ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
An Honest Question from a Theist
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 มิ.ย. 2014
- A quick response to a comment. I think the commenter is pretty young, so be nice. Anyway, it seems to be an honest question, so I thought it was worth a response.
Thanks for doing this, I feel like I know where to go from here. (Names of theories, people, etc.) Didn't know there was a name for that theory, And I didn't expect a full video for a response, or one this detailed. (To be honest, I expected a more of a binary response, and I thank you for putting forth time for my ignorance)
Curing ignorance is my job, and it's one of those jobs you don't leave behind in the office at the end of the day.You asked what I perceived as an honest question, and I felt obligated to explain the problems with it. Feel free to throw more of this stuff in my direction. :)
Genuinely friendly and openminded response there John. It takes guts and character to do that, certainly with these kind of topics. Hope your curiosity takes you on a journey worthwhile. Cheers.
Make sure you study real history too, not Bible-based history. And don't be afraid to challenge everyone, including yourself. You seem to be going in this direction on your own, which is praiseworthy.
Never be afraid to ask a question, questions are what makes us learn and to come up with new ideas. And get exposed to other ways of seeing things that may open our minds to see or understand things more clearly.
To me questions are even more important than the answer to them, answers becomes boring when they are well known and understood. but questions never fail to motivate me to try to learn something new, they inspired me to study in school, and they inspire me today to learn more.
And the more questions you get answers to in any specific field they always lead to more questions, so for me this is a wonderful world we live in.
I dont know if you have seen many of Martymer81 videos on here, but this has been one of his nicer ones.
Thanks for the positive feedback guys, I suppose I'll write back with more questions as I study (And hey, I have all summer free!)
Marty is so blunt, even when he's being nice.
I noticed that.... it was amusing.
Is that Saxton Hale? :0
Yes.
I would say an honest (if slightly naive) question. I would agree that they are probably mid-to-late teen and probably just approaching these sorts of questions. Interesting response, I hope you're able to more of these videos because I find them particularly useful, especially if they are honest questions. Keep up the great work!
I have nothing against ignorance. I myself am full of ignorance. But what really pisses me off is when people pretend their ignorance equates to knowledge
"In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from. And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?” Carl Sagan.
I would add if we decide that God simply popped into existence sometime in the distant past then why not save a step and say the Universe just popped into existence. If we for some reason still insist the Universe required a God for its existence then why not save a step and say the Universe is God?
Not a bad response. Hopefully the person who asked sees this and doesn't feel offended.
Retsupurae... It's everywhere I go...
OOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH
Friedrich Wilhelm Viktor Albert No
Here's the crux of the argument that most people who make it miss:
Why must the universe have source? I know it's easier to accept that everything has a beginning, but there is no reason to believe that. Especially since, as has been pointed out, nothing can be created nor destroyed, just change form. Nothing has ever had a beginning as far as we can tell. Why would we assume it ever did?
Martymer, you were almost nice :-) well I think you tried real hard to be nice and I appreciate the effort. Hopefully it will help this young theist to continue to ask questions and not assume agency.
I have a question about dark matter. Isn't dark matter a variable we assign to the universe to help explain why the light reflecting matter is behaving in the way that it is? In other words based on our current understanding of the universe planetary motion is dependent on gravity. So we are assuming that in order to account for the motion of the objects in the universe there has to be a great deal more matter than we can see. So since it's unobservable directly we call it dark matter right? So all this is based on the gravitational paradigm we haven't actually been able to study dark matter only it's affects on "light matter" right? (yes I know my physics is pretty weak for a 50 year old)
Dark matter is used to help explain how galaxy rotate and move relative to one another in galactic clusters, and how gravitational lensing happen.
Fiddling with the gravity don't work because various galaxy, with the same dimension and visible mass, behave differently. Some rotate at just the right rate without dark matter, while other rotate to fast. Also, there are some places where gravitational lensing is shifted relative to the visible mass.
What do you think of this third option to pascal's wager? there's a god who created a universe devoid of any proof of his existence, except for divulging his existence to some crazies in the wilderness who then perpetuated the "myth" of his existence via dishonest means. but he rewards the skeptics (intellectually honest) over the faithful (intellectually dishonest)?
I think that God's intentions are very questionable. We are his entertainment. At least how I understand it.
not even going that far:
1-the god that exists wants to stay hidden and because of that he punishes people who believe he exists.
2-another god exists and punished people who worship the fake god but not those who believe in no god
3-you are wasting your chance to improve and become immortal in the real world, and therefor, losing an infinite reward.
The problem with that view is that it is not the god as described by the religions of the world. Any of them. Not a single one.
It's kind of like forcing your friends to help you find your red car in a parking lot, and then you hit the remote and unlock the doors and your friends find it and the car is blue and you say "Yeah, that's what I meant".
Theists' scriptures describe their god, generally speaking, as being red. You can't then make a case that it's actually blue and fudge the difference like it doesn't actually matter. Sure, it might seem like a minor, insignificant difference, but the point remains that it's not _their_ god no matter how they try to square the circle.
I began writing a screenplay about a man who comes to believe that the rejection of the holy books is the only way into heaven; that they are a test to weed out the fear mongers, the pious, and the intellectually dishonest.
Granted, as Oxy said, such a deity would have questionable morals, but FAR less so than Yahweh.
I used this "third option" a few times in order to show theists why Pascal's Wager is absolutely useless because you aren't just faced with two options but actually with an infinite amount of "third options".
I love how theists just take "We don't know" and go right to "God did it!" It's like, okay, wait a second. You can't just go there. We need a rational progression, a chain of evidence leading from dark matter to God, and "We don't know" leaves theists as far from God as it's possible to get. Theists seem to see "I don't know" as some sort of admission of failure, and a springboard from which they can jump all the way to God, without doing any of the work necessary to get there. And there's a HUGE amount of work needed to get there, NONE of which has even been attempted, because theists don't even try to use the scientific method, so they don't even make a hypothesis for how a god might do it. Instead, it's always "deus ex machina", which is about as convincing as it is when it is employed in a play or a movie - i.e. not convincing at all.
God of the gaps. I don't know - Therefore, god.
So atheists could very well be closer to god than theists? Ha ha. Brilliant!
Normally, I love good 'ol fashion theist-floggin... but I can see why you were nice this time :)
"A form of matter that reacts gravitationally but not electromagnetically".
The more I think on it, the more I think dark matter is just matter that's going at or faster than the speed of light away from us, and that it doesn't seem to emit or reflect light because any light that it emits or reflects in our general direction will actually also be heading away from us, simply at a much lower speed.
Like a red shift that goes so far into radio wave territory that it's no longer detectable.
'Cause I've been trying to rationalize the whole speed messing up everything in the universe bit, and went with a line of logic that basically states that lights speed is constant, but relative to whatever emits it.
