For laymen like me who habitually hit up spacetime and have learned a decent bit of physics, just wanted to say thanks for the breather. Please keep on just like you do with challenging material, I'm getting through it, but a breather episode is always welcome!
I agree. Physics to me is more interesting but a struggle to understand. Before I discovered Spacetime I thought I had come a long way with “sort of” understanding relativity and quantum theory, but these episodes keep reminding me I understand very little.
Just yesterday I read a funny anecdote about a physicist that gave up on his studies to become a banker. When asked why the promising young man changed directions so sharply his PhD supervisor shrugged and said "he tried to understand quantum mechanics".
We know Uniformitarianism is wrong, bc it depends on averages and averages don’t exist for long periods of time. The Geological column was formed horizontally, by Sedimentary Deposition. From water containing the particles that were gradually deposited and condensed by huge pressure, into the rock strata we see in the Geological column. If the rock strata formed vertically over a time scale of 100s of millions of years, it would’ve eroded away faster than it could have formed. So it must have formed more quickly, with larger volumes of water. I.e. By a flood(s) and the receding waters, as they drained down to the lowest places of Earth,s topography. If Earth’s age was in the billions of years, there would be nothing left of it by now but space dust, due to erosion processes and the friction and degradation of the size of Earth’s particles. I rest my case. Pls feel free to reply to this comment and correct me, if and where I’m wrong. Ty.
I love how every time Kant is mentioned on science You Tube is mentioned for his Galaxy speculations, and I'm here in philosophy-land knowing him for...other things.
@@marcpeterson1092 It's like we say over on Isaac Arthur's channel: "If brute force isn't working, you still aren't using enough of it." The Khan knew how to cut through the subtleties that stumbled other men.
suppose you're Adam world's first person God has just putted you in earth in the age of 50 of which you could born babies ok ? Now if we send science to that time and science check your age but Science would say you're 50 years old and about to science a human can't be adult without being a baby without passing teenage but the reality is God direct made him in the age of 50 as God didn't need to make the first person pass teenage etc In same way God didn't need to make earth pass millions years in cooling down etc In same way God direct made a human of age 50 didn't need to make human passed the monkey stage etc *God*-who made this all even scientist's brain *The bible* -About to God vision *Science* -About to human vision About to human vision/science this all can't be without a big bang But God don't need to make a big bang he direct made the situation of after a big bang .
@TheExplorer that is logically impossible since one thing can only have 2 halves. Also, my creation is human base with bacterial, Archean, plant, mold, insect, arachnid, diatom, tardigrade and fish genes along with some synthetic genes that are not in nature.
James Hutton lived in the Holyrood area, right on the edge of Arthur's Seat, the 823ft high volcanic cone which dominates Edinburgh. He would take his daily walks there, and that was what first got him intrigued by rock formations. He then travelled throughout Scotland, which has hugely diverse geology, and other parts of the UK, studying and taking samples, which is what led this chemist to become the "Father of Geology". But poor Hutton. He wanted to present his paper to the University of Edinburgh, but the Church of Scotland, who controlled the university, refused to allow him challenging the Biblical creation narrative. The church had also cast aspersions upon his character for even suggesting such. So it was the first reading of his paper was given rather to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, by his friend, Playfair, in a heavily abridged version. Today there is an exhibition centre, Dynamic Earth, near where James Hutton lived, which tells the tale of our planet in a hugely fascinating and highly entertaining way.
This is totally inaccurate. 1. Hutton for decades published through the Royal Society - he had no connection to the university. And the Church of Scotland did not block him from speaking at the university. Nor did it cast aspersions on his character for even suggesting such. 2. Nor did Playfair take “his place” at the university. He had no place to give up. His friend, Joseph Black, gave the first lecture to the Royal Society on the subject and he gave the second lectures.
Thaks for your comment, let's tackle U238, its half-life=4.5Byrs, how is it calculated? Of course, we can use formula half-life=ln2/k, where k=decay constant, the problem is how k is calculated? The amount of isotope N(t) left after time t elapsed is given by N(t)=N(0)e^(-kt), where N(0) initial amount. dN(t)/dt=-kN(t) = R -> decay rate, k=(dN(t)/ dt)/N(t)=R/N(t) -> you see, decay constant(k) is dependent on decay rate(R). For U238, with a half-life=4.5Byrs, you need to measure first the decay rate at t=4.5Byrs, how do you do that? when you live only ~100yrs? I am seeking an honest reply, I'm not trying to be smart or pretend to know it all.
I would panic at the ISCO but but temporal dilation means it all happens a bit too slowly to induce panic. Like death and taxes, you know it's going to happen, but, not today.
I don’t think the time dilation would be apparent to you. You could be flailing your arms in fear at a fraction the speed of light, but only a more distant observer would think, “hey they’re waiving at me like the Queen of England.”
@@MBBurchette ~ Well this is true, but why let the facts get in the way of a good joke? I think by the time a temporal anomaly would be evident, you'd be dead anyway...
I'm also gently amused by the thought that ancient people in India, having developed math that included zero and could therefore be done fairly easily up to very large numbers, immediately used that math to attempt to determine the age of their universe. Humans are awesome at times.
Diana Gibbs seriously! and the fact that one of their ages is significantly close to the actual age of the universe makes me wonder what kind of knowledge we could have lost, with wars and the way the world was before, library in Alexandria being burned down. how much more would we know if we didn't so frequently take to burning books as a society, and conquering each other.
@@BothHands1 yeah... definitely lots of astronomy lost in those various purges... astronomy is almost the first science societies come to: people look up at the sky all the time, and paying attention to the moon was important for agriculture, plus obviously the cycles of the sun were relevent to hunts long before that. surely wondering what we were seeing must be a pretty primal human thing? presumably relatives such as neanderthals too, after all they had basic medicines just as we did, they definitely observed their surroundings and built models to hold observed patterns in.
I am from India , most of the scientific work especially in astronomy is lost. Only thing which is remaining is superstitions and religious stuff which makes no sense to me.
@@zxvats unfortunate truth. Our ancestors made a huge mistake by passing on the information verbally rather than have records of it. And even if they were records, they were mostly written on leaves and leaves well..decay over time. There's a lot more that our astronomers would've found but we'll never know they did.
Perhaps we could get Deep Blue, Deepak Chopra, and the crew of the Deepwater Horizon to search the deep web for answers while deep frying deep sea bass and listening to Deep Purple.
@@briandiehl9257 regardless we know Genesis isn't the oldest one. I know there's a few contenders. But, Job is generally considered the oldest at least from everything I read.
I enjoyed this diversion from the sometimes heady astrophysics topics, though I love those videos too. I wouldn't mind seeing more stuff like this every now and then before diving back into the craziness that is spacetime.
We know Uniformitarianism is wrong, bc it depends on averages and averages don’t exist for long periods of time. The Geological column was formed horizontally, by Sedimentary Deposition. From water containing the particles that were gradually deposited and condensed by huge pressure, into the rock strata we see in the Geological column. If the rock strata formed vertically over a time scale of 100s of millions of years, it would’ve eroded away faster than it could have formed. So it must have formed more quickly, with larger volumes of water. I.e. By a flood(s) and the receding waters, as they drained down to the lowest places of Earth,s topography. If Earth’s age was in the billions of years, there would be nothing left of it by now but space dust, due to erosion processes and the friction and degradation of the size of Earth’s particles. I rest my case. Pls feel free to reply to this comment and correct me, if and where I’m wrong. Ty.
@@flashgordon6670 We've dated rocks to billions of years of age, though. Not to mention that not all rock is sedimentary, but even the rock that is is sometimes replenished through deposition faster than it can be eroded, either by sediment trapped in rainwater or by river deposition, etc. Erosion also varies greatly over time and by region based on climate and local geography, as does deposition. For instance, rock on the ocean floor will erode much more slowly than rock exposed to waves, wind or rain, and will build steadily through deposition before eventually surfacing from tectonic movement. Rock buried under ice will also erode more slowly, compacting under the weight of the ice and becoming much harder, but will eventually be carved out when that ice melts, but not disintegrated. Rock formed by soil and plant matter in forest or woodland built up over time also erodes incredibly slowly, as plant cover catches much of the wind and the rain, and soil layers prevent them from interacting with the rock underneath. Plate tectonics also allows for earth's surface to refresh itself periodically, with one edge of a plate pushing down into the outer mantle while magma rises to the surface and cools, building more land. Don't forget we've also dated rock brought back from the moon, and it matches pretty well some of the older rock we've dated from earth both in age and general composition(minus things produced by decay and other biological products). The earth is an incredibly complex system that is always changing, albeit extremely slowly, and with our modern technology and general scientific understanding, we've been able to discover that both uniformitarianism and catastrophism come up short in their explanatory ability. However, plate tectonics, climate cycles and a combination of erosion and deposition varying in rate in different regions at different periods, along with biological activity go a much longer way to describing the history of the rock we see making up the world around us. Some of the oldest continuously existing surface rock in the world exists in parts of South Africa and Australia and has been pretty accurately dated to around 3+ bya. I recommend reading about it, as well as other ancient rock and the dating techniques used to get a good idea of why the scientific community is so confident in our current age estimates of the Earth, as well as the data gained from astronomical observation that plays into that dating as well.
Guys, thanks for the great program, as always. BUT how could you not mention Clair Patterson?! That's the dude who first came up with the 4.5 billion figure. His story is absolutely astounding, as is his research itself. I'm amazed you didn't even mention him (or did I miss something?). Actually, this just happens to be story of Clair's life... a totally underappreciated but highly influential scientist - and philantrope. (on another note: the updated graphics rock! )
Srsly, this is a sad oversight. Clair Patterson is my 11yo son's Favorite scientist. Our society will be more respectable if we give our children real heroes and the magic of science and the universe instead of Santa Clause and Marvel heroes.
@@timperry6948 Yup! The more people having a fundamental understanding about natural sciences the less people will give their money to snake oil merchants like Ham.
Talking about how old things "feel" from a human perspective, I actually find the universe feels extraordinarily YOUNG given that our humble little backwater of a planet has been around for a significant portion (somewhere around 1/3) of its existence. Sure, it's unfathomably long compared to a human life; but given the chaotic churn of matter in the universe, stars and planets are being born all the time and dying all the time. The fact that our one has been around for a 1/3 of the total time of the universe either makes our planet really old or the universe really young. We know of stars much older than our sun, and can assume they have planets, so calling our planet "old" doesn't really fit. That just leaves us with a "young" universe. (this is all completely subjective of course; the terms "young" and "old" don't have any practical use here)
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if we run into the same "deep time" things with the universe - maybe figuring out it is actually a million times older or something.
Yeah. Do you think were one of the first life forms from our point being 9 billion years away from the beginning of space? so pretty much the beginning should be teaming with life while our point in space is only beginning to create life?
