How the Universe Works

How the Universe Works

2010, Science  -   165 Comments
Ratings: 8.48/10 from 65 users.

How the Universe WorksHave you ever wondered exactly how our Universe is put together? How is it built? And how it actually works? This is ultimate guide to the Cosmos will show as never before the inner workings of our planet, the Solar System, the galaxies and the Universe itself.

This series investigates the nuts and bolts of our cosmos, exploring a whole range of fascinating celestial phenomena and how they came to be the way they are.

Experts and mind-blowing CGI, take viewers under the celestial hood to tell the greatest story of all – the story of how we and everything around us began.

Big Bang. A detailed explanation of the Big Bang Theory. Professor Michio Kaku & other colleagues explain what happened billionths of a second after the BB through to what might happen at the universes end.

Black Holes. The origins of one of the most mysterious forces in the Universe, Black Holes. How Black Holes are instrumental in the evolution of the Universe itself and how Black Holes can destroy whole galaxies or create them. It also covers Hypernovas, Gamma Ray bursts, Super Massive Black Holes and Quasars.

Alien Galaxies. In this episode scientists like Michio Kaku talk about the estimated 200 billion galaxies in the known Universe and explains where galaxies came from, how they work, what's their future and how they will die.

Extreme Stars. Michio Kaku explains the different types, how they are born, what they are made of, how they will die and find out how all life & matter in the Universe as we know it ows its existence to the stars.

Supernovas. Different types of supernovas, what the secret ingredient is that gives a star the power to supernova and why all matter in the universe owes its existence to them.

Extreme Planets. The different types, why there are different types, how they are formed, how many scientists have discovered and what makes them so different when they are made out of the same star stuff. Find out what makes the Earth so unique and what the theory is behind a gas giants magnetic field.

Alien Solar Systems. See actual pictures of solar system being born, see our solar system from its start to its inevitable end and learn about why Neptune & Venus seem out of place and the theory of how they came to be where they are today.

Alien Moons. The secret worlds of our solar system. Discover where other life may exist and how, where the largest eruptions take place, where are the largest oceans and the coldest temperatures. Find out why each moon has its own personality and how they help stabilize the plant they orbit. One of the most puzzling questions of all is answered, why does Saturns moon Tritan orbit backwards and what is its destiny?

More great documentaries

165 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Just watched "How the Universe works" about Supernovas. Question - since the supernova produces a huge shockwave that transverses across the universe, wouldn't that shockwave disrupt some of the asteroids in the our asteroid belt and potentially direct those inwards towards our planet?

    1. most are far away and we live in the quiet zone of your galaxy.

  2. I like these documentary

  3. Some peoples or so called scientists' "facts" aren't FACTS at all but just observations they have misinterpreted. Any such thing should be properly titled: UNCERTAIN THEORY/s OF HOW THE UNIVERSE WORKS.

    For instance, other theories, which seem to be better theories of planetary movement, etc. don't require a black hole fix to explain holes in the prevailing dogmatic theory indoctrinated into so many. See "The Principle" a documentary found elsewhere regarding the Copernican principle. It shows several cosmologists questioning what they thought they knew based on more recent measurements.

    Further, if we have an ocean tide that goes in and out, who is to say that it is a FACT that the universe is continually expanding? Who is to say that it won't be contracting at some point? Such as revolving around some uneven elliptic where it will appear to compress when it gets to another or the other side of the elliptic?

    Are we to believe that the particles in atoms revolve. That planets revolve around the sun. But the galaxies don't revolve around anything but just continually expand outward? Hogwash. We are but microbes on a flea on a dog's back. Totally unaware of the path that the dog takes from its food bowl to its resting place and back again, and how many eons that may take.

    Or earth may simply be at the epicenter as the newer more extensive measurements are now showing, causing cosmologists to rethink many things. How can that be when we were told all these years that we were an insignificant non unique planet in an back water galaxy? How do they know?

    They didn't know. But it was beneficial to the Powers That Be to make you think your life and everyone else's is insignificant. And therefore you should sacrifice those lives "for the greater good" which simply means "give all power and be subservient to corrupt collectivist govt ruled by sick godless pedophiles" who want you dead but not before stealing all your money, labor, and energy.

    Question everything. Is the earth a sphere? Prove it. Don't rely on other's claims. Do your own version of the Rowbotham Experiment. It isn't difficult. If you stand on a 500 ft elevation hill and can see the lights and buildings in a town 40 miles away that are less than 560 feet tall including elevation, which should be on the other side of the claimed curvature horizon... then maybe you should disbelieve more things you were indoctrinated with in school and the media. For those that can't fathom that, do the experiment along the seashore or across a lake or bay. However, if you are at waters edge that 40 mile distance would now require an object to be taller than 1060 feet, to be seen; if the earth is curved as claimed. No, instead just sit there, tell yourself you are smart, that would be much preferred to being wrong, in believing teachers (having faith in lies called "science"), rather than testing with trigonometry.

    So many are just too chicken to challenge what you think you know and are just content to be filled with what BS you are told. And your ego desires to not be wrong about accepting folly, so will defend it. Why would they lie? What is gained by such lies? Yes, a great question, why indeed! Ask that of everything and you should get your answer.