From there, I came to the conclusion that if something were to move faster than the speed of light compared to an observer, the only major thing that would occur is that it would simply appear invisible to said observer.
Which, at first, I just thought would be something that we simply couldn't observe in any way, because without photons reaching us, we'd never be able to even determine that an object was there. It agrees quite well with red'n blue shifts, and would explain the effects of linear time dilation without ever managing to cause any pointless paradoxes.
But then I heard Lawrence Krauss mention dark matter somewhere, and a shot went off in my head.
Can't remember the exact words, but I paraphrased it as "Something that we cannot see, but we know is there for the effect it has on the universe around it."
Which made me go back to my aforementioned thought train on light emissions and high speeds and what not, and full on if there would ever be a sign that something, lets say a galaxy, was in motion at or above the speed of light, and there was any way to determine it was there, that would essentially be it.
We'd be looking for something completely invisible, but with an effect on the universe around it, much like a black hole.
This was excellent and even-handed for someone, uncharacteristically, looking for answers. Loved it. Clear and concise. Nice that you could have a rest from fending off the space jews.
I like your videos more than most other skeptics's because you seem more honest and nice (except when it comes to something like spacejews, in which case I think bashing is kind of needed).
Keep up the good work. ^w^
Wow. This is your attempt at being nice and diplomatic? You have a hard time turning off your snark. You've been battling in the trenches a bit too much, I think.
If the questioner is an American, the chances are very high that he's never been and never will be exposed to physics or philosophy in a school setting.
That's not true.
3:50 I like that you explain the difference between being stupid and just being ignorant. There is no shame in just being ignorant (not in and of itself) ...but being stupid or _wilfully_ ignorant...
Trying to be nice is really the best way to put it lol.
The God's God argument is one I would wish to be addressed by Theists more often today... (no, that wasn't sarcasm or an attempt at irony.)
He looks like a very smart blonde version of Kevin Bacon.
The bigger problem, than all the technical, physics, or philosophical problems with what he's posted, is that he hasn't considered (1) other people have tried this before, and he is the smartest most enlightened person to have ever lived and this is the first time such a proposition has been put forth, (2) he has an internet connection but has never used a search engine?
Even if all you do is watch TH-cam videos, aren't there like a gazillion videos on this very topic? And many of them drop famous philosopher names and long standing arguments and memes. He has the curiosity to ask such a question but not the curiosity to look up these terms and names? I think not. I suspect it to be less an honest question, more a rhetorical question. I could be wrong and this is his first time on the internet, or some strange set of circumstances, like he lives in a country with internet censorship, but it happens often. People just stumbling upon an old defunct well trampled argument (particularly that one) and posting it online. I feel a little embarrassed for them.
I think you are too kind to these people, Marty. But I suppose someone has to be, if we are to provide theist benefit of the doubt if at the least not to propagate a rude misconception. I certainly don't have the patience for it.
Hi, Martymer. I like your video for its information. Based on the way the viewer's question read, I think you're right. I think it was an honest and sincere question. If it isn't sarcastic, It's really important to me to acknowledge a question from another person as an innocent one. I try, although I don't always succeed, to encourage my students to ask about things they may not understand. The only stupid question is one that isn't asked. Please consider this. Thanks, great video.
The "Big Bang" was caused by the last Universe's version of Hadron collider. :D
I believe the only "stupid" questions are those phrased in such a manner as to trick the respondent, e.g. asking a man"Do you still beat your wife?" Answering either "yes" or "no" lands the respondent a situation that puts him on the defensive.
You know the whole "cosmological argument"
sounds like a 'God of the gaps argument'
***** I've never seen a good argument showing dark matter must be exotic.. It always seemed simplest to me to assume dark matter is simply matter that we do not observe, do to limitation in our instruments.
It would seem to me there would be lots of particles interacting too weakly to be observed, considering how large the universe is. For example, until recently we couldn't detect planets around other stars, yet now we can by their gravitational effects on their star (as well as transiting).
Things that have neither a beginning nor an end, as in an temporal eternal and spatially infinite universe, don't need to be created in the first place, hen and egg issue solved. Causality isn't even violated, it's merely removed as an problematic concept outside the universe, where inside, everything is causal. The universe has no outside, it's all there is.
Marty, you seriously need to do some philosophy, not about beeing nice, life fulfilment, Karma and other relatively meaningless stuff, more about cosmogonical philosophy.
You are very adept in the higher sciences, but you fail to see through all those fancyful figures and numbers, they merely tell ratios, but not what, how and why ;)
Been enjoying quite a lot of your videos, especialy the one where you answer Sheldrakes questions, quite an interesting eye opener on both ends of humans trying to understand it all, from a purely physical point of view, and a not so physical point of view :P
Wait, the expansion of the universe decreases the potential energy? Can somebody explain that to me? That sounds counter-intuitive to me.
One thing I don't understand is why the point of logic has to stop the second you think of a way to prove a theory wrong. Why don't people try to figure it out logically if they question the theory? I'm not saying you Marty, but some of the people in the comments.
For example: if something created the universe, what created that something? And it's outside of time, with time being the beginning of the universe. Couldn't the higher power be existing in an alternative universe outside of our universe, and couldn't that universe have it's own time completely separate from ours?
Here is an analogy: if I created a video game and it went from time 0 to time 100 hours (current for the people in the game). The people in the game might be able to figure out that the game was created at time 0, but that doesn't mean that our universe's time began at that time.
Couldn't that be a possibility that makes sense? (Not saying using evidence, I'm saying using logic)
Kyle Zelkoski Yes, it's perfectly possible that there could be a universe that this one is "inside" of. The only problem is; can this be DEMONSTRATED.
And it can't. Until such a time that such a thing can be demonstrated, the null hypothesis kicks in.
Not to mention, even then it wouldn't really be answering anything. It would be like if it was discovered that life originated from intelligent aliens - we'd still have to learn more about how THEY came into being, so rather than actually getting an answer, the issue would just be pushed back further and harder for us to research.
There are a couple of things I'd like to add:
* Wrt dark matter, it is still a hypothesis, and the bimetric cosmological model renders it moot (along with dark energy for that... Matter. Pun not intended). I'll add that from this model you can derive Einstein's GR (which is an approximation of that model is there is no negative mass -- yes, you read that well).
* Wrt the "origin of the universe", it may well NOT have an origin at all. What is called the Big Bang is simply a (mathematical) singularity which is the result of applying Einstein's GR "in the past" and describes a universe which is infinitely dense and infinitely small (first calculated by Georges Lemaître); yet, GR only describes gravitation, whereas another well tested theory (QFT) describes all other fundamental forces. Existing theories trying to unify them all arrive at the same conclusion: the universe has no "time zero".