On top of that, I'm pretty sure I've read some stuff on what the earliest time is at which a planet like our own could form. The first stars were pure hydrogen and helium, so their planets could not have had all the elements we have on Earth. They were also way too large and lived far too short for a planet like ours to exist for long. So it took a few cycles of stars forming, fusing elements, dying and shedding many of those elements to "enrich" the galaxy with the building blocks of life. I don't remember any specific numbers, but what it comes down to is that it seems like Earth formed just around the time when it became possible to form. Now of course, it could've formed a couple billion years earlier, but not an order of magnitude earlier. Given that we can be pretty sure (based on our current understanding of cosmology) that there is plenty of "juice" left in the universe to keep forming stars for at least a couple more orders of magnitude of time to pass... It makes you think about the Fermi paradox and just how absolutely improbably it would be if Earth was a one-off event, that just happened to occur right away when it became possible to occur. This also mirrors the start of life on Earth as well. The more we learn about early life, the more it seems like it started almost the very instant Earth somewhat settled down. The first confirmed life started less than a billion years after the oceans formed (which happened about 100M years after Earth itself formed), but there are some clues that there could have been life about 100M years after the oceans formed. From a cosmological point of view, that's practically instantaneous. That combined with how "early" Earth formed... Why does it still seem like we're alone? All the indirect evidence suggest an abundance of life in the Universe and galaxy, but when we look, we have found absolutely nothing so far. Hopefully I will live long enough for this question to finally be answered in my lifetime. It just breaks my brain thinking about it...
I missed the expected inevitable reference to ( edit, NOT Clyde Tombaugh, who discovered Pluto ) ( edit actually Clair Patterson ) discovering the age of the earth, and coincidentally discovering the massive lead poisoning of the whole planet by leaded fossil fuels. Aka the first man to know the age of the earth, he had to perfect cleaning and isolating lab environments to get rid of lead contamination in order to date the zircons in question.
My high school physics teacher was married to Claire Patterson. One day she dragged him in and he explained how they determined the age of the earth ("four point six times ten to the ninth") -- the lead/lead ratios.
7:07 Just a correction, the Earth's surface is much hotter than expected, even when radiation is taken to consideration. This is because the convection currents in the mantle bring up heat from the core.
Also it made for a good soundbite but when he said ‘the earth has travelled around the sun 4.5billion times and itll do it again’ is darker with the context that the suns expansion will render liquid water nonexistent on earth around its 5billion mark, meaning we’re on the tailend of the planets habitability
Cant belive still today there are people to believe that the age of earth is 6K. All religious people should come and see these scale pointing out that idea more than 300 years ago.
Clair Patterson really deserves credit for getting that 4.5 billion year figure. Granted he got a whole episode of Cosmos devoted to him, but this here is kind of like talking sbout the buildup to the moon landing and not mentioning Neil Armstrong
The one day of Brahma stuff intrigued me for a long time. We have stories of when some earthly king (Jaganath of Puri) visited Brahma in Brahma-lok (Brahma's residence) and when he returned, his Kingdom was no longer recognizable as many centuries had passed and a new king presided. Gave me creeps because it's just like interstellar amd what we know of Black Holes today.
this tale feels a lot like the description for traveling at high speeds. a hundred light years at the speed of light feels instant, 100 light years for his kingdom on earth is 100 years.
not so original, there are many stories like this. Oisín was an irish poet/warrior who went to the Otherworld. After 3 years there he found out that 300 years passed on Earth.
Yes and the sun is a disc. Well its actually gods flashlight. He uses Energizer batteries. Thats why we celebrate easter. Or.... you could watch a previous video where this exact question was answered, planetary formations iirc. Please note, your question is perfectly valid and a logical conclusion. Tldr: gravity.
@TK-20466 My pizza dough does the same thing if I don't let it bulk ferment for long enough. The earth apparently just doesn't have good gluten development.
I’ve concluded, after watching these videos for years to help get to sleep, that PBS Space Time is ASMR for science aficionados, people who prefer to do math with letters, and MBA graduates who really regret not taking more science courses during undergrad.
@@xl000 Well most of us do. Are you going to prove you understand things even the most advanced scientists disagree with. See Stephen Hawkings String theory is now being seen as rubbish and ironically it was Stephen himself at the end who came to that conclusion. Interesting you think you are the only genius who gets it all- When the most advanced scientists disagree and old ideas crumble such as time working both ways. (Nope; entropy proved otherwise) So how about you be less arrogant MR Einstein??
@@xl000 I'm confident enough in myself to honestly answer, yes. I must watch each video three or four times for it to begin making a little sense. It's called 'learning'. I've been told, "that's a good thing".
Dear Matt and spacetime team. I just wanted to thank you for creating such great and interesting content. You can really make non-physicists appreciate physics. Please keep it up!
I mean why would you panic in the innermost stable circular orbit around the black hole? Aren't you supposed to be fine there? Did the poster mean that you are falling past that point? If he did that wasn't obvious to me.
I wonder why society is where it is, despite it being 2022, and then I am reminded by clicking “newest comments” on videos like this. The education system is failing us so hard.
Thank you so much for not editing out the breaths at the ends of each sentence! We are actually able to listen to, and contemplate each sentence momentarily while he draws breath for the next one. Instead of being bombarded by a non-stop stream of baffling scientific bullshit, we are able to absorb and understand the technical narrative, as it gives us time to process the information provided. I wish I had more than one upvote to give you.
Let's be clear: Watching this channel (and honestly, the same can be said for the lot of PBS Studios channels writ large) is frustrating in a good way. Pretty good validation for the Dunning Kruger Effect, in that the DKE illustrates that the more knowledge we consume and digest, the more humbling it is to consider the cosmically vast sums of knowledge yet to be visited.
You mentioned that most of the geothermal energy in the earth's core is from the radioactive decay of isotopes, but doesn't most the of the energy come from tidal stress warping the crust as the earth orbits the sun?
No. There are three sources for Earth's heat; gravitational potential energy as it formed, ('primordial') radioactive decay, (radiogenic) and tidal stresses, of which the moon (not the sun) provides the greatest contribution. We can immediately get an idea of their importance by noting that released tidal energy must come from the rotational and orbital energy of the Earth and moon. If the moon smashed into Earth it would release all of this energy at once, but the entire Earth formed this way out of smaller bodies and is much more massive than the moon. As such the gravitational energy must be larger. In fact the total binding energy of Earth is about 2x10^32 Joules, or about 12 days of the Sun's total energy output. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_binding_energy ) That's largely what made Earth molten when it formed. The moon's kinetic energy is around 4x10^28J by comparison. At present Earth's energy budget is around 50-50 primordial and radiogenic heat (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_internal_heat_budget#Radiogenic_heat )
@@garethdean6382 So according to this argument, tidal heating is at least four orders of magnitude smaller than the other heat contributors? Likely eight or twelve orders of magnitude smaller? I expected something much larger, but I learned a long time ago not to argue with people who quote energies in Joules and scientific notation. ;)
Awesome, just awesome, and awe inspiring episode. You have so succinctly described these methods to be useful in "conversations" with other people. I have literally been trying to parse such a coherent statement to present to others that hold more mainstream American views. Again thank you.
Well, we're not privileged observers. However, any observer will be privileged enough to be somewhere an observer could come into being, so in that sense we are in a privileged position, which explains why it is indeed a pretty amazing spot.
Space is so magical. I cant get enough. I have videos in a playlist on repeat. Even watch it sometimes and listen to music I like imagine me travel the space fast feel driving the racing car with rokk music deltaparole tool foofighters nirvana and other.
panic at the disco, i had no idea "isco" was a thing, but then i rarely have any clue what theyre talking about on this channel, but it makes me smarter, i know that much.
how does one decide to become a geologist...I'm honestly amazed and grateful that we have humans who rise up and examine things that the most of us step past every day
also, the most amazing feels came over me when learning about the age of the cosmos and thermodynamics. a shivering chill ran through me as I realized the matter and energy of my body is at least around the same age as the entire universe, and the shivering chill became a warm comfort 😊🌝
Did you see the video explaining that the type of heavy elements needed for our body is likely mostly produced only via supernovae and neutron star mergers.
@@johnnamkeh1290 I asked someone, where is the super nova that created our solar system. Since there is no remnant of the nova, no nebula from it, he said it must have blown away and is gone. I wonder what someone educated in astrophysics would say.
@@bobdobbs943 It's probably not a single super nova that made the Earth, but a combo of many of them. Material in our galaxy is being churned and mixed constantly after all. So the molecular cloud that made our solar system was likely a soup of many multiple star remnants. And if we look at molecular clouds around today, or star forming regions (Eagle nebula, for example), they are usually massive and produce many hundreds or even thousands of stars each. So in that sense, our Sun probably has cousins out there that formed around the same time from the same molecular cloud. But the original cloud is long gone, having made hundreds of new stars and any leftovers mixed with other molecular clouds.
Hi, not the brightest cookie, however i've always been fascinated by space since i was a kid, And its good to know about this channel as well as the explanations giving in it. Thank you so much cheers !
Been watching PBS Spacetime for a good three years now. I love this series, and I particularly admire, Matt, your thoughtful and relatable communication skills. Just want to say something about this episode in particular. I appreciate the way you approached the topic of science and the Book of Genesis. As an evangelical (theologically) who doesn't believe there's any conflict between the claims of Bible and empirical truth, (in a theistic universe all truth must come from the same mind/Creator), it's really frustrating when otherwise objective science communicators essentially do exegesis (who, most likely, aren't learned in Biblical exegesis) and imply that the writers of Genesis or other parts of the Bible were trying to answer the kind of questions that in fact weren’t asked the way we ask them today until the Enlightenment. (e.g. The writers of Judeo-Christian scripture tried to answer material questions about the physics of the universe but science saved us from such anthropocentric thinking and revealed to us the truth.) Thank you for your objectivity.
We know Uniformitarianism is wrong, bc it depends on averages and averages don’t exist for long periods of time. The Geological column was formed horizontally, by Sedimentary Deposition. From water containing the particles that were gradually deposited and condensed by huge pressure, into the rock strata we see in the Geological column. If the rock strata formed vertically over a time scale of 100s of millions of years, it would’ve eroded away faster than it could have formed. So it must have formed more quickly, with larger volumes of water. I.e. By a flood(s) and the receding waters, as they drained down to the lowest places of Earth,s topography. If Earth’s age was in the billions of years, there would be nothing left of it by now but space dust, due to erosion processes and the friction and degradation of the size of Earth’s particles. I rest my case. Pls feel free to reply to this comment and correct me, if and where I’m wrong. Ty.
sorry to tell you this, but Bible was written as a supposed revelation of God, and until 1,500 year no one thought anything written there to be just a metaphor. The myth of creation was considered a fact until it was 100% proven to be a joke. Religious fanatics killed people for speaking the truth, don't pretend it didn't happen.
@@flashgordon6670 Hey, you Copy-paste queen, can you actually come up with another text instead of this same BS over and over again that has been fed into your head by creationist know-nothings? If not then please follow your own advice and rest your case. I. e.: Shut up!
This channel and its hundreds of thousands of viewers make me cry humbled by the intelligence of some people and the vastness of space time and beyond, and gives me honest hope for humanity.
I really love this channel. I don’t always understand everything but I learn enough to feel like I can appreciate what’s going on. Very cool material and brilliantly delivered. Keep doing what you do!
Great video. The mysteries of deep space can be so awing that we sometimes forget about the riches beneath our feet. After this introduction to earth chronology, I would love to dig more into earth evolution, how it came to be what it is today and how it went from inhabitable to comfy for beings like us that breathe oxygen. It might be out of the scope of your channel, but I'm sure it'd be very interesting nonetheless...