    1. We think we think

  4. i dont have to watch this video to know the truth is was dog i mean god lmao sorry i had to go there

  5. I agree with princeton below.
    Redshift being a marker for distance from us has been adequately disproven.
    Lookup galaxy NGC 7603 where you can clearly see a large spiral galaxy connected to a smaller mass of stars by a "bridge" where all three objects have completely differing redshifts when they should all be relatively the same.

    The whole "everything from nothing Big Bang Theory is based on redshifts and the alternative is that the Universe is infinite. There is no "edge" and time didn't just "begin" 14 billion years ago. The Big Bang Theory is ridiculous and there is strong science refuting it.

    1. If those three masses orbit one around the other and if we are near the plane of those orbit, the orbital speeds, added or subtracted to the expansion speed would result into differential redshifts.

      This being said I feel that we are immensely far away from a final explanation of the Universe.

    2. gosh, where might I find this strong science refuting it? in all my travels I have yet to see it anywhere. no library, book or documentary I have observed refutes tjhe big bang. please share your ubiverse shattering proofs . . .

    3. Theory is just that "Theory". There are many out there.

  6. Graphics are nice but be proud of this information if it was the truth. The standard model is a lie. And they just make things up as you uncover each lie. something unknown is not an explanation for their theories observable incorrectness. The electric universe does however explain things in experimets observable to us here on earth. It doesnt help us to make up stories that you cant prove especially when the answers really have answers provable. I thought thats what science was?

  7. As a nut who has always been obsessed with learning as much as possible especially when it comes to the art of science and our Universe which most likely isn't the only one and is filled with fascination and always something for the humans to learn from. I have been so happy to have the ability to access both Discovery HD and The Science Channel where this program is broadcast. There is so much to feed the brain which in my case is always hungry. My job with Dish Network takes me out of town quite frequently but I do have the ability to access my favorite learning channels through my iPad and a simple Sling Adapter. In my opinion it's a pretty cool thought to know I am associated with a company responsible for helping to get brain food out to the public and the HD quality is brilliant and far superior to other providers. This means a lot to me due to the fact that with all there is to learn it's wonderful to have the clarity of computer generated graphics enhanced with HD giving everything an amazing touch.

  8. why doesn't the video work in fact i find 4 of ten videos dont work and the same error message ( an error occur please try again later )
    anyone knows how to solve this problem ???

  9. I hate it when it says blocked by copygrounds in my country.

  10. you can get the documentary on the isohunt site,and all the other parts..enyoj

  11. Discovery UK is really on the ball. They took down so many docs lately :( This one looked awesome too..

  12. It looks like it would be a good documentary, if it was actually on this site.

  13. Ha,Ha, makes sense, horny taychon's, Its a "hot" universe ain't it? Well, except space, 3 degrees above absolute zero kelvin.

  14. @Vlatko

    It seems that there is another side to you....

  15. @Locky

    Here's an unorthodox shot, Due to expansion ecceleration it’s the pressure of the increasing propagation of photons on any mass.

  16. hey there! love the series
    I have one question about gravity if someone would be so kind to answer...
    How does gravity start in the 1st place? i don't understand why rocks(asteroids) colliding with each other can start gravity....

    1. ... see Big Bang and if that doesn't do it for ya - then see Meta Physics - (been around awhile} and if that doesn't work I would try the Rolling Stones (as old as it gets) Gotta love - Mick.

    2. Nobody truly knows. There are theories that say something like "gravity is a force (in the form of gravitons) that leaks through from another dimension" but that is just a theory. Last I heard, it is in no way compatible with the other three forces. Anyone else able to chime in?

  17. For me, first three parts of the episode 1 are blocked by Discovery UK... long and sad booooo for them. Copyrighting knowledge in a world that more and more lacks it is not a nice move... i@#$%^ of all kinds are spawning like rabbits, why helping the process...

  18. I have noticed that there are several BB theories floating around, hopefully soon one will become fact....... for a while.
    1. Creation from nothing, the singularity model of the universe created from a single point.
    2. Big bounce, the universe expands and contracts in cycles
    3. The end of one universe starts the next universe (time and space break down due to no mass and explode as it thinks its small)
    4. Universes are built inside blackholes
    5. Universes are created at the point of membrane conjuncture
    6. The universe is a waveform and can be explained mathematically by string theory....... (no I cant explain)
    Until one is proven everything else is just guessing

  19. feck... not much of an 'Open' University. buggers have blocked the video on grounds of copyright.

    whatever happened to love of just letting people appreciate such educational work. the worlds going to hell i tell ya.

    ah well.. at least they got good burbon down there. ha

  20. I will never forget the first time I heard “All thing were made form nothing.” I was six years old (quite sometime ago) the teacher was a mere wisp of a woman, a five foot tall Nun.

    Now I have very much different ideas concerning what “Nothing” may be. Consider that all those photos provided by cosmologists appear basically in two dimensions. Seeing them in four dimensions and added sensory augmentation would startle many. Seeing Galaxies as toroidal spirals traversing space/time at phenomenal speeds, drawing in incalculable quantities of mass and ejecting even more incalculable jets of energy from their (only for reference) north and south poles boggles the mind.

