The Limits of our Knowledge
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 พ.ค. 2024
- There is much in the universe we will never know, and it is equally certain that we will never know all that we do not know.
A lecture by Joseph Silk, Gresham Professor of Astronomy 22 May 2019
www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-an...
There is much in the universe we will never know, and it is equally certain that we will never know all that we do not know. This dilemma has not stopped cosmologists, philosophers and even theologians from exploring and going beyond the limits of space and time.
Gresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: gresham.ac.uk/support/
As a layperson, thank you. This was excellent!
"What guaranty does the knowing subject have that his models of reality reflect reality itself. Inasmuch as, in an exclusively theoretical science, the only contact that one has with reality is afforded by means of one's knowledge, the problem seems insoluble."
Immanuel Kant,
How? The touchstones of ground truth: *predictions* and *technology*. We can be pretty sure that our model of the solar system is correct because we know where bodies will be at any time, reliably. We can be pretty sure that the people who make iPhones know how atoms and electrons behave at the nanometer scale.
With respect to infinity, ALL possible points are legitimate centers, including the human being. So it's no wonder that we've felt like we're at the center for a long time, because on the grandest scale, we are.
Sorry Benton, you are almost right. I am the center of the universe
Glenn Pollock No I am.🤣🤣
I don't have to share this but I will. I witnessed an alien craft back in 2008 above Nailsworth, Gloucestershire U.K. This craft hovered and took off at such tremendous speed...it was beyond reason. Aliens are definitely here !!
Micky wow I saw ufo about that time. I see what I thought was a star but noticed that It was moving slightly at first. An orangey colour and started to turn white then shot away outwards like a shooting star. I guess it was charging up be for it shot away at lightning speed. Hampshire. North of Portsmouth looking north. ?
September October 2008 roughly?
To understand anything we must go beyond man's conventional mind - and that includes science itself which is limited to our logical, linear thinking process. Without restriction, we must allow our intuition, if we are to reach outside our human limitations.
I'll get the acid, you get the Mushrooms and we'll get cracking. Maybe a big bag of weed as well, just as a chill-out filler, between/during highs.
I think our knowledge is like a puzzle. At a certain point the whole shows itself and everything falls into place of course, we are far from there. We just have a drop in the bucket and yet are convinced we have it almost full.
Throughout human history, truth has been transient. Wonder if we ever will reach objective truth. Philosophy has predicted this and physics is still proving it.
Well, I'd like to think that once some aspects become cracked, a lot of other things will, indeed, as you say, fall into place; Much like how other processes tend to play out. Let's hope some really biggies fall into place for us :)
What a beautifully delivered .. and quite frankly honest lecture! ... Plenty of food for thought :)
Thank you :)
On the contrary. This lecture offered very little content.
@@juusohamalainen7507 And yet you watched it. We all have opinions. I thought it was a pretty good summary given the time available.
Thank you for sharing this presentation.
Never knew Lemaitre thought up "dark energy". I have a hunch the he considered the possibility that space itself is the base of all mass. Energy would just be a form of this space mass under massive pressure that divides it, gives it direction, and a spin. The same force that forged atoms and gravity will gain momentum despite how much energy our universe has concentrated, conserves, and radiates.
I suppose the notion of considering space as an infinite area would turn off many physicists, considering Einstein's reaction, YET, here we are berthed from an infinitely dense moment.
Dark matter would just be a part of dark energies entropy .
Interesting subjects and tie, thank you Mr. Silk.
Actually the quote is from Werner Erhard decades prior, Rumsfield just repeated it during a press conference without giving credit and everyone mistakenly attributes it to him.
Extraordinary. Thank you for such an interesting presentation!
Thank you for your lecture. I needed the review. It has helped my understanding.
Let us be honest the name of this program is what we can and what we cannot tell you
Static-> metastable-> poised for change.., same actual mechanism that is the visible cross-sectioning navigation mapping of the holographic image projection drawing, Observable Universe.
Faster than light is where the thinking mood is at.