The Earth is much older than anybody thinks. Many high technology societies much greater than ours is not. The Sphinx was one of the most recent periods.
This is exactly the kind of question that make great minds hunt for those nearly impossible answers. Imagine knowing for certain all the processes Earth went through to become what it is.
Our Earth is 4.5 billion years old and it comprises materials in existence 4.5 billion years ago. Now, we know that Stars, upon their death, create new elements and that today we know of 118 elements. So for 4.5 billions years stars have continued to die and produce ever new and more fantastic elements than we can imagine and we will never know what they are. WOW!!!!
and how did stars form ??? gases do NOT compresses under gravity (they heat up and expand just as much) especially not H and He which were supposedly the only 2 elements right after the suggested big bang.
@@thewaytruthandlife Dear TheWay, you are a wackadoodle. Matter coalesces and mass forms gravity? Normal stars form from clouds of H and when they die they fuse atoms up to the Iron level. This is basic high school science crap ... where were you? In future please research your thoughts before you start typing and wasting so many peoples time.
@@thewaytruthandlife What the heck is liquid nitrogen but compressed gas ... if any of your grey matter cells actually work then please save them for having a good poo.
A mere suggestion/idea. It would be cool to go back and show a timeline of new discoveries or confirmations since Space Time has been on TH-cam. The first image of a black hole is arguably the most significant, but there have been other things that have been observed/detected since postulated about in prior Space Time Journal Club episodes, etc. A follow-up with updates regarding those theories would be enjoyable. Sometimes I'll watch a Space Time video from a few years ago and realize that there have been new breakthroughs in those subjects since then. Neat stuff.
The early Christians were Jews. It was at the Council of Jerusalem, 50CE that "Christians" decided that it would no longer be necessary to circumcise converts. St. Paul, the effective founding CEO of Christianity, wrote in the New Testament that the Book of Genesis' story of Abraham's sons is "allegory/ figuratively" [Galatians 4:24]. In the 5th century CE Saint Augustine wrote that he "could scarcely keep from laughing" when hearing "idiotic" creationists claiming the the Book of Genesis is a literal account of creation: 1,500 years ago he wrote this about creationists: "It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation. With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation."
Thanks for reminding me who wrote that. Couple of years ago I showed that to some creationist who didn't accept evolution, but it never worked, he continued to believe the nonsense in Genesis.
Perhaps ‘St Augustine’ would have stopped laughing if he’d seen an accurate understanding of Genesis Chapter one that harmonises with the findings of science..... wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101985013
@@warrenrae32 Nah, he wouldn't. St. Paul, author of 28% of the New Testament, wrote in the New Testament that: Christ brought a new covenant [Gal. 3:17]; that the old covenant contained an allegory [Gal. 4:24]. And "if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. ... In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." [Heb 8]
Great video. I've been really annoyed recently at ppl arguing that the earth is 6k years old, the young earth creationist hypothesis. They seem to misunderstand or purposely misrepresent our scientific understanding of our planet.
Me too. And I’m a bible believer. In contemplating this issue, I think things like “if” God created things, why would an infinite God who exists in a place where time is not relevant because it doesn’t exist for God (who in part said we are to love God with our whole minds) be resigned to be so limited by time that the things we KNOW to be true have to be dismissed from the mind in order to believe in God? In my way of thinking, God’s early mandate to humans to ‘subdue the earth’ is what drives humans to investigate and pursue science to begin with because it is a cultural (social?) unconsciously passed trait that rides on tradition not dna. So the ‘joke’ is fine but I think the suppositions are stereotypes regardless of how true they ring.
@@fishhuntadventure it's a really interesting point relating the command to subdue the earth and humans curiosity/thirst for understanding. I had not really thought of that before.
@@fishhuntadventure Except we don’t “KNOW” anything about the age of the universe and the Earth. The Bible is clear that the earth was created during a 24hr day and that 7 days concluded all of creation.
@@krisjones4051 it's not clear at all and it does not mention hours. The Bible you've read is a translation, and some things might have been lost in translation. Even the order of events is completely wrong. In Genesis, Earth is created first, with the Sun and other stars after. We know, in reality, that other stars came first, then our Sun and then the Earth. The Bible is factually wrong, if you view it was a textbook.
@@imarchello Wrong-if you know Hebrew or have studied the significance of the directly translated Hebrew, then you would know that Genesis 1 as well as Genesis 7:11 mean literal 24hr days. One of the Hebrew words for “day” is _yom_ and it is used 2,301 times in the Old Testament. Outside of Genesis 1, yom plus a number (used 410 times) almost always indicates an ordinary day, i.e., a 24-hour period. The words evening and morning together (38 times) also most often indicate an ordinary day. And the passage you’re referring to concerning the order of creation is not “wrong,” just because you decided to erroneously view it as a textbook. It’s a non-fiction narrative which simply describes the process of universal formation day by day. *How* this occurred exactly is unknown and even scientists do not know *for sure* how the solar system was formed, they can just make the most educated guesses available. If the earth was created at a time separately from the rest of the universe by God, then how could you possibly dispute that? It could have been created locally in the primordial solar system prior to the sun ever being created using the same basic building materials. Again, the Bible is not a textbook which answers “How,” it simply tells a _story_ of what happened.
Also i can fully appreciate eternity, because b4 i lived i already did my time in eternity waiting to be born. Thats why death/eternity holds no fear, as i already did that to get here - done all this b4.
I wish carbon 14 levels were constant! It would have made my geochemistry class a lot easier 😂 Instead we had to apply a correction curve to narrow down the age to several bumps in a probability curve. Then we would use the principles of stratigraphy, dendrochronology, and the like to compare other samples we collected and dated from the same area but in different rock layers or tree ring to further narrow down the result. Not to mention that these correction curves are constantly being refined! But hey, who said science was easy. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_calibration
Oh! Thank you so much for telling us about the painting! Somehow I missed this q&a :D It's riveting and i spend every video you filmed in front of it, looking at all the shades of gold :)
There are many ways to estimate the age of a black hole based on objects around it (for instance, look a supermassive black hole's size and nearby galactic density and compare that with computer models for black hole growth) but I don't think there's any way in current physics to estimate an age based just on the black hole itself. Like Rhisav says, black holes only have those three properties, and none of them says anything directly about age.
@@rhisavbora2975 I think you could try to estimate the age of a black hole by first determining the mass, charge, and angular momentum that a black hole is likely to form with. For example, we could look at the masses and angular momenta of black holes produced in a supernova. Then we could model how those properties would change over time. For example, we might work out how much mass or net angular momentum do we expect a black hole to accumulate from random collisions based on their positions within a galaxy. Then we could compare each black hole we observe to our model. If it fits the model, then we'll have an estimate for its age. That estimate may come with large error bars or low confidence, but it is an approach. If you run into a black hole that doesn't fit the model, (too much angular momentum compared to its mass, mass outside of the normal range, etc), then you can assume that they were either formed in a way you haven't predicted, or underwent some sort of event that removes it from the model. For example, two colliding black holes formed from similar stars will have about twice the mass you'd expect to find, and possibly much higher angular momentum. Unfortunately, it's entirely possible that your model wouldn't be accurate enough to date any black holes younger than the age of the universe, so maybe it wouldn't work. I don't know. Just an idea.
On top of what everyone else said, age is kind of a meaningless concept with black holes. Sure we can say it's "such and such years old" from our own local time, but from any perspective meaningfully closer to the singularity, it'll age more and more slowly. Furthermore, inside the black hole, not a moment has gone by.
The Hindu time measurements doesn't just stop at the day of bramha ... There is the year of bramha and then the life of bramha and then there are a number of bramha(s) before the current one and there would be more in the faaaar future ...... Please correct it ... If you know about this more and you think I'm wrong ...🙏🙏🙏
@@vve2059 one thing to notice is that.... It is first time in my life that whenever I mention the supremacy in knowledge/science that our ancestors had ... Someone from the community of "peacefuls" began trolling me for that.... I guess those peacefuls are allergic to knowledge/science that's why they aren't here ...
Want to know about about the Universe and everything? Draw a circle with white chalk on a white chalk board and search for the begining and the ends of the circle and the boundaries it surrounds?
@@SlimThrull well our understanding came from religion until a few centuries ago, but I wouldn't call it "science" due the definition requiring experimentation to observe the natural world. besides, once we started doing science, most religious views of how the world and everything worked became obsolete
@@gigafuq8751 It may not have been science in the terms we think of it today, sure. But Copernicus and Galileo were both pat of the church. A good deal of our understanding of how the solar system works i based on what these two discovered..
@@SlimThrull it's true that they were christians in their time, but to say their work and observations come from religion itself is a stretch. saying that science itself comes from religion (not the people, the belief and mythology) is an even bigger stretch
The big problem with using Genesis chapters 1-11 to calculate the age of the earth (chapters 5&11, genealogy) is that that stuff was allegory and not meant to be taken literally. Also there were gaps in those genealogies, the numbers represented time between tribes and not ages, and there's every chance that those numbers were there fore spiritual reasons and not math ones. Also, young-earth creationism is hurting the gospel message and I want it to stop. There is no (zero) conflict between faith and science, some people just like pretending like there is. The internet keeps this imaginary conflict alive. It needs to stop. I want it gone. Smart Christians are the quieter ones. Bishop Ussher was an idjit that didn't know what he was doing and couldn't get anything right. Old-earth creationism is the future of creationism and that's where we are headed now. RTB with Dr. Hugh Ross is the way to go. That's where the truth is at. That's what smart Christians should follow. I trust the current science and now both the Bible and science (big bang theory) points to a beginning of the universe and that is all that matters. I'll be praying. Great video, keep up the good work. God bless. Have a nice day/night. -------------------------------------------------------- sincerely a nerdy Christian.
I don't mean to be THAT guy, but as a once-believer of 20 years, there is absolutely a disagreement between science and faith. The two are irreconcilable. The creation account given in Genesis is contradicted by the very evolution of organisms on Earth. Even taken in allegorical terms, there are numerous times this creation account is re-told in later books, in a seemingly less-allegorical sense. If there is a god, his guiding hand is not obvious. Even if there IS one, how could ANY of our religions, obvious fabrications of mortal beings made only in the last 12,000 years (less than a blink to the universe), come anywhere CLOSE to comprehending, let alone explaining an omniscient/omnipotent/omnipresent immortal deity?