    The suns, planets and much smaller objects exhibit similar properties of different energy exchanges of electro-magnetic and gravitational properties (are they different or polarities of the same phenomena) unseen without sensory aids or imaginary augmentation. These properties extend to the infinities, the very large and the very small (self limiting infinities or not).

    Our sensory organs only allow perception within their limits to enable our existence within our environment. But this is only the perceived environment, a translation of the actual forces producing what we call reality. The senses are made of the same material (stuff) used to experience it also interesting. We have never really observed any of the ongoing reality with the possible exception of its violation.

    We bring with us our own views (prejudices) objective and subjective. We start from there and extrapolate. We experience the probability waves collapsed in time and space but they are only stationary to our perception and that perception lags the actual encounter, again interesting.

    (From and for the string theorists view…) Oscillations of varying frequencies, amplitudes and structures combining (this is the stuff of nothing) to produce other structures consisting of the same properties mentioned yielding Quarks in values of thirds never yielding one (the value) in various states of spin.

    They accrete in the void to such a mass that the energy cannot be contained (singularity) and explode, the first moments of space/time. While shattering some produce momentary blips in space/time that spin off existing for varying lengths of (our) time before spiraling of into nonexistence producing the same visual properties of spiral galaxies.

    During this phase protons, electrons and neutrons remain stable and single proton and electron pairs appear and produce hydrogen atoms inflating into the newly created space/time. This process prior to the nucleosynthesis era also produce deuterium via the acquisition of a single neutron (although momentary) to finally (after some cooling below 3 billion Kelvins) become stable.

    Now all this has to accrete into large gaseous masses. The now stable deuterium allows the fusion of four hydrogen atoms into helium setting the stage for star production.

    The mass attains enough energy (heat) to begin fusion and produce lithium and beryllium (the easy stuff) and then finally burn enough energy to collapse and go nova all producing heavier elements.

    The process continues forming heavier elements completing our current chart in particular carbon. Finally (only speaking of the present) the various suns and planets accrete evolve, produce molecules, they produce amino acids, they combine produce life, animal and vegetable then finally us to wonder at it all.

    I hope through brevity and understatement I didn’t miss any process. The review of this always leaves me with a divided mind: 1. (Peggy Lee circa 1950) – if that’s all there is my friend, then let’s keep dancing and break out the booze and have a ball and 2. Wonder – the complete rejection of Ms. Lee’s lament.

  21. @ DonDon

    I wasn’t referring to what the matter in the universe is traveling through. Besides matter in the universe has gravity to contend with which could be considered resistance to motion.

    great point , was just the first thing that came to mind when reading your post , perhaps the early explosion avoided gravity with something similar to an escape volocity ... (if there even was a bb in the first place )

    you guys all have great ideas and i enjoy reading them keep up the good work :)

  22. I'm always stalking the science section. Can't wait for more.

  23. Thanks Vlatko
    sorry was miffed about the Bullsh*t download. Your advice worked. I appreciate
    your work and it is a great site. I became a documentary junkie and you are my new connection. I buy them also, I also teach and this puts new tool in my teach bag.

  24. Great Site. Love this documentary collection.

    After reading these threads I'd have to say DonDon might be absolutely right. If you consider gravitational redshift. I just goggled it. It may validate everything he said.

  25. Is anyone else getting this kind of messages, while trying to play certain videos in the playlist ?

    "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Discovery Uk."

    "This is a private video. If you have been sent this video, please make sure you accept the sender's friend request."

    1. Ok this doc has been fixed... for now.

  26. If ever try to commit suicide i would definitely jump in a black hole :)

  27. @ Princeton

    I can't get the url to work. I typed in doubleu doubleu double dot and then what you had, no go. What am I doing wrong? OH, I see- I didn't take out the spaces- I'll try again.

  28. D@*% it vlatko.. comment in moderation for saying cr@p. ouch! (just kidding.. lol)
    but i was also gonna bring up something interesting I've recently run into about cosmology. seems like electrical engineers have the explanations for what astrophysicists and theoretical mathematicians can't seem to make sense of.
    check out this NASA Goddard presentation by Dr. Donald E. Scott. well worth the watch!
    youtube . com / watch?v=wOI-X215A8Y

  29. sorry but i gotta pull this quote from wiki.

    "attempts to extend the Standard Model with gravitons have run into serious theoretical difficulties at high energies (processes with energies close to or above the Planck scale) because of infinities arising due to quantum effects (in technical terms, gravitation is non-renormalizable). On the other hand, the theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible at such energies, so from a theoretical point of view the present situation is not tenable."
    well since we're on the weird stuff.

    i always thought gravitons were a bad idea. imagine throwing rocks (discreet particles) at something, but somehow that object comes closer to you as a result. it would seem from a layman's take on things, that the only way to get pull (and near instantaneous pull at that) is through some form of tension (like bungee cords) which would lead one to believe all matter is interconnected in such a manner as to create the effect of gravity (more matter = more bungee cords ).. particles being pushed around cannot create this effect (conceptually), but again, just a layman take on things.. i never claim expertise.

    would love to hear some more thoughts.. i am also enjoying the convo.. keep at it dondon.. i cant wait to hear your theory of everything (seriously, i've heard quite a few and they all make more sense than the current mainstream "its hard to imagine, just study decades of math" c@#$) LOL

  30. @DonDon:

    You have more weird stuff, well, knock yourself out, I like weird, bring it on.