You have a Kalam-centric view of the cosmological argument, which is the only one that depends on the universe beginning to exist.
if positive and negative energy even out, then could we _theoretically_ make something from nothing if we make its equivalent in negative energy?
Ohh, imagine if we could make our own big bangs. That sounds like a great setting for a science fiction story.
You can find more refutations of it, partially because there are more tech savvy skeptics, but also because...
There are so many ways in which the argument is wrong. It can be refuted/debunked from so many angles and/or perspectives in so many way.
Tis ok, I'll have the Whiskey part of the coffee for you! :D
"If the general picture, however, of a big bang followed by an expanding universe is correct what happened before that? Was the universe devoid of all matter and then the matter suddenly somehow created? How did that happen? In many cultures, the customary answer is that a god or gods created the universe out of nothing.
But if we wish to pursue this question courageously we must, of course, ask the next question: Where did God come from? If we decide that this is an unanswerable question why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or if we say that God always existed why not save a step and conclude that the universe always existed? There's no need for a creation.
It was always here."
-Carl Sagan, Cosmos, The Edge of Forever
The common premise, and variant thereof, that everything that begins to exist has a cause, is not supported by any evidence.
The cosmological arguments rely on a word game of false equivocation of cause and affect. Attempting to equivocate the affect as a beginning.
Creatio ex materia (creation from preexisting material) is what we describe as "cause and affect", the thing we see as everything having... so far. No true beginning can be discerned from this.
Creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing) does have a true beginning, as nothing precedes the affect. This form of creation however, has never been observed, and cannot be equivocated to that of creatio ex materia.
Just two corrections.
First, the Cosmological argument doesn't say that god had a kid, or even that God is a being. It states only that, in order to avoid infinite regress we have to posit a cause that is its self uncaused. Only apologists of religions then make the non-sequitur that our need to posit an uncaused cause demonstrates a God in the theistic sense. I would say that, if Deism is true then theism is reasonable, but that's as far as it goes.
Second: God (in the philosophical sense) is not said to be uncaused because it doesn't "need" a cause, it's said to be uncaused because it 'can't' have a cause, otherwise we're continuing a string of regression. To ask why God is "Exempt" from causation is like asking why dark matter is "exempt" from reflecting light. It simply can't be a quality of the posit that we need to make in order to explain the behavior of the phenomenon that we're trying to explain.
Now, the cosmological argument might be incorrect, but I think it's a misrepresentation to say that it's apologetical. That, the only reason people think it is in order to justify a belief in a particular God.
That's all. Good video!
Dark matter also has no charges. Not no charge like a neutron (because a neutron has 3 charges which cancel out), but no charges at all. Thus it have no interaction with electromagnetic waves (aka light).
I think I mentioned this before... I believe that all the arguments between theists and atheists come from definitions and interpretations... as mentioned at the end of the video, it doesn't make any difference if the eternal thing that caused the universe is called "god" or not... it just is. Of course when either side try to enforce certain values into society, based on their beliefs, that's were it's not cool... but in the end, we could say that god exists, or just as well that it doesn't and it wouldn't change anything...
I'm beginning to think that the end of all ends, ends up ending a lot like most ends end up ending, but different, then I end up thinking about if the begining of all beginnings began beginning a lot like most beginnings began beginning, but maybe completely differently.
All I know is,
Is it is what it is,
or is it aint
what it ain't? Because it sure
ain't like it used
to was.
The -argument- also sounded a lot like _infinite regress_.
Here we have *×* what created that, what created that and so on...
***Haha, at 7.24 you mentioned it.
In fact, the Kalam cosmological argument is flawed in its formulation. This would be the _correct_ way of formulating it:
*If* whatever begins to exist has a cause, and *if* the Universe began to exist, *then* the Universe has a cause.
That form of the argument is, in fact, logically sound. However, the two ifs are open questions and cannot be taken as premises (without the conditionals).
WarpRulez And even then, because they are "ifs", we cannot accept it as an argument because we still need a demonstration. Ultimately, every cosmological argument still needs to demonstrate that the universe meets the criteria to "have a cause"...and the simple fact is, we don't have anything to do that yet.
***** you should do this more often... there were some things i did not know and now i do...
Standard argument from ignorance. You push the answers far enough back, and eventually you get to insert your god into whatever small niche is left.
Some theists say that, since modern cosmology and theoretical physics has yet to explain the cause of the Big Bang, Dark Matter, or Dark Energy, it must have been God's doing or Intelligent Design (if they're trying to appeal to those they hope to convert). The truth is, as it often is, more complicated than that. Cosmologists have modeled the Big Bang down to a tiny fraction of a second after it began (before which, the model breaks down), modeled how Dark Matter affected the evolution of galactic super-clusters, and shown that the expansion of the universe is accelerating by measuring the red-shift of so-called "standard candle" supernovas.
My point is that theists are expecting definitive answers to questions that still remain on the bleeding edge of cosmology and physics in a way that a layman can understand. If a theist wants to look at that information and call these mysteries evidence for a creator god, so be it; they have the right and there's nothing I can do about that. However, it does not make a theist into a scientist, not by a long-shot. A scientist, even one who believes in god, wouldn't settle for unanswered questions and give up for fear of treading on God's domain. A scientist would keep working towards greater understanding.
I'll just add that when I say that a scientist can believe in god, I definitely do not mean any sort of fundamentalism, creationist, flat-earth, literalist, or dogmatic sort of religious faith. These leave absolutely no room for scientific truth to supplant whatever interpretation they have on scripture. Ideally, their *moderate* faith would be an inspiration to understand the truth about reality, but otherwise keep it separate from their scientific work to avoid a bias.
This all boiled down to "we don't know", which is fine. (This only means that there is a point where the person asking the question and the one attempting an answer here, are equally ignorant.) Even the vast majority of us that fully except a Creator know that there are things we don't know. There's our common ground.
What is the density of Dark Matter? Is is possible (well, likely) that Black Holes are comprised majoritatively of DM?
YOU FORGOT ABOUT THE ROTATION OF THE GALAX....
Oh, sorry.
Just stumbled over this video and it made me realize:
X has always existed. -AND- X has existed for all of time. are two very different statements. Keeping in mind that time (as we know it) started with the universe.
What started with the hot big bang was spacetime. Time and space may have existed separately, along with the quantum fields, forever. Alan Guth recently said that a quantum fluctuation generated about one gram of matter that inflation amplified into all of the matter/energy in our entire universe (about 1000 times the size of the currently observable universe) in significantly less than 10^-30 second, which then triggered the hot big bang. Basically, every time a quantum fluctuation produces about one gram of matter, inflation is triggered and another hot big bang occurs and a new universe forms.