@@mgmg116 :: RTB has reconciled those supposed non-contradictions with the two-books method of Bible interpretation. Also, have you heard of general revelation? And RTB also has their testable creation model to help with the science. RTB just needs to find a way of getting it thru peer review, which will take some time. RTB has only been around since 1986, give them some time. Have a nice day/night.
mgmg And what evidence is there for macroevolution? As far as I know, there are still massive holes in the theory-and the reason why it is a theory is because it is a scientific theory that could possibly be observed (unlikely, as far as we have seen) while creationism is supernatural and thus cannot and should not be explained by science. In other words, it is the best "observable" explanation we have. And if we get a major contradiction, then we revise, edit, throw it out, or what-have-you. Creation-something from nothing-is not something we can observe. Now, we do have scientific laws like for thermodynamics and conservation of energy and conservation of matter that says: as far as we can observe, this does not happen. But we cannot apply that thinking to creationism because if we cannot observe it, using implication, it can mathematically and logically follow that our conclusion is true (F=>T is T) and it does not mathematically and logically follow that our conclusion is false (F=>F is F). That is, if we did not observe creation, then creation exists; this is logically true. It is logically false to say that if we did not observe creation then creation does not exist; this is logically false. I have also learned that macroevolution is contradictory to the age of the earth because it would have taken too long-more than 4.5 Byr. I just haven't seen anything logical, and the question still is, how did it all get here in the first place? Evolution doesn't answer that question. It also does not answer, with logic and purpose, how microbes and other organisms said to which we "came from" exists to this day! And we all know from Pasteur's experiment that abiotic things cannot make biotic things. And so, to discuss your last paragraph, I don't think that I can convince you that there is a God. You have to believe that and trust that for yourself, and I truly think that every human soul has a desire for purpose and for meaning. If there is no God-if there is no justice or hope-what, really is the point of life. The luckiest of us live 80 or 90 years, all for nothing... for us to be forgotten. The less fortunate may not even live past 10 years. The hopeless mindset is dark and gloomy-I don't want to live that way. Is there no punishment for evil and no reward for good? And what, even, is good anymore? Without some acknowledgement of a divinity, we lose our humanism. In that sense, aren't we just like every other animal that came and went? Ergo, if you choose to maintain that hopelessness and deny your humanity, what then, are you? You have decided that all is nothing and that all that must be known is held by you-and that makes you into a divinity, yes? Everyone, worhsips something. The true Christian worships the Holy Trinity, the greedy banker worships money, the Hollywood star worships fame, the Muslim worships Allah and the atheist worships himself. Finally, we don't really know how long humanoids have been on this earth-we only know when they developed a written language. We have been finding skeletons and fossils of humanoids dating back millions, if not, billions of years! So, it is very possible-and if not more possible than evolution-that humans were created. Perhaps not in this form, which could have been microevolutionarily morphed, but in some type of humanoid form-definitely not a fish or a microbe? All that we can do is guess-and when that guess is no longer plausible, we find something else. But a scientific guess will never rule out the supernatural, and they can never contradict each other because they have nothing to do with each other.
As always totally awesome episode! I would like to see an episode focused on what happens if a stellar mass black hole collides wish a super massive black hole and what happens to the circularity of the stellar mass once adsorbed by the super massive?!?!
You've got no proof for your delusion. Dating methods are huge extrapolations. Recorded history goes back only 3500bc in Mesopotamia, where genesis mentions the first people. There is nothing before that. There is proof everywhere of the great flood. Open your eyes.
You said a while ago you'd explain why DELAYED CHOICE QUANTUM ERASER is "not so mysterious". Please say more, I just cannot imagine a way out of this dilemma, and it keeps me awake at night.
I wonder sometimes that if the reason the universe is so large is not because of natural processes but one where it is large to keep us from seeing far enough to find out something we aren't meant to know. I'm sure this has been wondered before as everything I think of has been long been brought up before. But, there it is. I just thought of it.
Ah. Finally a video that I can give as an answer to some people who lean towards magical world view while telling me scientists don't know how old the Earth is. I don't have time or energy to explain them in how many ways they are wrong and how flawed their magical "logic" is but this will do it.
@@rexxx777 science can be experimental or observational. But you don’t have to observe the phenomenon directly. You can find evidence of it. I presume you accept the existence of the sun? Yet your only evidence for it is your detention of light that left it 8 minutes before. Likewise you can look at a tree ring and see when it first TRE even tough it was before you were born. You can also see when rocks formed and the universe became transparent and that it started from a dense point because you can see the evil of that.
Always funny to hear English speakers pronounce Kant's name. Both the British and Americans seem to pronounce it like their respective versions of "can't", while the German pronunciation is pretty much indistinguishable from the C-word. So while it would be very easy for them to pronounce it correctly, it is kinda understandable they don't want to. :D
@@JohnSmith-ik8nt Nope, we're all homosapiens (the scientific name for our modern human species) and everyone on earth is one and the same species and all of our brain structures are all formed the same. It is only a matter of cultures and what people are taught that really determines the IQ of an individual. IQ and race are therefore not linked. It's the surrounding environments and what people are taught that determines the intelligence of an individual, the skin color of a person has nothing to do with one's intelligence.
@@olivercharles2930let me ask you this, we know life and the universe functions in certain ways based off of all of our available evidence and means of measuring it, but why is it that way. Why did we evolve when statistically it was near impossible, why were any of us born when competing with millions of other sperm cells, why does gravity function the way it does? I see God as the chaos in the universe. Every theoretical and every chance up to fate is him. That’s how we’re we were able to become the species we are today, his hand guiding us over millions of years. Of course, you are free to believe what you want to, but this is my view
If the heat of Earth is maintained by the radioactive radiation in the core, why the moon is not similarly hot? I thought the cores of the Earth and the Moon are quite similar originating out of the primordial collision. What do we know about the moon core structure and composition?
The moon is smaller and volume (which contains radioactive material) changes with radius different relative to surface area (which can radiate away energy). moon.nasa.gov/inside-and-out/composition/overview/ relevant for moon composition
For laymen like me who habitually hit up spacetime and have learned a decent bit of physics, just wanted to say thanks for the breather. Please keep on just like you do with challenging material, I'm getting through it, but a breather episode is always welcome!
I agree. Physics to me is more interesting but a struggle to understand. Before I discovered Spacetime I thought I had come a long way with “sort of” understanding relativity and quantum theory, but these episodes keep reminding me I understand very little.
this still wasn't a breather at least comparable to vsauce standards xD but enjoyable none the less
Are the pages flipping through the books supposed to be Matt's eidetic memory in action? :)
Kenneth Simon I study physics and these topics are crazy to me too. But a lot of ideas are on the frontier so
Just yesterday I read a funny anecdote about a physicist that gave up on his studies to become a banker. When asked why the promising young man changed directions so sharply his PhD supervisor shrugged and said "he tried to understand quantum mechanics".
"An oddly precise prediction given the source material"
I died
I cried when he mentioned significant figures :(. I've lost so many points to that.
Oh jeez, man.. Rest in peace
Did you post this comment via ouija board?
@@matd675 yes
We know Uniformitarianism is wrong, bc it depends on averages and averages don’t exist for long periods of time.
The Geological column was formed horizontally, by Sedimentary Deposition. From water containing the particles that were gradually deposited and condensed by huge pressure, into the rock strata we see in the Geological column.
If the rock strata formed vertically over a time scale of 100s of millions of years, it would’ve eroded away faster than it could have formed. So it must have formed more quickly, with larger volumes of water. I.e. By a flood(s) and the receding waters, as they drained down to the lowest places of Earth,s topography.
If Earth’s age was in the billions of years, there would be nothing left of it by now but space dust, due to erosion processes and the friction and degradation of the size of Earth’s particles.
I rest my case. Pls feel free to reply to this comment and correct me, if and where I’m wrong. Ty.
I love how every time Kant is mentioned on science You Tube is mentioned for his Galaxy speculations, and I'm here in philosophy-land knowing him for...other things.
Indeed, I always wonder if the philosopher and the astronomer are the same person when Matt SpaceTime mentions him.
Quite an impressive genius
as a lawyer, who got tired of studying kant's work, same
Immanuel Kant, but Chingis Khan.
@@marcpeterson1092 It's like we say over on Isaac Arthur's channel: "If brute force isn't working, you still aren't using enough of it." The Khan knew how to cut through the subtleties that stumbled other men.
Its.... kHAAAANNNN!!!!!! -Cpt. T. Kirk
Day 1 in Brahma: We were born
Day 2: We were swallowed by the sun
It should be "of Brahma" and not "in Brahma". :)
It might be around the start of day 3 honestly
There are actually infinitely many 'brahmas'. This corresponds to infinitely many parallel universes in the hindu tradition.
suppose you're Adam world's first person God has just putted you in earth in the age of 50 of which you could born babies ok ?
Now if we send science to that time and science check your age but Science would say you're 50 years old and about to science a human can't be adult without being a baby without passing teenage but the reality is God direct made him in the age of 50 as God didn't need to make the first person pass teenage etc
In same way God didn't need to make earth pass millions years in cooling down etc
In same way God direct made a human of age 50 didn't need to make human passed the monkey stage etc
*God*-who made this all even scientist's brain
*The bible* -About to God vision
*Science* -About to human vision
About to human vision/science this all can't be without a big bang
But God don't need to make a big bang he direct made the situation of after a big bang .
Science isn't even wrong and religions aren't even wrong
I'm a geologist and and I feel acknowledged by this video.
Had Sheldon Cooper narrated this video he'd have said
"now lets change from geology to a real science, Physics"
a little needy but ok
I am a genetic engineer and I feel indirectly validated on evidence for evolution!!!
@TheExplorer that is logically impossible since one thing can only have 2 halves. Also, my creation is human base with bacterial, Archean, plant, mold, insect, arachnid, diatom, tardigrade and fish genes along with some synthetic genes that are not in nature.
Never mind Sheldon Cooper
James Hutton lived in the Holyrood area, right on the edge of Arthur's Seat, the 823ft high volcanic cone which dominates Edinburgh. He would take his daily walks there, and that was what first got him intrigued by rock formations. He then travelled throughout Scotland, which has hugely diverse geology, and other parts of the UK, studying and taking samples, which is what led this chemist to become the "Father of Geology".
But poor Hutton. He wanted to present his paper to the University of Edinburgh, but the Church of Scotland, who controlled the university, refused to allow him challenging the Biblical creation narrative. The church had also cast aspersions upon his character for even suggesting such. So it was the first reading of his paper was given rather to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, by his friend, Playfair, in a heavily abridged version.
Today there is an exhibition centre, Dynamic Earth, near where James Hutton lived, which tells the tale of our planet in a hugely fascinating and highly entertaining way.
Love it! thanks!
This is totally inaccurate.
1. Hutton for decades published through the Royal Society - he had no connection to the university. And the Church of Scotland did not block him from speaking at the university. Nor did it cast aspersions on his character for even suggesting such.
2. Nor did Playfair take “his place” at the university. He had no place to give up. His friend, Joseph Black, gave the first lecture to the Royal Society on the subject and he gave the second lectures.
@@randomperson2078 Sources?
Thaks for your comment, let's tackle U238, its half-life=4.5Byrs, how is it calculated? Of course, we can use formula half-life=ln2/k, where k=decay constant, the problem is how k is calculated? The amount of isotope N(t) left after time t elapsed is given by N(t)=N(0)e^(-kt), where N(0) initial amount. dN(t)/dt=-kN(t) = R -> decay rate, k=(dN(t)/ dt)/N(t)=R/N(t) -> you see, decay constant(k) is dependent on decay rate(R). For U238, with a half-life=4.5Byrs, you need to measure first the decay rate at t=4.5Byrs, how do you do that? when you live only ~100yrs? I am seeking an honest reply, I'm not trying to be smart or pretend to know it all.