    On thing you have to remember is the gravity itself has a speed limit, "gravitons" travel at the speed of light, gravity is not instant, so how does that fit your scenario?

  31. This is a great website. I agree that the conversation here is interesting aswell. I think might have something significant there too DonDon.

  32. was or wasn't rather

  33. @ muke like that huh?

    I wasn't referring to what the matter in the universe is traveling through. Besides matter in the universe has gravity to contend with which could be considered resistance to motion.

    I was referring to what the big bang bang'd into. And how would we know if there was resistance?

  34. Maybe all the matter in the universe was not created but existed as a super massive blackhole that had gorged on all the matter from its universe where the singularity could no longer hold itself together and tore itself a new universe where it could spew its matter into, so the big bang is more like a big implosion or big suck...... Or have I smoked too much weed?

  35. @ achems razor

    yes, thanks for the response.. I personally have a few other qualms with the bb theory.. it pretty much contradicts basic rules of logic and the well accepted laws of thermodynamics which states energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed, yet we have a theory claiming to describe how the universe (literally everything that exists) was created. it has bugged me for a long time and am glad to see recent observational evidence is confirming my suspicions. i think the theoretical physicists and mathematicians are getting a bit ahead of themselves and conflating concepts with real physical objects. but o well, just my amateur, layman take on the subject, I am no expert!

  36. VlatKo, you ROCK!

    And thanks too, for your interesting conversations guys!

  37. @princeton:

    Mainstream astronomers claim the redshift discrepancies does not mean that they are close together, but only coincidentally aligned.

    They also state the Quasars may actually be young, not old.
    That may account for their differences in redshift.

    But, it may very well mean that there was no BB. after all. As "Halton C. Arp" states.

  38. well.. the whole redshift thing has been brought into question by a some reputable physicists and astronomers.
    "Halton C. Arp is a professional astronomer who, earlier in his career, was Edwin Hubble's assistant. He has earned the Helen B.Warner prize, the Newcomb Cleveland award and the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award. For years he worked at the Mt. Palomar and Mt. Wilson observatories. While there, he developed his well known catalog of "Peculiar Galaxies" that are misshapen or irregular in appearance.

    Arp discovered, by taking photographs through the big telescopes, that many pairs of quasars (quasi-stellar objects) which have extremely high redshift z values (and are therefore thought to be receding from us very rapidly - and thus must be located at a great distance from us) are physically associated with galaxies that have low redshift and are known to be relatively close by. Arp has photographs of many pairs of high redshift quasars that are symmetrically located on either side of what he suggests are their parent, low redshift galaxies. These pairings occur much more often than the probabilities of random placement would allow. "
    any thoughts?

  39. I miss Carl Sagan. He would be proud.

  40. @ Dondon

    No. But, you came up with some wierd stuff. The thing is we have observed and measured many times what happens to a photon as it travels through space surrounding a star. I referr you again to gravitational lensing. Or, you can keep having fun- I really wasn't trying to be rude or anything. Just because I love science and accept the facts they have discovered doesn't mean that i don't understand "fun". I just have a different idea than you of what fun is. I preferr to accept the facts so i can use them as a base for theories about things we can't observe. If we disagree on the fundamentals, like how light is effected by gravity, we can't really communicate to discuss the real mysteries out there. That said, everyone has a right to have fun as they see fit so have at man. Enjoy yourself brother, you certainly do not need my leave to do so.

  41. 2) I’ve never met an explosion that continued on to infinity :)

    im guessing any explosion you have witnessed occured resistance , idunno just a thought ?

  42. Vlatko,.. if i had a wife i would want her to have your babies

  43. Spontaneous genesis!.

  44. No Vlatko Discovery have blocked half of them :(

  45. The docs are removed bij Discovery UK.

  46. @ez

    and what about you, did i smite the evil demon observed fact?


    Using the poker on the coals :)

  47. @Achems Razor

    So what do you think ....did I smite the evil demon of irrefutable theory :)


  48. P.S.

    I don't like waffles But thanks

  49. Hi guys. Just got back from work. Won't have much time today to post as I have to go back. Thanks for the polite replies. I don't expect anyone to agree with me at this point given the boat loads of apparently irrefutable data and evidence , coupled with many popular theory pretty much accepted universally as fact that is apparently contrary to what I said.

    Something else I didn't expect was everyone to be as polite about their disagreement with what I suggested...thanks.

    I would like to just elaborate a little more on what I said, because I was a little tired last night when I wrote it.

    Here again is what I originally said with a little more elaboration:

    Ok I’m saying that “space that’s being influenced by strong gravity can be considered a different(altered) medium” relative to anything outside that influence. Therefore ANYTHING that travels through this different medium WILL have different relative energy(relative to anything outside that altered medium), relative to what its relative energy was outside the altered medium.