Looking out into space is the same as looking into a living creature or ourselves size is irrelevant.We are so limited in our knowledge,as a fish living in water.
Howard Davidson That’s how I always thought too. I look at the fish in my tank and think; boy if those fish only knew. To them the tank is everything with maybe a foggy view of the inside of my living room. They have no clue beyond that.
We are not geared for truth, we are geared for survival.
known knowns are used by engineers for real life applications
known unknowns are pursued by physicists
"There is much in the universe we will never know, and it is equally certain that we will never know all that we do not know."
Nice admission by a scientist. Also, there are things we think we know but ain't so. So keep making things up, so theoretical physicists can stay on the gravy train until the end of "spacetime"!
The whole antimatter theory and research falls apart if one gives a tini tiny amount of mass to the photon! Let it sink in.
49:08 how would you make the moon rotate to see an Earth rise?
Lol. I think this "Unknown" saying attributed to Rumsfield actually predates his saying of it and is put in a more graceful form of prose. I am paraphrasing it here from my memory many years ago. It says: "There are things we know we know... and there are things we know we don't know which are far bigger (in quantity)... but there are things that we do no know that we don't know which is way by far the biggest."
The anomaly of consciousness: To be possible, the laws of physics have to be able to support it. Which sounds like it must be very fundamental somewhere within the laws of physics. The physics does not stop life existing, nor intelligent life, but it does not, as we understand it, provide any reason why life, even very intelligent life, needs to be conscious.
I would suspect that intelligent life would only appear to us if light from their side of space reached us in time that we are still here to observe it. However, in the vast emptiness of space, we see that there are still new stars forming. There are chances that we dismiss those as void of any life because we are observing them as they were in the past. There is no way of telling that those newly forming stars harbor planets with any life in them.
How can we determine the universal physics of what we see from the suns vacuum in space. To determine the physics of outside the vacuum, we have to be there.
Nicely explaination. Invisible is difficult to see
13,559 views and no comments! "Your calculations are correct, but your physics is terrible." The majority of the universe is invisible and undetectable, except by mathematics? What if the red shift has been misinterpreted? How far in the wrong direction will cosmologists go before listening to alternative theories. The Electric Universe Theory clears so much of this up. The primary force in the universe is not gravity, but electricity.
Professor Silk, there are dozens of videos on You Tube, on "How The Universe Works". I know very little about astronomy, but whenever any astronomers or astrophysicists talk or write about the Universe, I always wonder, WHY they talk so much about how the Universe works, seem to be carefully avoiding talking about the origins and the "history" of the Universe.
We were being taught by them fore decades, that it was an invisible, subatomic particle which exploded for no reason at all, and out of this particle came out the mind boggling MASS of the whole Universe.
Then, after being reminded, that they also teach, that before that explosion of that subatomic PARTICLE, there was absolutely NOTHING at all. Not even space, or time. So, there couldn't be any particle that exploded (With that "Big Bang", of course).
So, after a while, they (no doubt, including you, Professor), started teaching, that it was NOTHING, that exploded and gave birth to this incomprehensibly huge MASS of the Universe.....
To cut the long story short, they published, some time ago a map of the Universe, and you surely know about it. That got me thinking, how could they produce a map of the Universe, when the Universe is expanding already for several millions or billions of years, with the speed of a bullet, ALSO in the OPPOSITE direction to what we are rushing rushing into space. Therefore, it is undeniable FACT, that those billions upon billions or probably, rather trillions upon trillions of Galaxies with trillions of stars in each of them which we and the Hubble telescope can see in our sky above, is only a tiny fraction of the Universe, because the EQUAL number of Galaxies and stars, are expanding for millions of years already, from the point of that explosion - the "Big Bang" - in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION! And not onle that, but the same incomprehensible number of stars and Galaxies are rushing away not only in the opposite direction to oure, but in ALL DIRECTIONS, from the point of the "Big Bang", just like shrapnels from any explosions, like beams from the Sun, fireworks exploding in the midair, etc...
Therefore, my question to you Professor Silk is: - Do you agree, that the Universe keeps expanding for billions of years, ALSO in the opposite direction to ours?