What do you think is more plausible?... the multiverse theory or the universe from nothing theory?.... I mean, with the current available data and the current understanding of our universe... which one do you think is more likely? also, are there other models?... are you aware of something else?
there is still the possibility of a _"bouncing"_ universe instead of a big bang. nobody knows if there was a big bang, btw, its a hypothesis and not a fact.
Its a theory not a hypothesis, there are several lines of evidence that support it giving it the status of theory, such as the Comic Microwave Background and the expansion of the universe.
But seriously, Marty, I don't think it's about his education. Christians, at least in the US, tend to be fairly isolated from this sort of thought. I can't speak for the civilised world, but here Christians are often just sheltered. They think these ideas are new because they haven't really been asked to think about them. Ever.
Zachary Amaranth And in many sad cases, they are actively discouraged from thinking about science.
qhsperson Indeed. Because "hell."
not sheltered...
trained by parents and pastor/priest/rabbi/imam/etc.
to Ignore what they are taught in public school.
they are told to play the game and pass the class, but not to absorb the actual lessons because they are at odds with thier belief.
belive me, its not a case of US kids not being taught the basics of science that is the problem.
otherwise I'd have no real understanding of the sciences as an adult (I never pursued higher science education in college, and only know what I was taught in highschool, and learned for myself for shits and giggles)
and although I can't rap about heavy advanced, physics, anthropology, mathmatics and biology... I learned enough in school to get the gist of what people who did are talking about... and if I can't understand it, its easy to go look for peer reviewed material to educate myself.
with the caveat that alot of what is available via the www is tainted with all sorts of bullshit. I'm old enough that I can say if you want the real scoop on a subject - you go to a library and check out a book about it, unless you are already savvy enough about the subject to tell what is bullshit, and what is honest, real, peer reviewed, and accepted fact.
and tnat is the problem - the tools to understand the subject are provided... but some people just simply decide to not use them because mommy and daddy say the bible is all they need.
I think your characterization of his age or education was really unnecessary, harsh, and jumping to conclusions without enough information to do so. Not everybody studied physics in school man; do you expect a professor of kinesiology or music to know more physics than this guy? Does that make them teen-age level educated too?
Secondly, dark matter is absolutely not discussed anywhere near introductory physics. The guy could be in first or second year university studying physics and still not know much about dark matter, quantum mechanics, elementary particles, and the formation of the universe. However, he did seem to be aware of the first law of thermodynamics; the part about "energy can not be created or destroyed", which is beyond what a typical high school knows.
Do you know something? When you study at college you study very differently from how you do in grade school or high school, instead of having a teacher telling you "This is true, this is true and this is how that work" you have find the information for yourself by reading books or finding the information on the internet. There are ofc lectures that will tell you how the math works as a example, but if you want to know something that isn't covered by the course you better find it for yourself.
So if this is how a college work how easy do you think it will be to find the information about how high school physics work? Its not hard at all as it is *very* basic physics, and if you truly want to know how high school physics work you will find it and figure it out by yourself. You got the internet now so you are not limited to the books in the library, someone that really wants to figure something out will always find a way to do it. If you want to know what dark matter is you will figure out what it is if you dig a little deeper into cosmology.
P.S. The laws of thermodynamics is one of the most basic things you need to know of in physics, I learnt about it in grade school myself so it isn't above high school understanding (I guess most of the reason people don't really know much about it is because they didn't care enough to listen or look into it when they did study it).
There is a higher power, it's called forces of nature. "Forces" I don't mean the 4 fundamental force specifically. Just natural laws.
To give the cause for everything a name ('God') is nothing near an explanation of what happened. It's the equivalent of 'I don't know', because theists must admit they don't know what 'God' is, when asked to explain what is meant with that word.
If someone claims to know 'God', then in the eyes of christianity (and other religions) that person is guilty of hubris in the worst possible way and that's a ticket to the inner rings of hell for sure. ; )
I think you kind of fail to understand mindset of God to a believer. To a believer God isn't the same as "I don't know", to a believer God is something real that exist. They believe this thing is so real that they "know" this God is real, so telling them that they don't know what God is (even if it is true) is just a insult to them because they know what God is to them. It doesn't matter what someone else think God is, to the believer the other people are wrong or misguided about how God really is.
Cloud Seeker
You're probably right, but to say that god works in mysterious ways is the
Cloud Seeker
Somerhing went wrong there. I wanted to say you're probably right, but to say that god works in mysterious ways is admitting not to know the answer, i.e. not to know god.
GiacomodellaSvezia Np, I clicked on the post comment by mistake a few times myself.
I think you are confusing 2 things here. You need to seperate the existence of the God and how that God operate, they are vastly different in the mind of a believer. If you can get them to say they don't know how God operate will not effect their belief in that their God exist, after all they have already submited their mind to a God that is to them defined as the ultimate thing for everything (apart from everything related to evil) so they are not supposed to know everything about their God. To demand that a believer need to know everything of how their God work is the same as demanding that science should have all the answers to everything. There is a tremendous amount of doublethink within religions, this amount of willful doublethink is what makes me sick about religions.
When you ask "why do God allow evil?" and get the response "God works in mysterious ways" you are not asking about how they know a God exist but how that God operate. You don't touch the believers reason to why they think a God exist, they will say "I don't know" in that case because they are not supposed to know that in their religion.
Cloud Seeker
You are more able than me to point out how difficult it is to think like a theist when you're not a theist yourself and vice versa. It's a very important point that is often neglected or ignored.
It is very difficult to determine wether someone who is defending either position is too lazy to find out how and what the opposition thinks, or is unable to do so.
"Begin to exist" implies time, right? So how does this account to the universe before the big bang, when time itself supposedly came into existence at the big bang?
(Or maybe I just misunderstood it)
The argument itself is similar in utility to "God of the gaps" - it brings nothing new to the table, but it is meant to "counter" arguments that would render God redundant.
And I don't know much about physics - knowledge I have is a crude simplification...
but as far as I'm concerned, it is hopeless to try make arguments about existence of God from perspective of physics and science in general, even more so without the understanding of it. It's a bit like playing chess, when you don't know how your pawns move - being corrected and reminded the rules every time you try to make a move. It would be wiser to argue from purely logic standpoint - but something tells me it doesn't work either, seeing as religious apologists abandon logical arguments in favour of pseudo-science.
But there again, I'm but an accountant, not a philosopher.
Martymer, have you heard about biocentrism theory? If you have, what are your thoughts about it?
A) I've heard about the idea, but not the theory.
