIL! !!!!!!!! Give me one reason for not believing in a creator
But how does nothing make something ???
ohhh okau i get it , a big point to use ina argument would be on how the light is traveling outwards and away from us beyond our “observable universe” that makes sense. it’s just the ... what caused the explosion.
edit: now i’m thinking of “matter cannot be created nor destroyed, it will always exist and always has”
The big bang describes the original state of the universe, not how that original state was created. We still don't know how it originated, and there's a chance we never could know. The universe's creation does break the laws of conservation as you said, which is a major point in how scientists try to address the problem. The thing is, this problem is present in any creation model we can think of. For instance saying god made the universe doesn't solve anything - we're still stuck with an entity that was created out of nothing / is infinitely old, which breaks the exact same laws of nature.
if all matter started forming after big bang what was it made of at the time of big bang
Nobody knows
Oh, I like that tree also.
The big bang remains to be a theory. A crappy one.
From what we observe, all of te universe seems to expand.
In this aspect, the big bang is a good theory, that fits current observation.
But then we have to say that all matter originated from a single point
and then, we have to figure out how that could be even remotely possible.
So then we come up with the idea that time and space did not exist yet.
But, of course, nothing comes from nothing, so the must be membranes
or other dimensions, where matter, time and space came from.
It's a little like Occam's raisor:
The more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely the explanation is.
Maybe the universe was a lot denser in the past,
but I think it is very unlikely, the big bang is correct.
We make up nice stories, from observations of a unviverse, while we have not even been
outside our little bubble of our solar system.
We cannot even tell how skewed these observations can be.
Maybe we live inside a gravitational lense from our star and galaxies just seem
to move away, kinda like the rear view mirror in our car.
We understand about 4% of what's going on in the universe, I'm told.
We try to explain what the beach looks like, from observing a grain of sand.
Kind of pathetic, imo.
So you agree that the Universe is decreasing in density. That's literally all the Big Bang says. The Universe is less dense today and it was more dense in the past. What caused this expansion will be the job for a future theory, but for right now, the only answer is: "nobody knows".
@@frasercain No, It is said, the universe expanded from a single small point.
But even the expansion of the universe could be wrong, because
we observer the universe from a single location.
I mean to say, we observe an expansion, but a gold fish could say
the same thing from it's bowl.
We still do not know enough about the nature of space to be certain of anything.
Therefore, there are only theories, sometimes borderlining to opinions.
Nobody "knows" , is the correct term.
So at what point did the laws of physics change allowing the universe to expand beyond it's own event horizon?
There was no horizon...
At some point are knowledge of physics breaks down. Since we don't have a grand unified theory.
@@rebelbeammasterx8472 Theory of God will work.
@@crazycraver That's the easy way out. It's the unbelievable age of all things that's so incomprehensible to our conditioned thinking that we produce little glass and wooden figures for our mantles. Being in a state of realization is completely foreign to the mind that responds to reality with time, as psychological conditioning, as the self. Our neural networks expand when we learn. We are very much like our world.
the universe is one huge mathematical equation meaning the Creator had infinite Intelligence, imho. the big bang was nothing more than the initial boot-up of the program or simulation.
I still have one question, that doesn't seem to be answered here. How did all of the mass (in the form of gas), get here before light from distant galaxies? Does that mean we are operating on an assumption that the gas was just here? then the big bang caused it to start condensing into filaments? It seems strange that light has to travel but mass just IS where it is. Can someone explain this to me?
Esko Elmwood you're assuming that light is an object that travels like gas does.
light is made of particles so yes it is an object
Andromeda Galaxy is not speeding away, it will hit our Galaxy some scientist said.
Atheists say Big Bang created everything, but how does Big Bang explode on such a huge scale? As I know, when there is an explosion, there is gravity. When there is gravity how could matter expand in the whole Universe? Now what about space? Big Bang needed space to boom. What created space then if there is no intelligent being somewhere?
Some galaxies get too close to each other cos their trajectory is not totally radial like cart-wheel spokes. Some galaxies will cross each other's path and the gravity will attract them (like the Milky Way and Andromeda). And some huge galaxies are swallowing nearby galaxies. But this is a local effect and in general most galaxy systems are receding each other. It's like sultanas in a cake (rising in an oven) and there is no center where they are all receding from. There was at the start but space has expanded with it, making no center. It's like the space is expanding, and making it all expand.
***** It is much easier to believe somebody has created everything, then to believe matter has created everything, even life! I don't want a debate now. I believe in what I believe not because my parents said so when I was a little kid.
Sealblaighter Steven "It is much easier to believe somebody has created everything, then to believe matter has created everything, even life!"
But that's only cos you arrogantly deny evidence. You could be right if there was no evidence for evolution. But when there is evidence, it's a different story. With mountains of evidence for evolution, doesn't that force you to believe in the one that is (inherently) harder to believe. I would think that is far more logical than ignoring evidence. How could it not be? By assuming all the evidence for evolution is "bunk"? Just assuming evolution evidence is "bunk" cos you can't believe it, is not logical, it's an assumption. And you won't even look at the evidence cos of your assumption. In the real world it's much easier to believe the scenario that has the evidence supporting it. It's that simple.
e.g. The fossils are in a tree-of-life sequence in the ground. The fossils themselves (individually) are not what I'm talking about, but the sequence they are in is what I'm on about. But the sequence of the fossils is clearly self-assembly. Creationists emphatically reject self-assembly, but there-it-is, in the ground that anyone can witness.
How did the fossils get into the sequence? How can the flood self-assemble the fossils into a sequence, like that? Evolution (over a long period) is the only natural explanation. What are you going to say? "Self-assembly is impossible and it's easier to believe God waved a magic wand, than believe in evolution"? Then you are forced to believe God arranged the fossils into a sequence with a magic trick. Is that a reasonable answer? The only reasonable answer is evolution.
Justwantahover There is evidence for evolution but you assume evolution isn't true, so your circular "reasoning" is that evolution isn't true (cos it didn't happen). Great proof isn't it.
The fossils are in a tree-of-life-sequence. How did that happen? It's self assembly into a sequence. Self-assembly isn't possible, is it. But there it is, in the ground for anyone to witness. How could your flood self-assemble the fossils into a sequence?
***** Just stop your stupidity please. Because you didn't experience something that doesn't mean it is not real. You're an outsider.
Fraser Cain Not sure if i agree with you there even though i find both events as unproven. At least with the big bang, they (physicists) can present some ideas and calculations on why they think the big bang occurred whereas the multiverse theory has no basis whatsoever. They can present what they call reasons why they THINK there is a multiverse but nothing more. Personally, i consider this type of science to be pseudo science, no offence.
My teacher told me to get evidence on why or why not it is true, and I don’t get it still
I think that was 20 billion years ago
Merely a theory? it sounds like somebody doesn't know what a scientific theory is.
Out of the billions of galaxies out there, how do you know for sure there is not another intelligent life form out there who has a better theory than you ? Did you guys compare notes ?