Your whole premise is a misconception, albeit a common one. You are imagining that we are on one "side" of a Big Bang explosion which must be also expanding on "its other side". The misconception is that the locus of the Big Bang is at some particular point in our present cosmos. That's not the case. The Big Bang is everywhere, all around us. Space itself originated with the Big Bang and has been expanding ever since. So when we ask "where did the Big Bang happen?" the answer is: "HERE!" (as well as everywhere else). The definitive proof of this is the cosmic microwave background radiation that comes to us from everywhere in the sky.
In fact, it might be better to think of the Big Bang as an ongoing process. You say that we are "rushing into space", but in fact we are embedded in space and (on the average) moving along with its constant expansion. This is referred to as the Hubble Flow. Everything in the universe is being carried with it, like raisins in a fruitcake expanding in the oven, all getting further apart from everything else. Except in the universal case there's no external oven ... there's only fruitcake ;-)
Distance of exoplanet from it's host sun, depends on many factors...... size of its star, temperature output, radiation output, magnetic field, etc..... as such, the exoplanet can be further from a hotter sun, or vice-versa. This also increases potential sustenance for life, or lifeforms.
Precisely; It all depends on the solar system the planet is in, and primarily, the star itself that the planet orbits. The "Goldilocks" zone is unique to that system, which means that it can be different to another "Goldilocks zone" of another system, but the principles are the same, as you say.
For up to date news on the cosmos' mysteries study Suspicious Observaors on TH-cam & use the links to various Web sites they provide.
I wish this gentleman had not glossed over so much in this presentation. He certainly presents the consensus view, but in doing so he for instance elides the issue of how the chemicals in Darwin's pond could possibly have combined to produce DNA, and even harder, managed to code themselves for replication of proteins. He also accepts that mere processing power makes a computer superior to the human brain. He does not mention consciousness, and we have no idea how it is created. More simply, he does not mention that a machine would have to develop intention. As I put it to a friend, Big Blue did not go out for a beer and celebrate after it beat the world chess champion.
He also just plain gets some stuff wrong. He refers to synapses as electrical signals when in fact they are the connections between neurons. He says the world's biggest computer has ten times more "somethings" than the human brain has synapses, but then refers to them as "bytes". In fact the computer number should have referred to floating point operations per second. And as you say, there is in any case no straightforward connection to any aspect of neural processing that we know of. This whole aspect of the talk was barmy.
I agree with you that he glossed over the true difficulties associated with origin-of-life questions, which renders any discussion of the likelihood of life elsewhere speculative. And while the idea of life on Earth being unique must of course be balanced against the _mediocrity principle_ , he failed to elucidate the genuine conundrum posed by the Fermi Paradox.
All in all, a very mediocre presentation, I thought.
Of all people quoting rummy, the guy should be quoting resounding truths. Not from a guy who has disdain for it.
Those of us aware of our past lives know Nature’s way ahead of cryogenics.
i loved this lecture. the lack of hubris is so attractive. when scientists deny that weaknesses in their exist in their theories one is instantly suspicious that they are wrong. knowledge cannot evolve without doubt and certainty is a result of uncertainty.
Shame he added the exoplanets though. Looking for planets like earth for signs of life is a upside down strategy. What is needed is discover how well basic life forms can manage in hostile environments. So, take Venus, is it really impossible for life to succeed there? if you don't try cannot know this. You need to simulate the conditions and then try and find life forms that can exist there. Find what life can survive then look for planets. There was algae, fungy, and bacteria living on the outside of the ISS (origin earth). I know, exoplanets are hyped up and are fun research getting good grants,
Yes, you are right in that life as a widely varied concept can indeed survive at hundreds of degrees celsius higher than our comfy 20 degrees or also hundreds of degrees lower in temperature as well! Also, corrosive environments could still support 'some' kind of life. However, I think scientists might be attempting to find somewhere that we can transfer to.. Well, I would like to think that in the future, we can still survive on Earth, but if you think about it, I believe that in order for us to truly survive, we're going to have to leave this planet, because we're going to make it uninhabitable eventually. We create too much pollution as by-products of our activities. I don't think we're going to recover from the state of the environment because of this. Anyway, even if we can figure out how to survive, we're still going to end up literally shoulder-to-shoulder, as the population increases more and more... so in my way of thinking, if we're going to devote a reasonably fixed limited time frame to looking for life-supporting planets, it would be very wise to look for ones that support HUMAN life, and ignore anything else, due to not having the time to do so.
