วีดีโอ

Hola

Hello

​@@UltimateCosmos This is ;;pretty cool

Thanks. I’m trying to learn animation because I want to make custom animations.

That’s the thing. If you can’t see something, how do you know it’s real? We don’t. We only theorize (aka make strongly supported guesses based off of facts) on it. Having a fixed mindset isn’t something you can have if you want to learn more about what is around you. People say seeing is believing, but we can’t see a 4th dimension. We have experiments and theories that suggest there is more than 3 dimensions (e.g. the theory of special relativity and the Quantum Hall effect), but currently we can’t for sure prove anything. That’s why we call them theories. You have to understand I’m NOT saying we know any of this for sure, but from what we can see we think this is what is happening.

@@UltimateCosmos How is asking for evidence anything other than scientiffic ?

That’s my bad. I thought you meant that there is no evidence. If that were the case you’d be right in a sense as we don’t have any directly observed evidence. In the video I mention how the universe is defined as containing all matter, space, and time. Based off of this we can conclude that there isn’t anything past the universe. When it comes to the “edge” we can take studies and theories (like those I mentioned) as evidence for the existence of the 4th dimension. If the 4th dimension exists we can use the model I talked about with Egobyte83 to theorize how the universe would work in a 4th dimension relative to us. I should have explained this better in the video, but I was following the assumption that the 4th dimension is real, something I shouldn’t have done.

I also choose not to go too much in detail because it really is quite complex, and I’m trying to spark the interest not necessarily explain the nitty gritty.

@@UltimateCosmos I can get that.

Good question! That is the problem. It isn’t a sphere. A sphere is a 3rd dimensional object. Spacetime is in the 4th dimension. We literally can’t process the 4th dimension because we are 3rd dimensional beings, but we try to anyway. The best we can come up with is imagining us as 2nd dimensional beings on a 3rd dimensional object to explain what it would be like. If we were 2nd dimensional beings on the surface of a 3D sphere there wouldn’t be an edge, and after traveling far enough in any direction you would end up back where you started. However if we were 2nd dimensional beings inside a circle (the 2nd dimensional version of a sphere) we could see and interact with an edge. Now put us back in the 3rd dimension and have us inside of a sphere. We could travel in any direction and eventually reach an edge. Now imagine we are still in the 3rd dimension and we are in a circle. We could just step outside of the circle. If we were 4th dimensional beings we could step outside of a sphere in the same way us 3rd dimensional beings can step outside of a circle. But because we are 3rd dimensional beings traveling on a 4D “sphere” it is as if we are 2nd dimensional beings traveling on a 3D sphere. It’s just really complicated.

@@UltimateCosmos I mean, we are already four dimensional beings since time is a thing. But regardless, this whole go straight and come back to where you were is all theoretical, nothing is substantiated because nothing can be proven; we literally don't have the means to perform an experiment to actually see if there is an edge out there or not; hence, we are just guesstimating that the universe is one way or the other.

Exactly. In this area there is an extend on what we can experiment with. That is why we create models. But we are not 4th dimensional beings. In the same way a 2nd dimensional being can exist in a 3rd dimension, we can exist in a 4th dimension. The difference between a 4th dimensional being and a 3rd dimensional being is that we don’t interact with that dimension in the same way. A 4th dimensional being can interact fully with everything in their dimension. Us 3rd dimensional beings can only ever act across 3 dimension of it. Can we travel through time at will? No we cannot.

And no there is. No other space aka multi universe 😂

I don’t fully understand what you’re saying here 😅 Science doesn’t use religion to create theories, so I don’t know what the Bible has to do with this. It isn’t something I’m too familiar with, but I have a general sense of the concept. I’ll make a video to better explain it because it is kind of hard (more like really hard) to wrap your head around.

@UltimateCosmos I know that you think science is your god and all the Guess assuming

I know that science is your god no amount of guessing assumption hypothetically maybes probability estimates give or takes ECT.....The God of the Jews And Christians already told humanity the age of the earth when man ate the fruit of Knowledge of good and evil death and time began thus 6,300 years old the earth is.

You know, if I could read what you’re trying to convey it would make it a little easier to respond to you. But I’ll go off of what I can understand. Science is not my god. I don’t believe in it without any speck of reliable evidence/proof. I myself have observed and worked with physical laws that are used to explain what we see out in the cosmos. The multiverse hypothesis (if we can even call it a hypothesis) is merely speculation at this point in time, and I make no claim that it is fact. What’s funny, however, is people who are willing to believe in the contents of a book written more than 1000 years ago, and not believe or even consider the possibility of modern sciences being able to explain the universe. And I will state that I do not discredit or shame religion, but instead the people who discredit something without trying to learn more about it.

Yeah that’s a whole other topic that I’ll definitely have to make a video about. Thanks for bringing that up! They definitely go hand in hand!