    So for example take a comet. If this comet is traveling through relatively uniform space outside of the influence of and strong gravitational influences, all of it’s relative energies ie. motion, direction(s) and/or velocities should remain relatively constant(relative to anything observing it within that same relatively uniform space.
    If this comet were to travel through an area of space strongly influenced(altered) by gravity( near a star for example), then relative to anything in the space not affected, one or all of the comet’s energy(s) would change. It’s relative motion, direction(s) and/or velocities can be altered.
    Now once the comet leaves this area of altered medium(or simply different medium if you will), back to the relatively uniform space(baseline medium), it may very well return to a similar state of energy it was prior to entering the region. Although it may not. Any or all of its energy(s) i.e. motions, directions, velocities may well have been altered.
    The same is true of anything passing through this gravitational influence(different medium). Given enough gracvity and some other variables this can include a detectable difference with a photon. This is what im saying.

    My elaboration:

    Let me give another example....

    Let's take a number of photons. They are traveling through a relatively uniform consistant medium(normal vacuum space). Call it spacetime1. However, they are traveling in various different vectors(not the same). Now let's say these photons are traveling toward a area in space where there is a large gravitational and or region of great mass where the surrounding space time has been altered. Call this spacetime2.

    Ok now...Let's say after entering spacetime2, some of the photons exiting are now reentering spacetime1 with a different vector from how they entered. How they reenter spacetime1 will depend on various variables such as their angle of entry into spacetime2, the nature of the field shape of spacetime2 etc.

    So now let's focus on the photons that have an altered vector reentering ST1. These particles have had a particular part of their relative energy(s) altered. ie. their relative direction(vector).

    Now let's say these photons that reenter ST1 with the altered vector(s) and travel for a time through st1 space. After distance/time, let's say a light year these particels encounter another region of altered space. For simplification we'll call it ST2 again. Again, after traveling through this 2nd region of st2, photons reenter st1 with another altered vector. And again they travel through another region of st1 for another distance/time.
    Now say this happens again and again and again as a photon travels through billions of light years of space to finally reach us here on earth. Well, now. It appears that this photon has zig zagged its way through normal space to finally reach us. And NOT in a straight line. Therefore traveling a much greater distance(through normal space st1) to get to us than it would have if it did travel in a straight line(if it's vector had never changed). I think it took more time to reach us aswell....

    Thanks again for the forum Vlatko.
    Again, I don't expect any of you guys to agree with me...Im ok with that. And I do appreciate the rebuttle even if it is totally contrary to what I'm saying.

    So again Feel free to slash away brothers :)

    Having Fun Again



    I probably won't have time today to post again but I'll check again when I have time.

  50. I agree, let us boycott the religee troll, I have no use for any of the religions, especially on a science doc.

    Maybe if we do not acknowledge him he will go away!

  51. Aaaaargh! Who let the religious guy in? How can god be created from nothing? Who created god? And why did he create car keys just the right size to fall down drains? Dude, please dont troll scientific sites to preach, your wasting your time.

  52. Man's wisdom(theory) is foolishness to GOD. How can something be created from nothing? Only GOD is the creator of the universe.

  53. @ Dondon

    I have no issue with refuting theory, but you are refuting observed facts. Matter would be effected by traveling through such a space, gravitationally effected. Light would not, it does not respond like normal matter in this case. It would simply travel through the spacetime curvature caused by gravity in a stright line relative to the curve it has encountered. It does not slow it down or change its luminosity, it may bend its path though this is called gravitaional lensing. We in fact can translate the amount it is bent into how much mass it took to bend it in such a way. This is one way we get the total mass contained in a certain region of space- by looking at the amount of gravitational lensing light traveling through that area experiences.

  54. LOL I'm having fun here.

    Ok this is my last post for tonight cause I need to get some ZzZz's....very sleepy...

    Ok I'm saying that "space that's being influenced by strong gravity can be considered a different(altered) medium" relative to anything outside that influence. Therefore ANYTHING that travels through this different medium WILL have different relative energy(relative to anything outside that altered medium), relative to what its relative energy was outside the altered medium.

    So for example take a comet. If this comet is traveling through relatively uniform space outside of the influence of and strong gravitational influences, all of it's relative energies ie. motion, direction(s) and/or velocities should remain relatively constant(relative to anything observing it within that same relatively uniform space.
    If this comet were to travel through an area of space strongly influenced(altered) by gravity( near a star for example), then relative to anything in the space not affected, one or all of the comet's energy(s) would change. It's relative motion, direction(s) and/or velocities can be altered.
    Now once the comet leaves this area of altered medium(or simply different medium if you will), back to the relatively uniform space(baseline medium), it may very well return to a similar state of energy it was prior to entering the region. Although it may not. Any or all of its energy(s) i.e. motions, directions, velocities may well have been altered.
    The same is true of anything passing through this gravitational influence(different medium). Including a photon. This is what im saying.

    I look forward to reading your comments tommorow after work.

    Nice to heare you are taking physics and math Ez.You are probably right to stick with proven theory as opposed to refuting any of the mainstream stuff if you want to be successfull in any of those fields.

    All The Best
    Having Fun
    Love ME!