The view from a narrow magnified lens on earth has a limited field of view, however, when looking at the perimeters of our solar system, why to we see fixed orbit structures.
I am certain I am the most important person in the world. Everyone else believes the same, they are the most important person in life. I am infinitely significant to myself and infinitely insignificant to the Universe. Every bird believes they are at the center. Are the birds correct?
Heavy
He has to move along a little faster and come up with something new. How did he achieve this position?
Why reiterate speculation after speculation when there's no knowledge currently available? As far as I know, even the creation of a cell (and its predecessors) is largely a mystery.
So is gravity. How it works is well known. Why it works? No-one´s got a clue. How and why the uni popped into existence? Haven´t the foggiest. The results of the two-slit experiment? Pure magic.
what we perceive as expansion of the universe is nothing more than the material universe riding the peaks and troughs of a vast cosmic sea which we cant detect
The reality is that we have visitors from we know not where, making use of physics we know not of, running a mok around our planet!
Evidence of your conjecture???
The same could be said about youtube comments.
I am puzzled.
How are dark matter and dark energy distinguished?
What is gravity actually?
Is dark energy anti gravity actually?
What are at the outer borders of the present Universe? or
Is the Universe a mathamatical construct with limits?
What is the Universe expanding into?
Is it proper to call the big bang a singularity?
I've come to think that in every galaxy is a black hole and the amount of stars out there why isn't the night sky white?. In thinking of fractals I think are universe is within a massive black hole. Expansion speeding up might shed light on this hypothesis.
Have you read the result of the American military’s report on the redoing of the Michelson Morley experiment? Also have you stopped attributing the unexplainable on Aliens yet ?
いろいろ教えてくれてありがとうございます。 感謝します。
Rumsfeld's comment =, what is the shape of the universe, only asked from the angle of attack of evil.
The professor is pure electricity on stage! Reminds me of zeppelin at Madison Square garden in 68!
I was on my feet and screaming with excitement the entire lecture!
Um... no.
Sure the universe is expanding? And if so where is it expanding into? If the space itself is expanding all should be expanding with it and we could not notice that unless being outside of it like when we see a balloon being inflated into an external space. If universe has a gravitational potential maybe very distant galaxies appear reddish because of their light being stretched during the travel to us and not because of increased recession velocity.
By the end of his life Hubble thought red shift might be caused by 1 to 2% movement away and the rest to other causes. Halton Arp was shamefully ignored when he contested the idea that red shift showed a rapidly expanding universe. He also predicted that adherence to this idea would result in larger and more distant objects being discovered that would eventually defy credibility....which we have seen with 'huge objects far far away'. Red shift is likely due to the age of bodies rather than their distance and recessional speed.
Drake Equation: Assumes each civilisation is based around its own star and has to evolve from inorganic thru bacteria to multicellular to intelligent to technological. But this misses the more likely possibility of persistent civilisations spread across countless star system and not even necessarily living on planets eg they may simply live in space. We after all envisage supporting trillions of people in O'Neil Cylinders in the future, enormously more than can live on a planet, with all its attendant problems of the gravity well and the risk of comet hits etc.
germany solar energy constituent is only 7% not 40%. great overview talk otherwise!
First half of the presentation can be safely omitted, but is there anything new in the second part, really??????
I don't know. Really, can you tell me or is your question rhetorical? If you've got something, go for it!
The known unknown of whether I will continue watching this video has just become a known known, and the answer is no, no, no[n]
But what about bright energy and bright matter which are invisible and undetectable by all known methods, this bright matter and energy are the polar opposites of dark matter and energy and cancel out the effects of both, therefore another explanation is needed, this time try finding a scientific explanation instead of invoking magical undetectable fictitious entities.