B) See A. :)
+Ole-Martin Thorsen OBUMER DUN DID IT
OK, I have to say as an atheist I'm a little disappointed. This isn't helping our movement. If someone is actually asking an honest question, we owe that person the decency of answering their question with respect. We don't need to ridicule the person by attacking their lack of knowledge on the subject. I study economics, but I also studies microbiology. I am way more averse on evolution then I am on astro-physics. If I ever had a question about astro-physics, as I do enjoy the subject, I will have to remember to ask someone different then yourself as I would subject myself to unnecessary ridicule. It's different with your other videos that attack crystals and energy and such, where the person is clearly abandoning scientific reasoning and pontificating on pseudo science. He deserves the ridicule. But if a theist has an honest question, a person should be treated with respect. You disappointed me Martymer, and it's sad as I really like your videos. But that type of ridicule for honest questions do not help us as atheists. It really makes us look bad.
God was created when the great squirrel fell asleep and god created the dream we all exist in. If you think about it, this is the only answer that makes sense.
I'm just going to point out that zero-energy universe is a hypothesis right now. It's a really interesting one, but I don't think you can present it as a fact like that.
OK. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't dark matter be any no luminescent matter a far enough distance from a light generating object that it reflected no light particles. Don't we have dark matter in the asteroid belt and Kuiper belt in our own solar system?
I believe that God is the universe, and created itself.
My belief is based mainly in the Tao te Ching.
My question is, for theist and atheist, can the Universe be considered as God? If not why?
+RodasTadeu depends on your definition.
if you consider god as nature itself, then yes the universe is god
if you consider god as a deity who exists outside of the universe, then no
If god is nature, than why call it god? Why not call it...you know...nature?
Also, I was asking you for your definition. My thoughts on the matter are irrelevant in this context.
I would disagree because it’s making the creation the object of worship but that’s probably my Christian bias. That said from a Taoist perspective saying the Tao is the universe seems off it’s existence but it’s non existence as well “the Tao that can be spoken of is not the true Tao”
Martymer-I was reading this fascinating article that said (basically) the universe has always existed in one of 4 states.
www.express.co.uk/news/science/720860/beginning-of-universe-scientists-discover-what-existed-before
As someone who enjoys most of your videos, this one gave me pause, and you seem level-headed enough to take actual constructive criticism. My concern is with how you decided to handle what you identified as a legitimate, if uninformed, question. I'm not entirely sure you meant to come off this way, but the general tone is fairly aggressive and insulting, which is probably not the most effective way of communicating the information you had to share, which is a shame since the informational parts of this video were fine.
"Where did the energy come from in the beginning?"
This is still the Cosmological Argument where its stated that a God is the first cause to start everything. However the Cosmological Argument is only a case for special pledging, you set the rules that everything must follow but for everything to match up you dispense those rules for your God so it doesn't have to follow those rules only so that the argument will go around. However by dispensing those rules you need to prove why those rules doesn't apply and then it become in most cases a "because he is God stupid" response. Its a plothole that isn't filled with any logic or reasoning but pure blind faith, that is why it isn't a sound argument.
Martymer, I want to be a physicist and I wanted to know if you could possibly guide me with some links that could provide me information that someone like me (16yr old, already read some books about physics) could use.If you are going to answer this, I would enjoy a lot if you could tell me other youtubers that do a job alike yours too. Thank you very much.
You might want to check out CoolHardLogic.
I don't think "only energy" is a good definition for the particles created during a matter -anti matter annihilation. You wouldn't call the particles created during a pair production "only mass" or "pure mass" would you? So why do call these particles "only energy"?
Another great explanatory video. You make difficult ideas easier to think about. Your students must love you for that.
On a side note, you seemed to be frequently peeking out of your window with great intensity. Were the Miss Sweden contestants parading by?
No. :) I was checking the computer screen.
***** ...on which was a slideshow of Miss Sweden contestants. We're on to you, Martymer 81.
The only part I can disagree with is the guess that this person is young. I hope you are right and he will continue to seek opportunities to learn but I see people older than I am, no spring chicken here, who still think this is an original argument. Science doesn't know therefore god.
When people are polite as your questioner was I am polite with my response, when they are plain stupid I will find a more blunt implement to use. One of the most insulting but ironically easiest to support I used was to ask a theist to create an argument for god that couldn't be equally applied to a child believing in unicorns and their magic. The part that was most upsetting to them was that documented accounts of unicorns predate any of the religious scriptures used for the bible.
I felt that was as restrained as I think you are capable of being.
I suspect that the asker ,meant The Big Bang, not Dark Matter.
Jesus loves you Martymer 81! That's all you need to know! Repent of your sins!
fakefirstname fakelastname Jesus gave up a holiday weekend for Marymer's sins.
Joe A. Verage I certainly hope you find the path to Jesus Christ. I said a prayer for you.
fakefirstname fakelastname I don't the the words repent and sins mean jack-shit to Martymer 81
Everything must have a beginning and creator, except god, end of argument....lol.
I just said enough "lol" out loud! I watch too much TH-cam.
Dear John, Lets start with you and your "friend" tracing the history of the Universe back to dark matter. What evidence do you have for dark matter being the beginning of the Universe. Cosmologists, backed up by Astronomic observation, have been able to model the Universe back to mere moments after it's finite origin and no evidence of dark matter is present in the model. The finite origin appears to be the beginning of time and the 3 spacial dimentions) itself, so asking about what came before (a time dependent thing) the Universe doesn't make sense (kinda like dividing by zero). Proposing any cause of the big bang makes no sense either since cause is time dependent too.
You need to get beyond description. How did something come from nothing and why?
We don't know and we don't know. I'm quite happy with us not knowing at this point, provided we investigate honestly. To pretend to know why something exists rather than not is to either abuse the term "know" or to make up an answer (something) from no evidence (nothing).
Are u an agnostic atheist then?
I don't care for the labels. I will say I find no reason to assume a god or gods. Make of that what you will.
you having to have something to make your maths work isn't really evidence. maybe your version of inflation needs adjusting.
I wish you were my physics teacher.
I am a atheist, and you make some good points. The last thing you said is a bandwagon fallacy. just because there more people refuting the argument does not mean it is wrong. I really like all of your videos Martymer, but please try to not end your arguments with something so weak.
Something so weak? The cosmological argument is a case of special pleading, telling someone why special pleading is a fallacy isn't something I say is weak.
That wasn't an argument. I was just pointing out that refutations are very common. I never said that because of that, it follows that the argument is wrong.
Cause and effect requires time. Time in this universe may have started about 14 billion years ago but that is conjecture based on evidence. If it is true then talking about "before" the universe is like talking about north of the north pole, an absurdity.
Oners82
Tell me about before 0. Or even at time 0. What model does?
Oners82
As it decayed.... once it reached.....
Hard to do without time.
I like the nice stories but what happens when you believe one thing while another happens is that you miss what happens and see the story instead. Ask any fundamentalist.
Oners82
Objection? I'm just trying to find out more of what you're saying. I just don't subscribe to conjecture as if it is reality.
Is there a physics that can describe from zero to 10^-43 second? I haven't seen any news of one.
Science and tech have been more and more successful for centuries now. They thought they had it all wrapped up before, based on success. And last time I looked there were at least three different schools of cosmology.