  55. This is all fascinating but I have a question that will stretch the sinews of your brains to bursting point, a problem so complex the solution will go down in history as the single most fundamental scientific resolution, a concept so extreme only the greatest mind can conceptualise. My question is this - Would anyone like a waffle?

  56. @DonDon:

    On your blog 99 you said light appears to slow down when approaching a black hole, its speed appears to slow down? again I say no, it is time that appears to slow down, not light!

  57. @ Dondon

    I was laughing at the idea of me doing that kind of complicated math, not your idea. I actually thought it was a cool thing to think about, I admitted i had never discovered it before. As far as thinking out of the box, its one thing to be clever or inventive, and a whole other to ignore established fact just for the fun of it. Why hypothesize about things like photons being attracted by gravity? That can easily be proven not to be so. We measure the speed of light in thousands of different situations, its the same always. This proves that gravity has no effect other than a secondary effect through the bending of space time. I am interested in debating theories but not established fact, sorry. Photons being effected gravitationally is not debatable, unless you imagine some vast impossible to achieve conspiracy to keep everyone in the dark or confused about the properties of light. That's just pointless to me, any outcome we arrive at is not valid- it ignores fact. People cite facts and accepted truths for a reason, they reflect reality. No harm though, thanks for the conversation- have fun.

  58. @dondon
    Your hurting my brain. Are you saying that if you travel with a photon the speed of light will stay the same even though the medium changes whereas an observer would see the speed of light change?

  59. Its like reading a book with the final chapter missing, quite annoying...... Vlatko if your listening please fix

  60. Ive watched most of them Ramus...just not all of the most recent installmentof the series

  61. It's important to note that light's "relative" speed and or energy level will be altered. As in when light approaches a black hole from an outside observer it appears to slow down relative to that outside observer. ie it's energy and or speed appear to have been altered relatively....hmmm

    Time for school :)

  62. Guys am i the only one missing parts of these docs? For instance the Planets episode is describing the probe falling into Jupiter when it just stops and moves on to the next episode?? Or are you guys discussing a doc you havent actually watched?

  63. PS

    Looking forward to all of your comments...Slash away brothers :)

  64. @EZ

    again I'll be forced to disagree with you EZ even though you are again quoting some popular theory that's being proposed as established fact. Some that have also been modified several times over the course of the past few years. Again without giving away the theory of everything I'll try to take a stab at why a photons energy can be altered due to gravity.
    Knowing full well you're gonna pull some quote from a recently popularized theory(or maybe not so recent) err established fact rather, to refute what I suggest. ...I personally like to try to think outside the box a bit.

    Here goes...We now accept that the speed of light and its energy is a constant in a constant medium, however we know that this speed can vary in a varying medium and can be different depending on the medium it travels through(something else I pondered long before it was established as fact years ago.). We can see this as redshift due to let's say ....the effect of dark
    Having said that I'll now have to propose that the "altered space" around a body with a larger gravitational influence is also an "altered medium" As a result of anything traveling though the influence of this altered medium, its relative energy (and relative speed)therefore will now become altered aswell relatively. So in the case of a photon during the course of traveling through(escaping its gravitational influence) this altered medium the energy state of the photon or any other object for that matter is altered.

    I trust you'll have some additional pre-established theory err fact you can google and paste here to refute what I propose...but hey that's what all theory needs to stand up against.

    You'll have to excuse me on the expansion effect on redshift since it was a genuine consideration of mine for years. Before it apparently has become another popular theory considered fact. I've honestly never read about. It's ok to laugh at me about it though. Had you actually thought of it before it yourself before it became fact?...Nice!!

  65. In fact now that I check some of the math looks wrong to me, still the theory is accepted. Not sure if by mathemetical proof or some other experiment. Tell you what i better research this better before I use it in this/another arguement, thats in the friendly context. I used to debate we always called ones stance or presentation an arguement. Really I am not comfortable with that arguement because I can't provide the proof, its just what i have always been told and read. I'll get back to you on it. The curvature of sapce time thing, I can let stand. I studied Einstien intensely, there is observational as well as mathematical proof for his relativity theory.

  66. @ Dondon

    Let me make that clearer, I did not do the math in that post. I copied it. Sorry if I mislead anyone for a minute there. I understand the concept but I am no mathematician, though I will be one day. I am currrently majoring in physics. Well, when i declare a major it will be physics this time. I have to figure out what kind of physics though. I have a useless degree right now, in thelology. Useless to make a living anyway, since I do not write. I still like the knowledge though I was/am very interested in the subject.

  67. @DonDon:

    You completely lost me, here is what you said on your blog...(82) and I quote.

    "But I believe even the gravity of a single black hole acting on a photon will effect how the photon is received from almost any distance in the light year range. Now after Billions of years of travel?...and perhaps trillions of other gravitational bodies acting on this particle...someone do the math please!"

    Have no idea what you meant by that then, please inform.

  68. @ Dondon

    One thing you're geting confused about is that gravity does not attract light, it can be affected by gravity though because gravity essentially curves space-time. Since light always goes in a straight line relative to space-time, if it encounters a curvature in space-time it will continue going straight but since space-time is curved, “straight” will be curved as well. In the case of black holes, the curve is so steep that the “straight” path actually spirals down to a single point from the perspective of an outside observer. Hence photons are not slowed down nor do they lose luminosity due to gravity.