The total sum of human knowledge compared to what is here and out there yet to learn and know, is somewhat comparable to a yocto particle of wood afloat in earth s oceans.
A good igniter of fresher learning towards more and better knowledge depends on ditching some bad ideas like the big bang which has lately become a limiter, the universe is much bigger and ancient than people have been led to believe.
Has anyone looked at the complexity, such as the compression of a spring, being dark matter.
My mind goes into some funky spaces sometimes
"We can arrange the atoms the way we want, the very atoms all the way down!" That sounds like alchemy to me. I thought Richard Feynmann was supposed to be brilliant.
Bundle of Perceptions "it's all turtles all the way down"
I'm all for integrating with AI, because we can confirm detection of unknowns by using the other areas of the Electromagnetic spectrum, via the AI's optical capabilities. Now- imagine that integrated with our brain... Being able to see that which we currently cannot see... thus; Knowing that which we currently do not know...
OMG, that's the most interesting suit he's wearing! :)
I like his tie.
Good!
Could dark matter be an aspect of the topology of space itself ? A variation of the space metric , without matter ?
No. Even if it is something unlike the fundamental particles we know, it is still "stuff" that can move around just like ordinary stars and gas. It is stuff _in_ space, following Einstein's field equations: matter tells space how to bend, space tells matter how to move.
How about entertaining the idea that anything that is in possession of properties, must possess a physical existence? If so, then the simplest and most straightforward prospect for Dark Energy or Auv if one prefers, is a regenerating physical energy field of space. A field that exploits some type of unexplained energy potential of the vacuum, let us coin as " field synthesis". The generating of field energy.
So Baryon matter, atoms and cosmological bodies are immersed within, or embedded within this regenerating energy field of space Auv. Could atoms be an example of nature having exploited a natural available energy potential of space, and the form and processes of matter having evolved optimised for exploiting that energy potential. Life owes its complex form and process to Darwinin origins based upon exploitation of energy potentials, so we know it has the potential for generating wild complexity of system. Can the same approach be adapted to a Universal context to explain for complexity inherent of physics and cosmology? The answer as I judge it is, "yes it certainly can".
Atoms are a hive of activity/motion generated by atomic forces. Force is work. How do atoms generate endless perpetual work/activity? The interaction between space and matter is represented by Guv = Tuv, which can be summarized as " the curvature of space Guv is equal to sum of atomic forces Tuv". Just imagine the prospect that the stuff of space, the energy of space is being exploited by matter to generate atomic forces? That matter has evolved form/structure, process/agencies optimised for efficiently harvesting the natural available energy potential of space, that is to say Dark Energy or Auv.
Physics and cosmology are highly complex and ordered. We only know of one natural organisational principle which has the prospect of generating truly articulated ordered complex systems. Darwinian process. But that doesn't seam to be enough to justify having this conversation in most peoples minds. But if they did entertain this discussion, they would see I have so much more to say about it than merely this.
Darwinian processes present a type of logic which humans can make sense of. I can present this logic in spades
Time is a measure of atomic activity, which is generated by atomic forces. Atomic forces are being generated by atoms, by exploiting the energy potential of space Auv or Dark Energy. Guv gravitational fields represent an energy density contour, and atoms ability to generate force, which is then measured as time is variable.
Think about it. Atomic forces are the source of motion or frequency that we employ as clocks, which provide times measure. So there is an unavoidable relationship between measure of time, and expressions of atomic forces.
So the point is, Atomic forces are the generators of mass. And atomic forces modulate, which provides us with the measurement we term time dilation.
Atomic forces, therefore atomic mass is variable. Its variability is dependent upon gravity's effect, which is distance square law dependent, time dilation being the measure of it. Dependant upon the proximity of mass in any given region of space. The solution to the anomalous galaxy rotation velocities is going to be discovered as correlating to the average distance between stars in galaxies, variable atomic mass dependent upon distance square law proximity of stars.