I would panic at the ISCO but but temporal dilation means it all happens a bit too slowly to induce panic. Like death and taxes, you know it's going to happen, but, not today.
I don’t think the time dilation would be apparent to you. You could be flailing your arms in fear at a fraction the speed of light, but only a more distant observer would think, “hey they’re waiving at me like the Queen of England.”
@@MBBurchette ~ Well this is true, but why let the facts get in the way of a good joke? I think by the time a temporal anomaly would be evident, you'd be dead anyway...
As if death and taxes aren't making me panic regularly
I'm also gently amused by the thought that ancient people in India, having developed math that included zero and could therefore be done fairly easily up to very large numbers, immediately used that math to attempt to determine the age of their universe. Humans are awesome at times.
Diana Gibbs
seriously! and the fact that one of their ages is significantly close to the actual age of the universe makes me wonder what kind of knowledge we could have lost, with wars and the way the world was before, library in Alexandria being burned down. how much more would we know if we didn't so frequently take to burning books as a society, and conquering each other.
@@BothHands1 yeah... definitely lots of astronomy lost in those various purges... astronomy is almost the first science societies come to: people look up at the sky all the time, and paying attention to the moon was important for agriculture, plus obviously the cycles of the sun were relevent to hunts long before that. surely wondering what we were seeing must be a pretty primal human thing? presumably relatives such as neanderthals too, after all they had basic medicines just as we did, they definitely observed their surroundings and built models to hold observed patterns in.
I am from India , most of the scientific work especially in astronomy is lost. Only thing which is remaining is superstitions and religious stuff which makes no sense to me.
@@zxvats That's unfortunate
@@zxvats unfortunate truth. Our ancestors made a huge mistake by passing on the information verbally rather than have records of it. And even if they were records, they were mostly written on leaves and leaves well..decay over time. There's a lot more that our astronomers would've found but we'll never know they did.
Deep time, deep space --- This requires Deep Thought.
@Terry Endicott: True, but does speaking about it require a Deep Throat?
True
Just use deep learning
If it does, would the answer to the universe be 42?
Perhaps we could get Deep Blue, Deepak Chopra, and the crew of the Deepwater Horizon to search the deep web for answers while deep frying deep sea bass and listening to Deep Purple.
Fun Fact: Genesis isn't even the oldest book in the Bible. If I remember correctly, Job is the oldest book in the Bible.
That is not confirmed. We really don't know when it was written. But you are right, what of the main theories on it would make it older
@@briandiehl9257 regardless we know Genesis isn't the oldest one. I know there's a few contenders. But, Job is generally considered the oldest at least from everything I read.
Know the difference:
Gamers: the cake is a lie
Geologists: the date is a lie
flat earthers: i don't know what it is, but it is a lie
i forgot that phrase existed. didnt miss it tbh
And explain why ? The answer wouldn’t be the book of talking snakes and donkeys would it ?
@@SeikoshoKaiShorei its from the first portal game
@@goodstori Your explanation is a lie
sometimes i feel we know more about cosmology than we do about our own planet. thanks for this piece.
You are the cosmology of the youniverse.
We pretend
7:57 “Half-lives: 3”
Lol. That’s gotta be intentional.
If it was intentional it would've jumped straight to 4
kids, count with me!
one,
two,
alyx, ...
Me: Valve, count to 3.
Valve:
1
2
Half Life 2: Episode One
Half Life 2: Episode Two
Half Life: Alyx
...
...
(2024)
...
(2050)
...
Half Life 4: The End
?
FYI Hazard Time @ youtube is posting daily Half Life 3 updates.
- There is no news...
I enjoyed this diversion from the sometimes heady astrophysics topics, though I love those videos too. I wouldn't mind seeing more stuff like this every now and then before diving back into the craziness that is spacetime.
Sounds like you need more Kyle Hill in your life.
Me too
(in the darkness, you gear faintly): *geology isn't a science*
We know Uniformitarianism is wrong, bc it depends on averages and averages don’t exist for long periods of time.
The Geological column was formed horizontally, by Sedimentary Deposition. From water containing the particles that were gradually deposited and condensed by huge pressure, into the rock strata we see in the Geological column.
If the rock strata formed vertically over a time scale of 100s of millions of years, it would’ve eroded away faster than it could have formed. So it must have formed more quickly, with larger volumes of water. I.e. By a flood(s) and the receding waters, as they drained down to the lowest places of Earth,s topography.
If Earth’s age was in the billions of years, there would be nothing left of it by now but space dust, due to erosion processes and the friction and degradation of the size of Earth’s particles.
I rest my case. Pls feel free to reply to this comment and correct me, if and where I’m wrong. Ty.
@@flashgordon6670 We've dated rocks to billions of years of age, though. Not to mention that not all rock is sedimentary, but even the rock that is is sometimes replenished through deposition faster than it can be eroded, either by sediment trapped in rainwater or by river deposition, etc. Erosion also varies greatly over time and by region based on climate and local geography, as does deposition. For instance, rock on the ocean floor will erode much more slowly than rock exposed to waves, wind or rain, and will build steadily through deposition before eventually surfacing from tectonic movement. Rock buried under ice will also erode more slowly, compacting under the weight of the ice and becoming much harder, but will eventually be carved out when that ice melts, but not disintegrated. Rock formed by soil and plant matter in forest or woodland built up over time also erodes incredibly slowly, as plant cover catches much of the wind and the rain, and soil layers prevent them from interacting with the rock underneath. Plate tectonics also allows for earth's surface to refresh itself periodically, with one edge of a plate pushing down into the outer mantle while magma rises to the surface and cools, building more land. Don't forget we've also dated rock brought back from the moon, and it matches pretty well some of the older rock we've dated from earth both in age and general composition(minus things produced by decay and other biological products). The earth is an incredibly complex system that is always changing, albeit extremely slowly, and with our modern technology and general scientific understanding, we've been able to discover that both uniformitarianism and catastrophism come up short in their explanatory ability. However, plate tectonics, climate cycles and a combination of erosion and deposition varying in rate in different regions at different periods, along with biological activity go a much longer way to describing the history of the rock we see making up the world around us. Some of the oldest continuously existing surface rock in the world exists in parts of South Africa and Australia and has been pretty accurately dated to around 3+ bya. I recommend reading about it, as well as other ancient rock and the dating techniques used to get a good idea of why the scientific community is so confident in our current age estimates of the Earth, as well as the data gained from astronomical observation that plays into that dating as well.
Guys, thanks for the great program, as always. BUT how could you not mention Clair Patterson?! That's the dude who first came up with the 4.5 billion figure. His story is absolutely astounding, as is his research itself. I'm amazed you didn't even mention him (or did I miss something?). Actually, this just happens to be story of Clair's life... a totally underappreciated but highly influential scientist - and philantrope.
(on another note: the updated graphics rock! )
That's because no one likes men with girly names.
Perhaps more famous for his discovery that the oil industry was poisoning the human population with ethyl leaded gasoline!
Srsly, this is a sad oversight. Clair Patterson is my 11yo son's Favorite scientist.
Our society will be more respectable if we give our children real heroes and the magic of science and the universe instead of Santa Clause and Marvel heroes.
Space Time: "The earth is billions of years old."
*Ken Ham has entered the chat.
Ham is already foaming around the mouth and yelling "heretics". Mostly because he doesn't really understand what is being said in this video.
He is foaming because science means fewer people for him to scam money from.
@@timperry6948 Yup! The more people having a fundamental understanding about natural sciences the less people will give their money to snake oil merchants like Ham.
@@petercarlson811 I feel like something missed me. Is it bad or good that i do not even bother to google Ham?
@@bernhardname8098 Avoiding Ham is quite healthy for one's blood pressure.
Talking about how old things "feel" from a human perspective, I actually find the universe feels extraordinarily YOUNG given that our humble little backwater of a planet has been around for a significant portion (somewhere around 1/3) of its existence. Sure, it's unfathomably long compared to a human life; but given the chaotic churn of matter in the universe, stars and planets are being born all the time and dying all the time. The fact that our one has been around for a 1/3 of the total time of the universe either makes our planet really old or the universe really young. We know of stars much older than our sun, and can assume they have planets, so calling our planet "old" doesn't really fit. That just leaves us with a "young" universe.
(this is all completely subjective of course; the terms "young" and "old" don't have any practical use here)
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if we run into the same "deep time" things with the universe - maybe figuring out it is actually a million times older or something.
Yeah. Do you think were one of the first life forms from our point being 9 billion years away from the beginning of space? so pretty much the beginning should be teaming with life while our point in space is only beginning to create life?
I fear that humans are the first advanced life form.
@@anilin6353 I fear that we don't really know yet, what advanced really means
On top of that, I'm pretty sure I've read some stuff on what the earliest time is at which a planet like our own could form. The first stars were pure hydrogen and helium, so their planets could not have had all the elements we have on Earth. They were also way too large and lived far too short for a planet like ours to exist for long. So it took a few cycles of stars forming, fusing elements, dying and shedding many of those elements to "enrich" the galaxy with the building blocks of life.
I don't remember any specific numbers, but what it comes down to is that it seems like Earth formed just around the time when it became possible to form. Now of course, it could've formed a couple billion years earlier, but not an order of magnitude earlier. Given that we can be pretty sure (based on our current understanding of cosmology) that there is plenty of "juice" left in the universe to keep forming stars for at least a couple more orders of magnitude of time to pass... It makes you think about the Fermi paradox and just how absolutely improbably it would be if Earth was a one-off event, that just happened to occur right away when it became possible to occur.
This also mirrors the start of life on Earth as well. The more we learn about early life, the more it seems like it started almost the very instant Earth somewhat settled down. The first confirmed life started less than a billion years after the oceans formed (which happened about 100M years after Earth itself formed), but there are some clues that there could have been life about 100M years after the oceans formed. From a cosmological point of view, that's practically instantaneous.
That combined with how "early" Earth formed... Why does it still seem like we're alone? All the indirect evidence suggest an abundance of life in the Universe and galaxy, but when we look, we have found absolutely nothing so far. Hopefully I will live long enough for this question to finally be answered in my lifetime. It just breaks my brain thinking about it...
I missed the expected inevitable reference to ( edit, NOT Clyde Tombaugh, who discovered Pluto ) ( edit actually Clair Patterson ) discovering the age of the earth, and coincidentally discovering the massive lead poisoning of the whole planet by leaded fossil fuels. Aka the first man to know the age of the earth, he had to perfect cleaning and isolating lab environments to get rid of lead contamination in order to date the zircons in question.
I saw it with the brilliant Neil de Grasse, its an awesome episode.
Maybe you're thinking of Clair Cameron Patterson.
that wasn't Tombaugh
My high school physics teacher was married to Claire Patterson. One day she dragged him in and he explained how they determined the age of the earth ("four point six times ten to the ninth") -- the lead/lead ratios.
@@ximalas I'll have to review the history and see if I have the stories mixed up.
7:07 Just a correction, the Earth's surface is much hotter than expected, even when radiation is taken to consideration.
This is because the convection currents in the mantle bring up heat from the core.