    Light has mass like properties but does not have real mass. It struggles to leave the center of the sun for thousands of years because of constant collisions with other particles. The interior of the sun is a seething plasma with a central density of over 100 grams/cc. The actual distance that an x-ray or gamma-ray photon can travel is between 1 centimeter and 1 millimeter. Very approximately, this means that to travel the radius of the Sun, a photon will have to take (696,000 kilometers/1 centimeter)^2 = 5 x 10^21 steps. Now, light travels 3 x 10^10 centimeters/second, so this will take, 5x10^21 steps x 3 x10^-11 seconds/step = 1.5 x 10^11 seconds. Since there are 3.1 x 10^7 seconds in a year, you get about 4,000 years.

    Cool idea about the expansions effect on the redshift. I had never thought of that. I need to get started on the math for that, yeah rigt.(LOL)

  69. @Achems Razor

    I think you misunderstood me somewhere Achem. I Never said I believe the speed of light constant changes in a vacuum...sigh :)

  70. @Achems Razor

    And no Achem I wasnt saying the light will slow down, I just read that No. I think you misunderstood what I was trying to convey.

    Yes The speed of light will remain a constant in a constant.

  71. @DonDon:

    Re-read your posts, they all pointed to how you said the photon may be effected, that to me, meant altering the speed of light, unless I lost something. How else can they be effected?

  72. @Achems Razor

    I dont believe I said anywhere that the speed of light changes.

    I did say that gravitational force acting on a photon can alter/shift the energy of that partical. (eg.Redshift)

    And I think I said that a photon traveling a greater distance will take a greater amount of time to reach a given destination.

    Please elaborate where you think I said that light will travel faster than 186000mps

  73. @DonDOn:

    The speed of light is constant always, unless it is through a medium, but we are talking here of a vacuum-(space). So light speed will remain constant.

  74. @DonDon:

    Again, "no" light will always travel at 186,000 miles per second.

    Einstein's law of relativity!

  75. @Achems Razor

    I was more referring to the energy level of the particle and how it would lose energy breaking free of various gravitational bodies.
    However now that you mention it....light will bend around a larger gravitational source aswell. Be it a star, a black hole, dark matter, whatever. Since the photon will no longer be traveling in a straight line due to the curvature of space around these gravities, and since the shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line....voila you have an increase in the amount of time before the photon is received.

    Seems intuitive to me...what do you think.

  76. @DonDon:

    Any light that is reaching us here on Earth, no matter where it comes from, or what mitigating circumstances, gravity etc: if we can see it it always travels at 186,000 miles per second.

  77. Sorry, meant "slow Down" for the light.

  78. @Achems Razor

    Repost due to bad proof reading :

    Oh hey again Achem. Yes I do mean accumulated gravity brother.

    But I believe even the gravity of a single massive object such as a black hole acting on a photon will effect how the photon is received from almost any distance in the light year range. Now After Billions Of years of travel?... And perhaps trillions of other gravitational bodies acting on this particle……..someone do the math quick! :)

  79. @DonDon:

    I guess you are saying if light will slow and such, if there is light it will always travel at 186,000 miles per second.

  80. @Achems Razor

    Oh hey again Achem. Yes I do mean accumulated gravity brother.

    But I believe even the gravity of a single massive object such as a black hole acting on a photon will effect how the photon is received from almost any distance in the light year range. After Billions if years?........someone do the math quick! :)

  81. P.S.

    I think I need to proof read my posts more before I grammar and speeling is atrocilatious :)

  82. @DonDon:

    Don't know what you mean by "accumulated gravity over a distance of 13+billion light years is gonna be significant" Please define.

  83. Picture water ripples. only they don't stop the ripples keep flowing outward until no more water in the center. then the water flows back to fill the void.

  84. @Epicurus

    Thanks for your reply Epicurus. Very good website indicating the issues of the expanding/stretching of space and the effect it will have on the redshift of light. However there is no mention of Gravity and its affects on light at all. Hmmm.

    We know gravity effects everything. I don't see anywhere in there where gravity is factored in on photons coming from 13 billion light years away. Well...if it gets revised you know where you heard it first :) Wonder if I'd get credit :)

    And Yea I'd definitely be interested in this blog thing you speak of....I've have never blogged or forumed for that matter before :)

    Thanks for the repartee so far....


  85. @EZ; My thought on stretching comes from the fact that objects are not traveling at same speed. But the further from center the object is the faster it is going. That being the case it is would imply that any connective force is being stretched thinner. Kind of reverse vortex where the void is on the outside pulling the core apart. What I imagine is a balance between matter and void. If there is a finite amount of mater/energy than it cannot fill all void. For void to exist at all it implies that it is greater than the total of all mass. Otherwise mass would have already filled it in and stability and uniformity would occur. By having the imbalance you create cycle and flux since void is the driving factor. As the finite mater is drawn outward to fill the external void it eventually crates a central void when supply runs out. once that central void gets strong enough to counter the attraction of the external it rebounds and draws matter inward. None of this, That I know of, is stated in theories out there today. It is just my take by piecing together existing theories. In a way looking beyond what is accepted to whet is yet unknown. I could very well be entirely wrong in my thinking. But hey that's what is so great about the unknown, there is still room for conjecture.