Galaxies rotate as though their star densities are a constant throughout the disk. That is to say, General Relativity would correctly predict galaxy rotation if stars maintained a constant density throughout. But stars densities in spiral galaxies generally declines by square of distance from one another, while maintaining dependance upon square of distance from galaxy center. That's a beautiful symmetry.
Knowing that star populations in galaxies decline by distance square law from each other, dependant upon square of distance from galaxy center. This provides a density profile for distribution of galaxy mass. Time dilation is dependant upon proximity of mass, famously it also abides distance square law. So if you take that small intuitive leap that time dilation is a measure of modulated atomic activity, which is modulated atomic force, which is modulated atomic mass. Then you can see it is a prospective fit for the anomalous galaxy rotation velocities. Also known as the Dark Matter problem.
Dark Matter isnt an invisible form of matter that populates space. Its a feature of baryons which hasn't been realized. Time dilation is a measure of it, dilated atomic forces, dilated mass. The property of time can be empirically defined within terms of how it is measured. And all time keeping devices are force driven systems. Time dilation is caused by atomic force dilation, which is the origin of times measure. And mass is the sum of atomic forces, mass is therefore variant.
So this aspect of physics nestles within the wider Darwinian scope, that baryons have evolved within a circumstance of exploiting a natural available energy potential of space. Atoms exploit DE and convert it to atomic forces that build and maintain the structure and processes of matter. The same phrasing suits the circumstances of biology and its complex form and processes, within terms of exploiting energy potentials and evolving form and processes optimised for exploiting that energy which enables for its existence.
The Universe is a Darwinian cascade from beginning to end. From the emergence of Dark Energy, to the exploitation of Dark Energy by baryons which then evolved the structures and processes of matter that eventually became complex and orderly enough to service the systems which underlay biology. Which is to say biochemistry. Chemistry evolved to form ridged and therefore persistent cosmological structures, such is exampled by the Earths geochemical processes that rely upon the chemical bond forming potentials of atoms, and the presents of water that expresses these chemical bond potentials, both of which the Earth has on its surface in abundance and that solidify the Earths surface in a cosmological scale effort to form continental rocky sheets.
you see evidence of a Darwinian evolved system needs to provide a logic within terms of what nature is observed to be doing. Evolved themes have reason and purpose. Water and geochemical processes conspire to form ridged cosmological structures. Simple.
But there is lots more. lots and lots
Dark matter hypothesis is that of unseen matter, which enables Einstein's formula of grvity to remain unchanged.
MOND is a theory that modifies Einsteins formula.
Variable mass maintains Einsteins formula. The variable parameter that allows prediction of anomalous galaxy velocity, is that of mass, and not of gravities formula.
So thats how it stands in contrast to DM and MOND
Is space-time not affected by gravity?
The first 3 Min's of creation? IT appears that the Doppler effect can be measured on bodies of the same age. Is Doppler an effect of distance or age?
its to do with the rate of change and frame of reference of both distance and time . ;-)
Looking for the perfected mechanist (incorrect) theories for life and the universe. Best I have seen, really. For actual reality try Rupert Sheldrake.
the context of the universe is spiritual consciousness which flows from the top down creating physicality...as a secondary event a for detailed starting point leading to enlightenment.
can't see the earth rise on the moon because of tidal lock, all you can do is watch the earth go round and round every 24 hours, and from day to night to day every 28 days.
David Copperfield could make it happen.
Joe Kozak - you have bought into the pseudo-science indoctrination of spinning rotating globe.
Have you watched any video that shows a plane landing on a runway that is absolutely still - not moving away in any direction; if the earth was moving (spinning and rotating) as the globe model requires then that phenomenon is not visible.
It's a delusion.
Physicist: " BuT wHy?"
Universe: "THAT'S ENOUGH!"
Isn't it obvious that we don't even know that we know nothing.
Before I ever had a microwave oven, I didn't even know that I didn't have the opportunity to have one. Now that I'm divorced and again I don't have a microwave oven, I'm sure that I know about and miss having a microwave oven. I didn't know that before, but I certainly do now.