I ask a question and you go on the offensive.
Time exists you say. Without space? Without a universe? Can you define what you mean?
And with any luck you've just created an atheist....oh shit Martymer is god...
With the infinite regression, I have an idea about it, tell me if this is fucking stupid.
If there is an infinite sequence of cause and effect leading to us, then we would not be here, because with an infinite sequence it would never reach the "end" (us) and it would take more than infinite time to reach us (which is impossible).
So at some point in the "infinite" sequence cause and effect becomes negligible or not a thing.
Why not then is the time before the Big Bang that point? Could it be possible that the Big Bang is the first cause? The first cause that caused the first effect, the Universe?
Is that stupid? Or am I on to something here?
First problem I have with this is defining us as "the end". The universe doesn't care about us. The universe didn't have to have the goal that we have to exist. We are simply a result of specific events in this region.
Second....as far as I understand it (and I'm far from an expert in it), spacetime itself, together with the fundamental forces, as we know it "condensed" shortly (as in fractions of a seconds) after the initial start of the big bang. in other words causality as we understand it started with the big bang. So our concept of "before the Big Bang" doesn't really apply in that case, and with our current understanding it is pretty impossible to say anything about the state of anything or even the cause for the big bang with our current knowledge. We might or might not figure that out, and it would probably be one of the, if not the biggest achievement of humanity, but at our current knowledge and for our current universe it isn't even that meaningful to speak about anything "before" the Big Bang, simply because if causality itself condensed with the Big Bang there isn't anything before the Big Bang the could be the cause of anything after the initial big bang.
At least that's my understanding of the topic...
Yup. You are grand. Keep it up.
Woah your Adams apple is freaking huge man
Hey Martymer, good response.
I don't know much about paraproduction (if that's how you spell it). Is it like a machine that can destroy/create matter or is it something we can observe in the universe?
Unfortunately, there are Christians who use the God of the gaps or, as you point out, argument from ignorance.
Personally, I believe there is an eternal intelligent mind who created all sophisticated and incredibly complex things. I'm not saying that this intelligent mind is Jehovah. I'm saying it makes more sense to believe in a creator rather than to believe the complex things like DNA just came about because of time like macro-evolution. To me it's like believing a tornado goes through a junkyard and through time and chance, the tornado eventually forms a functional Boeing 747.
Not to mention that there is scientific evidence that the universe had an origin but the more important question is what created that
It's called pair production (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production), and it has been observed on numerous occasions, along with the corresponding annihilation reactions. It is generally observed in particle accelerators, although I think they occur in other circumstances as well.
"Not to mention that there is scientific evidence that the universe had an origin but the more important question is what created that"
That is the exact same argument from ignorance Marty talked about in this video.
"functional Boeing 747"
Tornado in a junkyard is a bad analogy, as a Tornado happens exactly once, there is a set goal in mind, and there is no selection mechanic. A better analogy would be that you have a truly ridiculous amount of parts lying around; a mix of car, plane, etc parts. These parts are put together by a billion monkeys who have no idea what they are doing. However by random chance some monkeys will make something that is better at moving than the others (still absolutely terrible, but better than the others). Whatever designs are most mobile at this point is copied, and all of the pieces are locked into place and given to the next round of monkeys as a starting point. Continue this for a billion years. Things will eventually get things that are fairly good at moving around, as each generation makes tiny improvements.
And even this analogy is flawed given that mobility is a predetermined goal. Does this help you understand the difference between the two situations?
"That is the exact same argument from ignorance Marty talked about in this video."
Perhaps I should've said fundamental question. How is that ignorance? You can find reliable non-religious sources on the internet that gives both mathematical and scientific proof but I'm open-minded so if you have sources you'd like for me to check out, I'll gladly do it.
The monkey analogy - What do the monkeys represent? Monkeys are smart but aren't intelligent like humans. The monkey one confused me a bit more haha. It also makes me wonder how consciousness came out of natural selection without the "it took a lot of time" explanation. When I think like an atheist/agnostic for the Boeing or monkey analogy, I always have to force myself to believe that a Boeing is not complex. A more accurate depiction of the universe (but still not even close) would be The Airbus A380 which is a double-deck, wide-body, four-engine jet airliner. It is the world's largest passenger airliner.
Unfortunatley, it seems to me that this is were our world views become far apart. On one hand, I believe that intelligence is required to create the universe. On the other hand, you believe that an unguided "force" (can't think of a better word, sorry) can create the most complex things discovered by humans over time and through sheer luck.
I can't think like that. It's not because I'm close minded. I've done my own studies on plants, water, DNA, and other remarkable beauties. To me, it points out to an intelligent mind (again, I'm not saying it was the God of the bible) created it all.
Hydroplatypus
WoahThere
"Perhaps I should've said fundamental question. How is that ignorance?"
You seem to be stating that because the universe must have had a cause, therefore a god(s) exists. If I was mistaken, please clarify your position.
As to the monkey analogy, sorry it was even more confusing. I figured about a 50/50 chance it would do that. Oh well, I'll try to clear up that mess.
"What do the monkeys represent?"
In this case they represent random mutations that occur when organisms reproduce.
"how consciousness came out of natural selection without the "it took a lot of time" explanation"
Well... it did take a lot of time. The exact mechanisms of consciousness is unknown at this time - depending on one's definition of conciousness - however I can take a shot at explaining the evolution of the brain/nervous system. For the earlier steps I'll largely be summarizing an article on the subject, with link below for full text.
As far as I can tell the first step in the chain was the evolution of ionic channels - likely to bring needed substances inside of the organism. From there some of theses channels ended up mutating so that they could transmit messages within the cell. At this point they were Ca channels rather than Na channels, but you can see the use for communication beginning. From there voltage-gated channels evolved, being triggered by non-voltage gated channels. This allowed for faster signaling, and as such was selected for. From there voltage-gated K channels evolved to depolarize the cell after the Ca channels fired.
With the advent of multi-cellular organisms Na channels eventually came about due to their faster signaling speed. From there these channels started becoming concentrated in certain cells - proto-nerves - which assembled into a simple nervous system probably analogous to modern day jellyfish. This would allow basic reaction to outside stimulus, which is clearly advantageous. From there we look at a probable ancestor of all bilaterally symmetric organisms. It was probably a segmented worm-like organism, which had a nerve luster for each segment and a larger cluster at the front. Note: the human nervous system still shows segmentation. See wikipedia article for details.
From there a central cord of nerves evolved, and - being more efficient - was passed on to future organisms. From there the central nerve cluster - the brain - became more and more complicated. Processing more information is sometimes - but not always - advantageous, at least to a point. As such brains got bigger. Eventually we got a big enough brain that we could start using tools, develop language, mathematics etc.