Also it made for a good soundbite but when he said ‘the earth has travelled around the sun 4.5billion times and itll do it again’ is darker with the context that the suns expansion will render liquid water nonexistent on earth around its 5billion mark, meaning we’re on the tailend of the planets habitability
@@marcofransowitz4773 having 5 billion more years means we're only at the halfway mark
So... the warranty is definitely expired, then...
* snaps fingers *
Darn it.
please, keep your comments for the late shows.
And right after we slipped into the dark timeline too. Figured right? Warranties always run out right before everything breaks.
If we wanted to return it, we shouldn't have got it wet.
Thanks Thanos!
PS Maybe should have sprung for Apple Care, after all!
Cant belive still today there are people to believe that the age of earth is 6K. All religious people should come and see these scale pointing out that idea more than 300 years ago.
With that surname its a good job Immanual Kant wasn't Australian
Or Kiwi👀
So you're saying if Immanual doesn't adhere to social isolation guidelines he risks being a fully sick Kant
Literally word for word what I commented
Well, I heard that, "Immanuel Kant was a real pissant, who was very rarely stable."
And you are all perfectly welcome for the earworm.
@nowthatsjustducky Not a bad earworm to have.
Clair Patterson really deserves credit for getting that 4.5 billion year figure. Granted he got a whole episode of Cosmos devoted to him, but this here is kind of like talking sbout the buildup to the moon landing and not mentioning Neil Armstrong
The one day of Brahma stuff intrigued me for a long time. We have stories of when some earthly king (Jaganath of Puri) visited Brahma in Brahma-lok (Brahma's residence) and when he returned, his Kingdom was no longer recognizable as many centuries had passed and a new king presided. Gave me creeps because it's just like interstellar amd what we know of Black Holes today.
Gods taught us everything. Hindus must always respect they are our biggest teacher and guide
this tale feels a lot like the description for traveling at high speeds. a hundred light years at the speed of light feels instant, 100 light years for his kingdom on earth is 100 years.
not so original, there are many stories like this.
Oisín was an irish poet/warrior who went to the Otherworld. After 3 years there he found out that 300 years passed on Earth.
I know right, the time scale is in eons🤔. It fascinates me how the people in the past could even fathom such large time scale.
@@aronjanosov9046 yes pagans were quite intelligent. Their godly stories may seems like myth but they do have deep meanings.
If the earth has been spinning for 6000 year already, why isn't it a flat pizza yet?
Yes and the sun is a disc. Well its actually gods flashlight. He uses Energizer batteries. Thats why we celebrate easter.
Or.... you could watch a previous video where this exact question was answered, planetary formations iirc. Please note, your question is perfectly valid and a logical conclusion. Tldr: gravity.
@@patrickaycock3655 God doesn't use a flashlight. He uses a photon canon.
@TK-20466 My pizza dough does the same thing if I don't let it bulk ferment for long enough. The earth apparently just doesn't have good gluten development.
quick, delete this b4 the flat earthers see it.
@@philochristos my bad.
You forgot Clair Cameron Patterson.
You know, the man who **actually** discovered the age of the earth
I’ve concluded, after watching these videos for years to help get to sleep, that PBS Space Time is ASMR for science aficionados, people who prefer to do math with letters, and MBA graduates who really regret not taking more science courses during undergrad.
What are you talking about? The Earth was created last Thursday!
Does that mean that by next Monday the earth will have been recreated this coming Thursday?
Ah at last,found a last-thursdayist.
lol this is one of those rare episodes that I can actually comprehend something lol
so, you mean you have gewatchen all those episodes without understanding /?
@@xl000 Well most of us do. Are you going to prove you understand things even the most advanced scientists disagree with. See Stephen Hawkings String theory is now being seen as rubbish and ironically it was Stephen himself at the end who came to that conclusion. Interesting you think you are the only genius who gets it all- When the most advanced scientists disagree and old ideas crumble such as time working both ways. (Nope; entropy proved otherwise) So how about you be less arrogant MR Einstein??
@@xl000 I barely know to write and I still watch this channel. Overloading is a viable tactic to get IQ200.
Not just something but for once everything... probably
@@xl000 I'm confident enough in myself to honestly answer, yes. I must watch each video three or four times for it to begin making a little sense. It's called 'learning'. I've been told, "that's a good thing".
This is the video Newton watched before writing the Siderius.
Given what this channel says about time travel, not impossible...
Mmm I don't get the part of the joke where you confuse Newton with Galileo
So 700 years later and we still got people who think the Earth is 6k years old. And no older. In my family.
Dear Matt and spacetime team.
I just wanted to thank you for creating such great and interesting content. You can really make non-physicists appreciate physics. Please keep it up!
2:23 - savage. loved it - had to actually laugh out loud at that ;)
Matt: "I have high hopes that you guys will get that joke."
Me: "I WISH I DIDN'T."
Will someone please explain the joke? You know explaining jokes always makes them more fun, doesn't it?
I mean why would you panic in the innermost stable circular orbit around the black hole? Aren't you supposed to be fine there? Did the poster mean that you are falling past that point? If he did that wasn't obvious to me.
@@Trey5S5S "rock"
Meg Myers and I are feeling "numb"
when
I wonder why society is where it is, despite it being 2022, and then I am reminded by clicking “newest comments” on videos like this.
The education system is failing us so hard.
Thank you so much for not editing out the breaths at the ends of each sentence! We are actually able to listen to, and contemplate each sentence momentarily while he draws breath for the next one. Instead of being bombarded by a non-stop stream of baffling scientific bullshit, we are able to absorb and understand the technical narrative, as it gives us time to process the information provided.
I wish I had more than one upvote to give you.
Your videos are on point at every point. Love what you do, Thanks for making them!
Matt, love the videos you do. Keep up the great work.
Turns out that scientists eventually figured out the most accurate method for aging the universe was to ask Keith Richards.
Let's be clear: Watching this channel (and honestly, the same can be said for the lot of PBS Studios channels writ large) is frustrating in a good way. Pretty good validation for the Dunning Kruger Effect, in that the DKE illustrates that the more knowledge we consume and digest, the more humbling it is to consider the cosmically vast sums of knowledge yet to be visited.
Dr. Evil: "1 Millllllon years old" 🤫
🤫
don't you think we should maybe ask for more?
1-hundred...BILLION NANILLION SHUDLUDLUUULLION Years Old 🤔
You mentioned that most of the geothermal energy in the earth's core is from the radioactive decay of isotopes, but doesn't most the of the energy come from tidal stress warping the crust as the earth orbits the sun?
Can anyone answer this one?
I want to know this too!
cubicmetre some but not close to most
No. There are three sources for Earth's heat; gravitational potential energy as it formed, ('primordial') radioactive decay, (radiogenic) and tidal stresses, of which the moon (not the sun) provides the greatest contribution.
We can immediately get an idea of their importance by noting that released tidal energy must come from the rotational and orbital energy of the Earth and moon. If the moon smashed into Earth it would release all of this energy at once, but the entire Earth formed this way out of smaller bodies and is much more massive than the moon. As such the gravitational energy must be larger.
In fact the total binding energy of Earth is about 2x10^32 Joules, or about 12 days of the Sun's total energy output. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_binding_energy ) That's largely what made Earth molten when it formed. The moon's kinetic energy is around 4x10^28J by comparison.
At present Earth's energy budget is around 50-50 primordial and radiogenic heat (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_internal_heat_budget#Radiogenic_heat )
@@garethdean6382 So according to this argument, tidal heating is at least four orders of magnitude smaller than the other heat contributors? Likely eight or twelve orders of magnitude smaller? I expected something much larger, but I learned a long time ago not to argue with people who quote energies in Joules and scientific notation. ;)
The easiest video of PBS Space Time I have ever seen!
Thanks Matt for the exception!!
Awesome, just awesome, and awe inspiring episode. You have so succinctly described these methods to be useful in "conversations" with other people. I have literally been trying to parse such a coherent statement to present to others that hold more mainstream American views. Again thank you.
I only have to look at my grandmother to know this fact
Smh
@Dahlen Olson in the last 50 years
@Dahlen Olson I laughed..
That's just wrong.
For not being a privileged spot in the universe, you've got to admit that Earth is a pretty amazing place to observe it from :)
Well, we're not privileged observers. However, any observer will be privileged enough to be somewhere an observer could come into being, so in that sense we are in a privileged position, which explains why it is indeed a pretty amazing spot.
I mean i plan to stay here my whole life,so..
@@Nosirrbro convoluted argument is convoluted, but seems fair enough
Space is so magical. I cant get enough. I have videos in a playlist on repeat. Even watch it sometimes and listen to music I like imagine me travel the space fast feel driving the racing car with rokk music deltaparole tool foofighters nirvana and other.
panic at the disco, i had no idea "isco" was a thing, but then i rarely have any clue what theyre talking about on this channel, but it makes me smarter, i know that much.
innermost stable circular orbit
"...turn from geology to physics." Geology is just physics with trees on it. -- Paraphrased from Terry Pratchett
Science, is it science? I bet it's science
bahahaha
Bitchs lov science.)
@William Perrigo _A high percentage of computer modeling “scientists” do not make their input data available_
According to whom?
@William Perrigo In other words, you cannot support your assertion so you're dodging the question by making up some irrelevant excuse not to answer.
how does one decide to become a geologist...I'm honestly amazed and grateful that we have humans who rise up and examine things that the most of us step past every day
also, the most amazing feels came over me when learning about the age of the cosmos and thermodynamics. a shivering chill ran through me as I realized the matter and energy of my body is at least around the same age as the entire universe, and the shivering chill became a warm comfort 😊🌝
Did you see the video explaining that the type of heavy elements needed for our body is likely mostly produced only via supernovae and neutron star mergers.
@@johnnamkeh1290 I asked someone, where is the super nova that created our solar system. Since there is no remnant of the nova, no nebula from it, he said it must have blown away and is gone. I wonder what someone educated in astrophysics would say.
Reddit user
@@bobdobbs943 It's probably not a single super nova that made the Earth, but a combo of many of them. Material in our galaxy is being churned and mixed constantly after all. So the molecular cloud that made our solar system was likely a soup of many multiple star remnants. And if we look at molecular clouds around today, or star forming regions (Eagle nebula, for example), they are usually massive and produce many hundreds or even thousands of stars each. So in that sense, our Sun probably has cousins out there that formed around the same time from the same molecular cloud. But the original cloud is long gone, having made hundreds of new stars and any leftovers mixed with other molecular clouds.
@@imarchello Wheres the left over nubula? There is nothing around us, just space
Hi, not the brightest cookie, however i've always been fascinated by space since i was a kid,
And its good to know about this channel as well as the explanations giving in it.
Thank you so much cheers !
Ramos trester, good for you! Man, never stop learning. You stop learning and your brain will shrivel to the size of a walnut!? 😱
Wow I missed this one. Glad it was recommended.
Been watching PBS Spacetime for a good three years now. I love this series, and I particularly admire, Matt, your thoughtful and relatable communication skills.