Before I ever had a microwave oven, I didn't even know that I didn't have the opportunity to have one. Now that I'm divorced and again I don't have a microwave oven, I'm sure that I know about and miss having a microwave oven. I didn't know that before, but I certainly do now.
Of course we know, that we don't know nothing. Dark matter and dark energy, are an enigma. So we can say, "We don't know nothing, but we know we don't know nothing, about dark energy. So,... maybe,.. but,. I don't know? Do. You?
@@larrymbouche Yes I know we do not know anything. It is so obvious. We are only extremely arrogant.
The planet is being contracted and expanded by the forces of the universe, what do you think is the piso/ electric affect that is causing on crystal structures and the planet?
It's ironic and funny when you see science speaking about beliefs. I thought beliefs was domain of religion and not science. There was at least an acknowledgement here that we don't know unlike many well known ardent proponents of science which are way more emphatic than deserved.
One of the most fascinating aspects to watch out for is, is consciousness and underlying or emergent phinominon? Now technology is far enough advanced to reveal the results in the next decade or two. It will help to shed light on science and where it stands.
Donald Rumsfield misquoted right at the beginning
How much do we understand? Virtually nothing. Socrates taught us that 2500 years ago.
The bible told us everything 3500 years ago. God bless you.
Gerard Moloney Which bible?
Let's begin with the fact that no earth probe has exited the suns field of affect. Outside of the vacuum caused by the movement of the sun in the unknown property of space, the question is, do the observable affects of a vacuum exist in deep space.
He made some false statements. He said Venus was less hot than Mercury and that Mars had no water and no Atmosphere.
Understood, I noticed a few blips, but I think he was referring to temperature, regarding Venus, as the distance from the sun, where Venus is, rather than Venus itself. (He will have been thinking in the context of goldilocks zone temperatures, relative to the star's radiation output).
He does know that Mars has a very thin atmosphere but it is closer to a vacuum than actual air. When he states "no water", he means a sustainable amount for terraforming and supporting HUMAN life.
why do physist think that the begining actually had the same laws.this handicaps them
Dose creation have a base, like a wire frame.
"creation". Do you refer to everything around us? In which case, maybe you could say that Atomic level is like the base of everything. Or perhaps the sub-atomic level is more accurate. But the smaller we go, the realms of the unknown we find ourselves in. So If one sticks to the Atomic-to-sub-atomic level, thereabouts, then you can say that is like a wire frame, a foundation if you want to call it, to life and matter, everything we see around us.
The earth we stand on is made of atoms and elements that are also found in us.. everything on Earth came from a dying star. Make any sense? From looking at your other comments, you might ought to already know whether "creation" has a "base".
This lecturers point of vector is from the 19th century.
You don't think so? Well now I know I am done listening. I have seen animals show emotion and recognize themselves in a mirror. Intelligence?
Chaos theory is about limits, however their are similarities.
Knowledge: The more we know ,the more we found out we don't know anything or so little. With time we forgot the knowledge, this is why computers exist, I guess..
Yet we see so many people today fall into nihilism saying "whats the point, everything is discovered already". Ridiculous
kenim everything has been discovered, its just that everyone has their own way of discovering the tao
Man is the measure of all things.
Dark energy, lensing dark matter, dark flow. Not a convincing angle on reality. With regard to lensing the affect of dark matter, I think we should decide lensing when we can measure such an affect outside our solar system.
Maybe we are unaware that we know everything
Opening with a misquote, nice...
Damage control because, as is stated on the Steve jackson card game, ''The flat earthers know something''.
There is no physical life out there . There is heaven a spiritual realm . The universe was made for man with LOVE .
And your evidence is..?
victoria quesnel Sorry, but your theory of the Universe is at best embarrassing.
An attempt to grasp the hidden reality of the Universe.