Keep in mind that this is a very brief summary by a layman who spent a while looking on the internet, so I likely left out a fair bit of stuff.
Source: mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/6/5/503.full.pdf
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_nervous_systems
"I always have to force myself to believe that a Boeing is not complex"
Why? the average cell is more complex than an aircraft. I still have no problem seeing it come about by natural processes.
"ould be The Airbus A380"
see above
"force"
There is no single force. Natural selection - at bottom - says that those most fit to survive will survive. Combine that with mutation, and given enough time, and you will get surprising results. But there is no single force behind the process, it is simply the result of competition.
Take an example of a computer program. (Note: this has been tried successfully several times) It contains "organisms" that have been programmed to occasionally receive "mutations" (random changes to certain parameters the organism has). Change the environmental conditions that allow for "survival" and you will see gradual changes in the "organism's" behavior and construction. This is effectively the same thing as natural selection, but on a smaller scale. It has surprised the researchers many times when they try it. No one need select what changes will happen, they just need to happen and the best ones naturally rise to the top.
Now if there were a way to get similar conditions to the program example (a reproducing organism, periodic changes in its construction) than natural selection would happen. The actual programmer isn't necessary if there exists a means that the conditions could come about naturally, and given that evolution assumes as a given that some life-form exists (for the origin of that life form see abiogenesis [there is no agreed upon answer yet]), and mutations have been observed, all of the conditions are met. No intelligence required, merely the existence of conditions that can sustain life.
Now ignoring the origin of the universe for the moment, we can see that as long as life is capable of forming and surviving for a while, no divine intervention is necessary for evolution to take place.
That clear things up?
I thought dark matter not only does not reflect light, but does not consist of the same sub atomic particles. Am I wrong?
You're right. At least it certainly seems that way.
***** Ok, thanks. Dark matter is particularly mysterious, and although I don't see any reason to tie it to "god", I find it less frustrating as a god of the gaps argument, because at least it is an area of genuine ignorance, and not an area that is well understood in its specific discipline, but is either misunderstood, or purposely misrepresented by the opposition.
*****
i heard about the Technicolor force,is that the leading concept for the explanation of Dark matter's attributes? (Technicolor quarks ect.)
i also heard that they theorized that the higgs may be a DM particle made up of Technicolor quarks, you know anything about this?
Ziliath Not really familiar with it, but it seems like technicolor models offer _possible_ explanations for what dark matter is. I don't know if it's a leading concept. I haven't really looked into it.
Wardog11111 Neutrinos have been ruled out, since the experiments that supposedly showed them to travel at ultraluminous speeds were proven to be mistakes. The brown dwarf theory seems promising since it is turning out that there are alot more of them that first thought (Though the amount of brown dwarves in the galaxy would have to be extraordinary to explain dark matter).
"God of the Gaps"
We don't "know", therefore God
A lot of theists seem to experience a kind of trauma when confronted with a question to which no one has an answer. They need an answer even if it doesn't make sense. For relief there's God brand band-aids. God brand band-aids are available in fun variety packs including Christian, Islamic, Jewish, and other popular religious dogmas. These faith-adhesive strips cover all your unanswered curiosities with logic like, "therefore, God!".......
On the annotation at 3:46 :
I think that there aren't stupid questions, because anyone who asks a question - opposed to just claiming something - is willing to accept new knowledge.
Though, a question may well be ignorant, as you pointed out, in the primary sense of showing a lack of knowledge, which can be fixed, provided you're given a right answer.
But stupidity, the way you use it, can not be cured, because the person is unable, or, in the case of fundamentalists, unwilling to accept new knowledge because it means giving up the comfort or security of your belief, or the power you gain through imposing it to your next.
(If you live in a catholic country like me or know the history of the catholic church, you know what I mean. You don't need to always point at the muslims, just visit Naples...)
So I consider Ignorance the lack of knowledge and stupidity the non-acceptance of it.
"I think that there aren't stupid questions,"
What does blue taste like?
Why does 4+4=2?
How is babby formed?
There is such a thing as a stupid question. Or have you so easily forgotten the crocoduck? Or "If we come from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?". Not only are stupid questions extremely common, there's an entire subset of them which are stupid-questions-asked-for-the-purpose-of-stumping-smart-people-so-you-think-you-win-the-argument-and-not-for-actually-learning-something, like the monkeys example.
If you're still not convinced, visit Yahoo! answers and spend about a minute looking through them. You should see hundreds of other examples. Like... "Is there a spell to turn you into a mermaid which really works?"
"If we come from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" is actually an interesting question, because there are still monkeys bekause we don't come from them, we have a common ancestor with them.
But yes, if you put it like that, there are stupid questions, when you know they are pointless, they're probably stupid. But if you don't know the answer, just ask, man. That's how you learn.
Oh, btw, blue tastes kinda tart, a bit like unripe fruit.
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people
@@EdwardHowton Those aren't stupid questions, those are unsensical questions becuase lacks the definitions. What does blue taste like? In my country, blue tastes like anise because it's an ice cream flavour (so here in a creamery you can ask "What does blue taste like?" and get answered "Of anise"). Why does 4+4=2? It's becuase we have this convention in this kind of math, different from the decimal system we normally use. How is a babby formed? Given that a babby is a furred portable vagina, it evolved by itslef. Those aren't stupid questions, just undefined ones. I would agree the only kind of stupid question is the "gotcha" type ignorant people use to try dismantling an arguement. If someone is really interested in knowledge, there are no stupid questions.
@Kregorov Lay off the drugs and don't try to answer questions in languages you don't understand using concepts that are too complicated for your inbred brain, thanks. Go away.
Has a matter/antimatter annihilation ever been observed?
Many times. But I personally would not call it annihilation, since there is something that remains: energy. It would be true annihilation if both particles just disappeared, without any trace of their existence left.
tabularasa0606 Fascinating. Do you know anywhere I can look these up?
Turnabout Akamia
a PET scanner uses matter/antimatter annihilation to work (electron/positrons), so it happens every day in major hospitals. Search PET scanner (wiki)
Turnabout Akamia CERN and the The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) does practical work with antimatter (in addition to matter). We really can create it and use it to do science. Observation is a kind of data collection. If a machine records an event, the event has been observed.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERN
Others have adequately answered your question, Turnabout Akamia, but I wish to address a somewhat deeper issue.
Does a thing or an event have to be observed in real time by person X in order for person X to accept that thing or event as being more likely "real" than "false"?
Or am I barking up the wrong tree, and you just asked out of curiosity? :)
Are you going to respond to Johanan's latest video soon?
Yes. I thought I'd have had it done by now, but work has kept me busy. Lots to do at the end of the semester. Hopefully I can finish the video this weekend.
It must be nice to answer an honest question rather than dealing with spirit "science" videos. good attempt at being nice.