Just want to say something about this episode in particular. I appreciate the way you approached the topic of science and the Book of Genesis. As an evangelical (theologically) who doesn't believe there's any conflict between the claims of Bible and empirical truth, (in a theistic universe all truth must come from the same mind/Creator), it's really frustrating when otherwise objective science communicators essentially do exegesis (who, most likely, aren't learned in Biblical exegesis) and imply that the writers of Genesis or other parts of the Bible were trying to answer the kind of questions that in fact weren’t asked the way we ask them today until the Enlightenment. (e.g. The writers of Judeo-Christian scripture tried to answer material questions about the physics of the universe but science saved us from such anthropocentric thinking and revealed to us the truth.)
Thank you for your objectivity.
We know Uniformitarianism is wrong, bc it depends on averages and averages don’t exist for long periods of time.
The Geological column was formed horizontally, by Sedimentary Deposition. From water containing the particles that were gradually deposited and condensed by huge pressure, into the rock strata we see in the Geological column.
If the rock strata formed vertically over a time scale of 100s of millions of years, it would’ve eroded away faster than it could have formed. So it must have formed more quickly, with larger volumes of water. I.e. By a flood(s) and the receding waters, as they drained down to the lowest places of Earth,s topography.
If Earth’s age was in the billions of years, there would be nothing left of it by now but space dust, due to erosion processes and the friction and degradation of the size of Earth’s particles.
I rest my case. Pls feel free to reply to this comment and correct me, if and where I’m wrong. Ty.
sorry to tell you this, but Bible was written as a supposed revelation of God, and until 1,500 year no one thought anything written there to be just a metaphor. The myth of creation was considered a fact until it was 100% proven to be a joke. Religious fanatics killed people for speaking the truth, don't pretend it didn't happen.
@@flashgordon6670 Hey, you Copy-paste queen, can you actually come up with another text instead of this same BS over and over again that has been fed into your head by creationist know-nothings? If not then please follow your own advice and rest your case. I. e.: Shut up!
This channel and its hundreds of thousands of viewers make me cry humbled by the intelligence of some people and the vastness of space time and beyond, and gives me honest hope for humanity.
These back hole jokes...
You really can't escape them.
I really love this channel. I don’t always understand everything but I learn enough to feel like I can appreciate what’s going on. Very cool material and brilliantly delivered. Keep doing what you do!
Great video. The mysteries of deep space can be so awing that we sometimes forget about the riches beneath our feet. After this introduction to earth chronology, I would love to dig more into earth evolution, how it came to be what it is today and how it went from inhabitable to comfy for beings like us that breathe oxygen. It might be out of the scope of your channel, but I'm sure it'd be very interesting nonetheless...
PBS has another show, which covers such topics! Maybe it was PBS "eons"? I might be off, but PBS definitely has a channel for that topic
@@wicked5999 Oh I see!! Thank you, I didn't know that! I'll go binge that side of TH-cam for a while then haha.
this mad lad just said "OG patches" in a PBS educational video.
you're my hero
I think you’re out by 3 months. But we won’t split hairs over it.
As professor Scott Steiner put it, "the numbers don't lie! "
2 months 27 days, 16 hours, 24 minutes & 11 seconds.. 12 seconds.. 13 seconds.. you get my drift
The Earth is much older than anybody thinks. Many high technology societies much greater than ours is not. The Sphinx was one of the most recent periods.
the "big bang" could have been the higgs field dropping from a higher energy state.
That's very speculative but possible. Much more research is needed.
@@dankuchar6821 i cant think of a more logical answer. prob no way to test it :(
the sniper would be cool though!! and you never know! :)
That's just a bunch of sciency-sounding words jumbled together.
@@josephbrandenburg4373 lol
Meanwhile, there are still these goofballs from the Dark Ages whining about how the world is only a few millennia old and all.
So going by likes 1 out of 11 people are Young Earth Creationists... Still an improvement from a few decades ago I guess...
This is exactly the kind of question that make great minds hunt for those nearly impossible answers. Imagine knowing for certain all the processes Earth went through to become what it is.
Archimedes already assumed the Earth must have been molten, because the sphere is an equilibrium shape for a liquid world.
"-1/2 pt Watch your SIG. FIGS !" - brilliant!
Our Earth is 4.5 billion years old and it comprises materials in existence 4.5 billion years ago. Now, we know that Stars, upon their death, create new elements and that today we know of 118 elements. So for 4.5 billions years stars have continued to die and produce ever new and more fantastic elements than we can imagine and we will never know what they are. WOW!!!!
and how did stars form ??? gases do NOT compresses under gravity (they heat up and expand just as much) especially not H and He which were supposedly the only 2 elements right after the suggested big bang.
@@thewaytruthandlife Dear TheWay, you are a wackadoodle. Matter coalesces and mass forms gravity? Normal stars form from clouds of H and when they die they fuse atoms up to the Iron level. This is basic high school science crap ... where were you? In future please research your thoughts before you start typing and wasting so many peoples time.
@@thewaytruthandlife What the heck is liquid nitrogen but compressed gas ... if any of your grey matter cells actually work then please save them for having a good poo.
Interesting topic.
Fun hearing the comments section.
I don't know, how do you explain the bones of the Jesusarus Rex?
You actually are so ignorant to think Jesus never existed?
What bones? He has risen. He has risen indeed.
@@genxfour0four222 cringe. Humans worship something no matter what and u choose scientism. sad.
A mere suggestion/idea. It would be cool to go back and show a timeline of new discoveries or confirmations since Space Time has been on TH-cam. The first image of a black hole is arguably the most significant, but there have been other things that have been observed/detected since postulated about in prior Space Time Journal Club episodes, etc. A follow-up with updates regarding those theories would be enjoyable. Sometimes I'll watch a Space Time video from a few years ago and realize that there have been new breakthroughs in those subjects since then. Neat stuff.
The early Christians were Jews. It was at the Council of Jerusalem, 50CE that "Christians" decided that it would no longer be necessary to circumcise converts. St. Paul, the effective founding CEO of Christianity, wrote in the New Testament that the Book of Genesis' story of Abraham's sons is "allegory/ figuratively" [Galatians 4:24]. In the 5th century CE Saint Augustine wrote that he "could scarcely keep from laughing" when hearing "idiotic" creationists claiming the the Book of Genesis is a literal account of creation:
1,500 years ago he wrote this about creationists:
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.
With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation."
Thanks for reminding me who wrote that.
Couple of years ago I showed that to some creationist who didn't accept evolution, but it never worked, he continued to believe the nonsense in Genesis.
Perhaps ‘St Augustine’ would have stopped laughing if he’d seen an accurate understanding of Genesis Chapter one that harmonises with the findings of science.....
wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101985013
@@warrenrae32 Nah, he wouldn't. St. Paul, author of 28% of the New Testament, wrote in the New Testament that:
Christ brought a new covenant [Gal. 3:17]; that the old covenant contained an allegory [Gal. 4:24]. And "if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. ... In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." [Heb 8]
Great video. I've been really annoyed recently at ppl arguing that the earth is 6k years old, the young earth creationist hypothesis. They seem to misunderstand or purposely misrepresent our scientific understanding of our planet.
Me too. And I’m a bible believer.
In contemplating this issue, I think things like “if” God created things, why would an infinite God who exists in a place where time is not relevant because it doesn’t exist for God (who in part said we are to love God with our whole minds) be resigned to be so limited by time that the things we KNOW to be true have to be dismissed from the mind in order to believe in God?
In my way of thinking, God’s early mandate to humans to ‘subdue the earth’ is what drives humans to investigate and pursue science to begin with because it is a cultural (social?) unconsciously passed trait that rides on tradition not dna.
So the ‘joke’ is fine but I think the suppositions are stereotypes regardless of how true they ring.
@@fishhuntadventure it's a really interesting point relating the command to subdue the earth and humans curiosity/thirst for understanding. I had not really thought of that before.
@@fishhuntadventure Except we don’t “KNOW” anything about the age of the universe and the Earth. The Bible is clear that the earth was created during a 24hr day and that 7 days concluded all of creation.
@@krisjones4051 it's not clear at all and it does not mention hours. The Bible you've read is a translation, and some things might have been lost in translation.
Even the order of events is completely wrong. In Genesis, Earth is created first, with the Sun and other stars after. We know, in reality, that other stars came first, then our Sun and then the Earth. The Bible is factually wrong, if you view it was a textbook.
@@imarchello Wrong-if you know Hebrew or have studied the significance of the directly translated Hebrew, then you would know that Genesis 1 as well as Genesis 7:11 mean literal 24hr days. One of the Hebrew words for “day” is _yom_ and it is used 2,301 times in the Old Testament. Outside of Genesis 1, yom plus a number (used 410 times) almost always indicates an ordinary day, i.e., a 24-hour period. The words evening and morning together (38 times) also most often indicate an ordinary day.
And the passage you’re referring to concerning the order of creation is not “wrong,” just because you decided to erroneously view it as a textbook. It’s a non-fiction narrative which simply describes the process of universal formation day by day. *How* this occurred exactly is unknown and even scientists do not know *for sure* how the solar system was formed, they can just make the most educated guesses available. If the earth was created at a time separately from the rest of the universe by God, then how could you possibly dispute that? It could have been created locally in the primordial solar system prior to the sun ever being created using the same basic building materials. Again, the Bible is not a textbook which answers “How,” it simply tells a _story_ of what happened.
Also i can fully appreciate eternity, because b4 i lived i already did my time in eternity waiting to be born. Thats why death/eternity holds no fear, as i already did that to get here - done all this b4.
that’s deep
They missed out Clair Patterson completely! He's the guy who came up with the 4.5 billion year number
I wish carbon 14 levels were constant! It would have made my geochemistry class a lot easier 😂 Instead we had to apply a correction curve to narrow down the age to several bumps in a probability curve. Then we would use the principles of stratigraphy, dendrochronology, and the like to compare other samples we collected and dated from the same area but in different rock layers or tree ring to further narrow down the result. Not to mention that these correction curves are constantly being refined! But hey, who said science was easy.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_calibration
Then use a different radio isotope?
Oh! Thank you so much for telling us about the painting! Somehow I missed this q&a :D It's riveting and i spend every video you filmed in front of it, looking at all the shades of gold :)
Combining this episode with the last one: is there any way to calculate the age of a black hole?
I don't think..blackholes have only three property mass charge and rotation..I don't see anyway of calculation of age of a blackhole by any of them
There are many ways to estimate the age of a black hole based on objects around it (for instance, look a supermassive black hole's size and nearby galactic density and compare that with computer models for black hole growth) but I don't think there's any way in current physics to estimate an age based just on the black hole itself. Like Rhisav says, black holes only have those three properties, and none of them says anything directly about age.
@@rhisavbora2975 I think you could try to estimate the age of a black hole by first determining the mass, charge, and angular momentum that a black hole is likely to form with. For example, we could look at the masses and angular momenta of black holes produced in a supernova.
Then we could model how those properties would change over time. For example, we might work out how much mass or net angular momentum do we expect a black hole to accumulate from random collisions based on their positions within a galaxy.
Then we could compare each black hole we observe to our model. If it fits the model, then we'll have an estimate for its age. That estimate may come with large error bars or low confidence, but it is an approach.
If you run into a black hole that doesn't fit the model, (too much angular momentum compared to its mass, mass outside of the normal range, etc), then you can assume that they were either formed in a way you haven't predicted, or underwent some sort of event that removes it from the model.