The universe from a Big bang never talked about the sound waves controlling the velocity of light on the gravity force perhaps am interesting charging force of photonic bubbling undergoing cyclic changes from expansion and contraction which is being repeated sometimes with high speed and sometimes at low speed.The evolution of an evolution can not be decided by the knowledge of Physics and mathematics some theory more uncovered has to be found out.Thr dark matter dark force and Blackhole theory must be used to cross the space at high speed even the Tachion speed can not be ignored please.
Indeed, the next problem in the queue is that of getting to a habitable planet that may or may never be discovered. I really do think that in order to populate other planets, there is only one way, forwards. What I mean by this is that those we leave behind will be long gone by the time we establish ourselves on the new world. So we need to be absolutely sure about traveling before we actually set off. There is the possibility of gaining consent from the serving crew of many ships, that we can launch, that those people would accept it as a gamble, that they might land on a planet that turns out NOT to have been as habitable as first thought. But in order to grow, we need to plant seeds, many many seeds... They could be frozen or a crew could be frozen, or generations of crews could operate the ships, over long periods of travel time. Either the future generations could populate the planets, or a bank of human embryos could be kept and then artificially gestated in an artificial womb, in order to make a population-starter top seed that planet. But hang on, what if that planet already has indigenous life there already??? dun dun dun... ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Know yourself to attain an eternal happiness; trying to know beyond yourself only to suffer; trying to know the unthinkable to drive you crazy
You can't forget what you don't know, but you can remember what you do know. If you knew what you don't know, could you forget it? I knew the answer but I can't remember.
No life = no universe !
Why ?
Who or what would know it exists !
So.....
Is there a Supreme ‘thing’ which we now call ‘God’ ?
Who knows ....
(Think it through ! )
So just how offensive were Frank Drake's eyebrows?!
What do we know for sure is that a 5KWh backup generator will never produce sum useful energy exceeding the sum useful energy out of another 30KWh backup generator of comparable grade and quality, due to wear and tear internal to matter, even if limitless amount of fuel is made available for both.
Why? The answer is that the total energy expended in constructing the 30KWh unit is greater than the energy expended in constructing the 5KWh device, and it is this which what decides the sum energy output, not the amount of fuel running the two machines.
Or, why the smaller unit has wore out and ceased well before its sum useful output has exceeded the sum useful output of the bigger unit, despite there is still plenty of fuel running it?
"No energy-producing system can produce sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it" (The Fifth Law).
Many opinions highlighted by Professor Silk are fossil fuels-powered thinking, and they might fade out quickly as the fossil fuels age comes to a close.
Science will then default back to where Watt's steam engine has taken us all into, trying dropping illusions and starting all over again the painful journey for finding wheat from chaff.
It has been claimed that The Fifth Law, proposed in 2017, is the most read hypothesis aboard Star Trek's Enterprise spaceship.
Rumors are that Aliens are studying The Fifth Law thoroughly before embarking on a journey to earth - have been seen published on the internet, too!
Thanks Prof. Silk.
I would dare say, that once renewable machines are up and running, then renewable energy can be used to create more machines, rather than expending finite resources. So I would say that we wouldn't have to devolve in technology. So don't worry about that :)
Did a.i. make us? Or did we make a.i.
how ya gonna keep them down on the farm.
Man is central because God intended it this way, lets not make this anymore confusing then this has to be. We're here on earth and we should concentrate on it and not whats out in space. We have many issues we need to address on our tiny home. If we dont address them then really all this other stuff your taking about will NOT matter....
so true
And so the limits of are knowledge are....?
Perhaps the spelling of "our"?
around 5% - looking at one of the charts he showed.
I thought spacetime bended the light, never heard dark matter did it.
Earth like planets in the milky way ? May be 1000 . Advanced civilisations ? May be 10 .
Based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarf stars within the Milky Way galaxy. 11 billion of these estimated planets may be orbiting Sun-like stars. But this data set is now about 5 years old. The Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (and other scopes) will add/refine the credence of how many there are. But 1000 is a laughably underestimation - try 1000^3
"In the beginning (time), God made the heavens (space) and the earth (matter) Gen 1:1. As scientists we love the details, but do we really know much more than the ancient rabbis?