***** It is "A Honest Question from a theist" Not "An Honest Question from a Theist" Because you use "an" when the word begain with A, E, I, O, or U, any other letters you use "A".
You also use "an" with words beginning with a soft "h". So, I would say: "he has a hope", but I would also say: "he was an honourable man". HTH.
Whether to use "a" or "an" is based on the actual sound at the beginning of the word, not the letter that happens to be at the beginning of the word. Also, in some English dialects, "an" is used before words that start with an H sound. For example, one might say "an historic moment" or "a historic moment". The latter sounds right to me, but both are acceptable.
Frank Grams Not what they taught me in school but again they also taught me that there is only three states of matter.
***** Is one of those states: it doesn't matter? :)
nztvar Lol
2:30ish Uncharacteristically nice, but still a douche.
Love you Marty.
Edit: Question about dark matter - Can we crash into it? I wonder because it would be kind of an interesting problem with interstellar space travel if we could.
We could crush into Massive Combat Halo Objects. But those don't account for some effects dark matter is supposed to have. So I'm not sure if they still count as dark matter.
No, we couldn't. We'd pass right through it with nothing happening whatsoever, except for a slight increase in gravity.
I have a question, if you have time for it. I have no clue how long, or if, it can be explained. You were talking about how space is expanding, I have seen panel talk with Krauss, Tyson, and a few others saying space is expanding faster than light, is that just happing at the "edge" of space. If Andromeda is going to merge with the Milkyway then the space between us has to have quit expanding or is doing so slower then we are headed towards each other. I hope the answer does not have anything to do with things I have heard about space expanding in to itself because that is when my brain crashes, unless you have a way to explain that to a layman? Thanks.
Uber Goober They say that it's still expanding faster than light? I know that at around the start of expansion it was most likely moving faster than the speed of light but I thought that got settled at about Planck time.
Sadochrist I may have misunderstood something, most likely, but from what I understand they still think the further objects are moving faster away than closer ones do, and the more I think about this, the more I think I'm asking questions that are way over my head. Sorry to bother you man.
Uber Goober
I'm sure the universe is over everyone's heads at the moment, but it is a fun place.
Some day we'll invent the infinite improbability drive ...
From what I understand space is expanding faster than light, and this expansion isn't going faster at some sort of edge. Rather, space is expanding at the same speed everywhere in every direction. You can think of it as points on the surface of an inflatiing baloon. No matter what point you examine the others will always seem to move away from it, as if it was the center of the expansion.
You can also see that the farther away two points are the faster they will move apart, meaning that if two objects (in space now, not on the ballon) are close enough the effects from gravity will be so much stronger that the expansion won't really be noticed. Also, the whole 'faster than light' thing doesn't violate relativity like it may seem to, as relatiivity only states that no object may move faster than the speed of light through space.
OMG you're so full of negative energy! :-p
Just kidding, of course. Thanks again for helping me become a little bit less ignorant.
It's been a while, since you've been nice? LOL
I had a whisky sour
but we know the big bang happened ,we just don't know how yet right??
Right. The expansion of space from an initial hot dense state is an observable fact. Since looking out into space means looking back in time, yes, we can actually see all the way back to about 380,000 years after the expansion began. That's when the universe had become cold enough to be transparent to the photons that we now pick up as cosmic microwave background radiation.
thank you for taking the time to reply with a bit of detail to my query ***** ;)
***** About dark matter. I know it doesn't give off light, but what happens theoretically if it is heated up? if it doesn't radiated infra red light would it how would it dissipate the energy? or would it decay somehow?
I'm guessing we don't know?
How would you heat up something that doesn't interact with em radiation? I have no clue.
o yeh, good point. So does that mean its always the same temperature? would that be at absolute zero?
***** What do you think of the lesser known alternative hypothesis that DM is gravitational leakage from another universe(s)? I recently read an article in the popular scientific magazine, Astronomy, where a physicist was working on a potentially empircally testable multiverse hypothesis where DM is not a new, undiscovered particle.field, but is extra gravity seeping into our universe from another. I thought it was fascinating and very exciting that it might be able to be tested by the modern satelites measuring things like the CMB. I'm just curious as to how this kind of alternative hypothesis is thought of in the physics world?
That's one idea that some people are working on, but I'd say DM is simply stuff made up from another set of "fundamental" particles. I think that's the simplest explanation. But I'm open to other possibilities.
maybe it's me but i think even if you try to be nice you sound very arrogant. for example your laughing during 'you clearly don't know much about physics' at around 2:40. I get the feeling you don't treat somone who is a theist exactly like you would treat a fellow atheist and scientist, and feel you feel in some way superior. Maybe this is something you want to work on. In my experience most physicist have this problem and this often is part of the often cited social awkwardness which we often show.
Also i have to note that i am not a native speaker and therefore i maybe not be able to judge such things.. but still.. maybe you want to think about it.
If I hear something really stupid I will treat a atheist the same as I will a theist, I guess Martymer will do the same. No matter what you might have been told when you was a child there are actually stupid questions, some stupid questions can only be dealt with in a stupid way if you actually know what you are talking about.
Blackwater Park
Am I wrong if I assert that you don't know much about physics either? I studied it for about a year befor switching over to engineering out of sheer frustration.
I don't think marty was laughing at the theist because he doesn't know much about physics. I think it was more of a "heh oh yeah. That shit is fucking hard."
This is also something I got told by people who actually pulled through and got their degrees: " Fuck. It's still rock hard and I still don't (really) understand much outside my area of specialisation"
yes you are wrong :) i finished it.
Well congratulations then^^
another mini science lesson for theists to learn from ..if you want to understand science you need to study it ...not just that unscientifically written book aka the bibble
the Creation of the Universe you can say in a (god-believer) discussion is that the universe was created by a word of (God) which from my journey and what i had discovered was the word CHRISTALLAH...(perhaps....) anyway The "son and father" part of which Christians belief is only because Jesus was born through miraculous conception he did not have a earth father...and so called the creator his "father" and created a father son relationship...muslims (not the terrorists) believe Jesus is just a prophet who spread the message of Love forgiveness and in Buddhist terms "Dharma"
a way of life that is divinely inspired and compassionate to all beings..
these are just my studies and what i had discovered and made sense to me...ive been through some of this confusion so i kept an open mind and looked into this myself.....although i don't like the idea of organized religions....i respect the humans who have an open heart meaning there authentic n wont condemn you for thinking of something outside the box...which would only lead to another box...theres plenty ways of going about things which plenty ways to believe..
Zen on the other hand is doing absolutely nothing at all which is as hard as doing everything at the same time......btw belief and faith are like lust and love total opposites
OK now i know why you don't believe in conservation of matter because you think of matter as another form of energy but i unfortunately can't really completely agree with that but i at least now understand were your coming from.