For example, two colliding black holes formed from similar stars will have about twice the mass you'd expect to find, and possibly much higher angular momentum.
Unfortunately, it's entirely possible that your model wouldn't be accurate enough to date any black holes younger than the age of the universe, so maybe it wouldn't work. I don't know. Just an idea.
On top of what everyone else said, age is kind of a meaningless concept with black holes. Sure we can say it's "such and such years old" from our own local time, but from any perspective meaningfully closer to the singularity, it'll age more and more slowly. Furthermore, inside the black hole, not a moment has gone by.
Don't black holes do a bunch of weird stuff with time?
The Hindu time measurements doesn't just stop at the day of bramha ... There is the year of bramha and then the life of bramha and then there are a number of bramha(s) before the current one and there would be more in the faaaar future ......
Please correct it ... If you know about this more and you think I'm wrong ...🙏🙏🙏
Ancient hindus learned everything directly from gods themselves. Thats why i always pray
@@vve2059 one thing to notice is that.... It is first time in my life that whenever I mention the supremacy in knowledge/science that our ancestors had ... Someone from the community of "peacefuls" began trolling me for that....
I guess those peacefuls are allergic to knowledge/science that's why they aren't here ...
Want to know about about the Universe and everything? Draw a circle with white chalk on a white chalk board and search for the begining and the ends of the circle and the boundaries it surrounds?
expectation: sience-y history video w/a side of maths
*starts video; learns about religious epistemology
me: "wtf I love applesauce now"
To be fair, almost all of our science came from religion until just a few centuries ago. At least, from the West.
@@SlimThrull well our understanding came from religion until a few centuries ago, but I wouldn't call it "science" due the definition requiring experimentation to observe the natural world. besides, once we started doing science, most religious views of how the world and everything worked became obsolete
@@gigafuq8751 It may not have been science in the terms we think of it today, sure. But Copernicus and Galileo were both pat of the church. A good deal of our understanding of how the solar system works i based on what these two discovered..
Big words there. I like applesauce too lol
@@SlimThrull it's true that they were christians in their time, but to say their work and observations come from religion itself is a stretch. saying that science itself comes from religion (not the people, the belief and mythology) is an even bigger stretch
Those people from 100s of years ago were so smart, none of the information we enjoy, yet they got so close to answers
The big problem with using Genesis chapters 1-11 to calculate the age of the earth (chapters 5&11, genealogy) is that that stuff was allegory and not meant to be taken literally. Also there were gaps in those genealogies, the numbers represented time between tribes and not ages, and there's every chance that those numbers were there fore spiritual reasons and not math ones. Also, young-earth creationism is hurting the gospel message and I want it to stop. There is no (zero) conflict between faith and science, some people just like pretending like there is. The internet keeps this imaginary conflict alive. It needs to stop. I want it gone. Smart Christians are the quieter ones. Bishop Ussher was an idjit that didn't know what he was doing and couldn't get anything right. Old-earth creationism is the future of creationism and that's where we are headed now. RTB with Dr. Hugh Ross is the way to go. That's where the truth is at. That's what smart Christians should follow. I trust the current science and now both the Bible and science (big bang theory) points to a beginning of the universe and that is all that matters.
I'll be praying.
Great video, keep up the good work. God bless.
Have a nice day/night.
-------------------------------------------------------- sincerely a nerdy Christian.
I don't mean to be THAT guy, but as a once-believer of 20 years, there is absolutely a disagreement between science and faith. The two are irreconcilable.
The creation account given in Genesis is contradicted by the very evolution of organisms on Earth. Even taken in allegorical terms, there are numerous times this creation account is re-told in later books, in a seemingly less-allegorical sense.
If there is a god, his guiding hand is not obvious. Even if there IS one, how could ANY of our religions, obvious fabrications of mortal beings made only in the last 12,000 years (less than a blink to the universe), come anywhere CLOSE to comprehending, let alone explaining an omniscient/omnipotent/omnipresent immortal deity?
@@mgmg116 ::
RTB has reconciled those supposed non-contradictions with the two-books method of Bible interpretation. Also, have you heard of general revelation? And RTB also has their testable creation model to help with the science. RTB just needs to find a way of getting it thru peer review, which will take some time. RTB has only been around since 1986, give them some time. Have a nice day/night.
I like you
mgmg And what evidence is there for macroevolution? As far as I know, there are still massive holes in the theory-and the reason why it is a theory is because it is a scientific theory that could possibly be observed (unlikely, as far as we have seen) while creationism is supernatural and thus cannot and should not be explained by science. In other words, it is the best "observable" explanation we have. And if we get a major contradiction, then we revise, edit, throw it out, or what-have-you. Creation-something from nothing-is not something we can observe. Now, we do have scientific laws like for thermodynamics and conservation of energy and conservation of matter that says: as far as we can observe, this does not happen. But we cannot apply that thinking to creationism because if we cannot observe it, using implication, it can mathematically and logically follow that our conclusion is true (F=>T is T) and it does not mathematically and logically follow that our conclusion is false (F=>F is F). That is, if we did not observe creation, then creation exists; this is logically true. It is logically false to say that if we did not observe creation then creation does not exist; this is logically false.
I have also learned that macroevolution is contradictory to the age of the earth because it would have taken too long-more than 4.5 Byr. I just haven't seen anything logical, and the question still is, how did it all get here in the first place? Evolution doesn't answer that question. It also does not answer, with logic and purpose, how microbes and other organisms said to which we "came from" exists to this day! And we all know from Pasteur's experiment that abiotic things cannot make biotic things.
And so, to discuss your last paragraph, I don't think that I can convince you that there is a God. You have to believe that and trust that for yourself, and I truly think that every human soul has a desire for purpose and for meaning. If there is no God-if there is no justice or hope-what, really is the point of life. The luckiest of us live 80 or 90 years, all for nothing... for us to be forgotten. The less fortunate may not even live past 10 years. The hopeless mindset is dark and gloomy-I don't want to live that way. Is there no punishment for evil and no reward for good? And what, even, is good anymore? Without some acknowledgement of a divinity, we lose our humanism. In that sense, aren't we just like every other animal that came and went?
Ergo, if you choose to maintain that hopelessness and deny your humanity, what then, are you? You have decided that all is nothing and that all that must be known is held by you-and that makes you into a divinity, yes?
Everyone, worhsips something. The true Christian worships the Holy Trinity, the greedy banker worships money, the Hollywood star worships fame, the Muslim worships Allah and the atheist worships himself.
Finally, we don't really know how long humanoids have been on this earth-we only know when they developed a written language. We have been finding skeletons and fossils of humanoids dating back millions, if not, billions of years! So, it is very possible-and if not more possible than evolution-that humans were created. Perhaps not in this form, which could have been microevolutionarily morphed, but in some type of humanoid form-definitely not a fish or a microbe? All that we can do is guess-and when that guess is no longer plausible, we find something else. But a scientific guess will never rule out the supernatural, and they can never contradict each other because they have nothing to do with each other.
@@sheeniebeanie2597 ::
I couldn't have put it better myself, thank you.
As always totally awesome episode! I would like to see an episode focused on what happens if a stellar mass black hole collides wish a super massive black hole and what happens to the circularity of the stellar mass once adsorbed by the super massive?!?!
This comment section is filled with delusional young earth creationists.
You've got no proof for your delusion. Dating methods are huge extrapolations. Recorded history goes back only 3500bc in Mesopotamia, where genesis mentions the first people. There is nothing before that. There is proof everywhere of the great flood. Open your eyes.
@@rexxx777you are deluded beyond repair
@@AwfulnewsFMI believe you're deluded.
@@rexxx777where did you even get that info from??
@zgamez129 which part? Recorded history or the flood?
This planet was billions of years old before it became Earth.
You said a while ago you'd explain why DELAYED CHOICE QUANTUM ERASER is "not so mysterious". Please say more, I just cannot imagine a way out of this dilemma, and it keeps me awake at night.
And that's a good thing, isn't it? If it keeps you awake at night, you must have grasped the concept!
5:45: He said "low" but meant "slow"
I win, I'm smarter than Matt
I wonder sometimes that if the reason the universe is so large is not because of natural processes but one where it is large to keep us from seeing far enough to find out something we aren't meant to know. I'm sure this has been wondered before as everything I think of has been long been brought up before. But, there it is. I just thought of it.
cool thought bro
Ah. Finally a video that I can give as an answer to some people who lean towards magical world view while telling me scientists don't know how old the Earth is. I don't have time or energy to explain them in how many ways they are wrong and how flawed their magical "logic" is but this will do it.
It’s mind blowing how people in this age can still believe in religious books like bible , Quran or vedas.
Science is based on observation and testing. Science does not apply here. It's all speculation and theories, no facts.
@@rexxx777it’s not. You appear to have no clue what science is actually about. Go back to school.
@peteconrad2077 so what is science about then? If you can't test and observe then how can you be sure about anything?
@@rexxx777 science can be experimental or observational. But you don’t have to observe the phenomenon directly. You can find evidence of it.
I presume you accept the existence of the sun? Yet your only evidence for it is your detention of light that left it 8 minutes before.
Likewise you can look at a tree ring and see when it first TRE even tough it was before you were born.
You can also see when rocks formed and the universe became transparent and that it started from a dense point because you can see the evil of that.
Always funny to hear English speakers pronounce Kant's name. Both the British and Americans seem to pronounce it like their respective versions of "can't", while the German pronunciation is pretty much indistinguishable from the C-word. So while it would be very easy for them to pronounce it correctly, it is kinda understandable they don't want to. :D
No-one:
Young Creationist: this is a hoax
Race and IQ are linked
@@JohnSmith-ik8nt Nope, we're all homosapiens (the scientific name for our modern human species) and everyone on earth is one and the same species and all of our brain structures are all formed the same. It is only a matter of cultures and what people are taught that really determines the IQ of an individual. IQ and race are therefore not linked. It's the surrounding environments and what people are taught that determines the intelligence of an individual, the skin color of a person has nothing to do with one's intelligence.
Brahma is probably watching Netflix and forgot to turn off the earth for the night
Let me guess 75% of the people commenting are angry Christians
Some of us just believe in higher power doesn't mean we religious
You can believe in God and an old earth!
CAN
IN reality you would have to be pretty dumb to believe in god
@@olivercharles2930let me ask you this, we know life and the universe functions in certain ways based off of all of our available evidence and means of measuring it, but why is it that way. Why did we evolve when statistically it was near impossible, why were any of us born when competing with millions of other sperm cells, why does gravity function the way it does? I see God as the chaos in the universe. Every theoretical and every chance up to fate is him. That’s how we’re we were able to become the species we are today, his hand guiding us over millions of years. Of course, you are free to believe what you want to, but this is my view
Which religion teaches that god took eons to do something?
Who needs school when you can watch Spacetime with Professor Matt
Complete rubbish.
Why?
If the heat of Earth is maintained by the radioactive radiation in the core, why the moon is not similarly hot? I thought the cores of the Earth and the Moon are quite similar originating out of the primordial collision. What do we know about the moon core structure and composition?
The moon is smaller and volume (which contains radioactive material) changes with radius different relative to surface area (which can radiate away energy).
moon.nasa.gov/inside-and-out/composition/overview/ relevant for moon composition