@UltimateCosmos thank you bro and love from india🇮🇳❤️

Where are you getting your information? I haven’t heard this before. The idea that the universe doesn’t have an edge is a theory not a hypothesis.

@@UltimateCosmos Who are we but man and the word of our Heavenly Father who are we to question our father we should and have the duty to teach our children do not question our father but to do his will Amen.

To expand of your incredibly asinine comment, you can never prove the existence of your god and in 1000 years, your god will be nothing but myth and folklore, maybe even a cartoon character to laugh at...... Oh wait, South Park has already made your god a cartoon character to laugh at. 🤣

@@TybeariusLet’s just keep it respectful 😊

I’m glad that you have something to believe in!

@@Tybearius 1. Galatians 6:7 “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.” Paul warns that mocking God is futile, as His justice prevails. This verse emphasizes that disregarding God’s standards leads to consequences that match one’s actions.

We are not expanding, but we are being moved by the expansion. As for the creation we know so little about it because the furthest back we can see is about 300,000 years after the Big Bang (because of the Cosmic Microwave Background). Because of this I see no reason why God couldn’t be a factor in its creation. Personally I believe religion can still exist with science. We may not have as much evidence for events that happened, but if Gods do exist they are of a higher dimension than us, so we currently wouldn’t be able to explain them that well anyway because we are only 3rd dimensional beings.

God? Great! Proof?

That is the main problem. There isn’t any liable proof. I’m just saying that science and religion can co-exist. We can’t discredit religion without evidence, but we also can’t credit it.

@@UltimateCosmos surely the onus is upon those making the positive claim ie those who say there is a God, rather than the scientifically inclined needing to debunk it in the first place? Though I appreciate your effort to be ecumenical.

I try to be 😊

I use AI to generate some images as well for voiceovers. I also use it to help write scripts because I may know a lot (as I am an enthusiast of astronomy/cosmology), but then again, I also don’t know a lot because there is just so much to know.

@@UltimateCosmos Read the word of our Heavenly Father and all your question will be answered man is looking in the wrong direction the holy bible tells you of the creation and where all of us are going instead of spending billions they should be feeding the world our home and they should play man not Gods. God bless the only world with life. Amen

Yeah, thanks for bringing that up!

Yeah, but it would be brighter most likely.

I was watching this video where a quasar was maybe if I remember correctly around 600 million light years away and that thing was 13 times brighter than everything my around and in a picture taken it shows this one bright dot and all these other smaller ones all dim compared to it and the thing that makes it even more escalating is the fact that some of those other dots are actually stars that are in our vicinity and this thing outshines even those omg

That’s crazy! Just shows the insane power of quasars.

Ok, ok I’ll start putting Celsius, Fahrenheit, and Kelvin 😂

😂😂😂

No, not really. Venus’s runaway greenhouse effect is widely excepted in the scientific community.

I'm not! 😁

@@Sunny.Jay22No one cares :)

Dang you had a rough 3rd grade science teacher 😬 Also I don’t want to assume you learning level 😊

ppl in the U.S. Kelvin is a better unit than both Fahrenheit and Celsius.

@ but Centigrade/Celsius is the most widely used in temperature units.

​@@redbishop71 And it's not helpful day to day. Great for science.

@@redbishop71Fair, but just because it is the most widely used doesn’t mean it is the best. As a citizen of the U.S I agree that Celsius is a much better measurement of temperature than Fahrenheit. I mean 32 degrees being the freezing point of water is just ridiculous. However, it is the most popular measurement in the U.S. Kelvin, however, uses 0 degrees as absolute zero which makes more sense than Celsius which uses 0 degrees as the freezing point of water. Why work with negatives when we don’t have to?

the strongest fuckin country in the world uses it.

Fair enough 😂

Yeah, but humanity will most likely be long extinct by the time this happens. So in a sense no worries 😅

@@UltimateCosmos Life finds a way!

Yeah it’s crazy.

😂

Our galaxy is a part a cluster of galaxies that we call the local group. The local group is not considered a node in the large-scale structure otherwise known as the cosmic web.

Aren’t you just brimming with positivity. Obviously a supernova could destroy Earth, but it was more asking if we are in a threatening radius of one.

In order for a celestial object to be classified as a planet it must have three things checked off: 1. It must orbit a star 2. It must have a certain amount of mass 3. It must have cleared its orbit (which essentially means that nothing of significant mass orbits along the same orbit as it)

😓

Yeah, just close.

I don’t think that’s how it works 😂

Oh nice

Nice! Where from?

😂

It would have to bump something pretty big to do that. Astrophysics are also figuring out ways to change the trajectory of asteroids so we can avoid potential collision.

Don’t smoke 🚭 it ain’t good for you.

Smaller actually.

What? 😂

😂

Not quite 😂