  86. i suggest setting up a TopDocumentaryFilms page on blogtv or stickam so that we can go there and actually have discussions about each documentary in person and in real time. that would be very very cool.

    let me know what you think Vlatko. (of course there would have to be strict rules on politeness and courtesy).

  87. @ Achems Razor

    P.S. And I was going to add that I think accumulated gravity over a distance of 13+ billion light years is gonna be significant... Thanks for the reply brother:)

  88. @ Achems Razor

    Thanks Achem. I knew you knew I meant redshift and it was just a typo :)

    But I'm not so sure this was figured into the high powered

    I have a lot of issues like this with many of the existing popularly accepted as fact theories :)

    Can you say poppycock!...Just joking...I Love science :)

  89. @DonDon:

    Was going to add, the gravity of the Sun is not a significant factor, for the photons to escape the Sun, there are other forces involved.

  90. @DonDon:

    Good post, but I imagine the scientists already figured that out through high powered math.

    Just like they figured out that the universe is speeding up in its expansion, through observing the red shift, but again keep in mind what they observe is already billions+years old, but again by the maths can put it all together to make sense in our real time.

  91. I'm baaaack

    Wow i Just downloaded that WW telescope software Ez suggested. Really cool stuff thanks for that Ez:)

    And I watched the clip Leonardo linked which was definitely cool too. Kinda gives you a jaw dropping moment. Thanks for that too Leonardo :)

    Ok Im gonna throw out a couple of things about BB theory that I'm uncomfortable with. I welcome any insight, interpretation or comment from you physics/science guru's out there.

    With one of my previous posts I indicated my understanding:

    -”Cosmic background radiation”…yep
    -”Galaxies moving apart”….check( but possibly scewed due to our lack of full understanding into the nature of light,the nature of space/time and the nature of how the 2 interact.)
    -”elements form at particular temperatures”….hmm ok given a number of other variables such as gravity, pressure, mass, velocities etc and other things we don’t entirely understand…ok

    I'd like to talk about "the Galaxies moving apart from one another" thing. Here is some of my opinion(and possibly theory/conjecture).Lol

    When I said "possibly scewed due to our lack of full understanding into the nature of light,the nature of space/time and the nature of how the 2 interact" I more accurately mean how light interacts with space/time and all the stuff within space time over vast distances.

    Now I know some are gonna think right away the speed of light is approx. 186,000m/s or 300,000km/s in the vacuum of space, and that it's already established fact and that it's a constant and so on. I know all that but....
    Space is not a perfectly uniform empty vacuum. Let's say that all space is expanding since the BB. And that all viewable objects (galaxies for example) are being separated within that expanding space. Let's suggest like the raisin bread analogy in the "universe" series, where the raisins are like galaxies and as the bread (like space) expands due to the addition of yeast the raisins get farther apart with more space between them. Or we could use the room full of chairs analogy where the space between the chairs increases but the chairs stay the same size and just get farther apart(also "universe" series).
    Ok now if light that was traveling from galaxies, quasars or whatever 13+ billion light years ago was also traveling within a space that was expanding simultaneously(possibly faster than the speed of light) as the light traveling within it, might the expanding space alone not redshift that said light or at least effect it before we recieve it? Scewing the numbers of both the timeline of the birth of the universe, the expansion of space and the velocities at which galaxies are moving away from each other, especially at greater distances in time?
    We know the galaxies aren't and never were moving away from each other anywhere near the speed of light, (due to gravity among other things) as far back as we can see in space/time. However the light coming from that far back was and is affected differently. We know that a photon loses energy as it attempts to to break free of a gravitational force(i.e. a photon escaping the core of the sun). Any photons travelling from 13+billion light years away are certainly going to encounter gravitational forces along the way they will need to contend with to get to us. Will this not reshift or otherwise alter the original state of these photons?

    And so, if these numbers and time lines are incorrect, would it not effect the numbers that are plugged into these big computer simulations that supposedly affirm that all of these BB theories should be accepted as fact? Hmmmm :)

    Thanks again for the stimulating convo guys!

    Please elaborate :)
    Please don't hate :)


  92. One theory is that the results of the BB was created by the cyclical trillion-year collision of two universes. (Definition: three-dimensional Branes plus time)

    That were mutually attracted together by gravity escaping out of one of the universes.

    The universe after the BB is replaced by an already large, flat, and uniform, with dark energy universe. As the effect of the other universe constantly leaking gravity into our own and driving its acceleration.

    The BB was not the beginning of time, but the bridge to a past with endlessly repeating cycles of evolution, each accompanied by the creation of new matter and formation of new galaxies,

    The two Branes, universes like ours. Separated by as tiny as 10-32 meters.

    (Turok and Steinhardt)

  93. @ Reasons voice

    I too like the cyclical nature of the expansion collapse theory, it seems to have a balance inherit in nature. But as far as the expansion causing the big rip, I have never really understood that. What if the expansion is creating more space time fabric as it expands? Would it still eventually exert a force on the center, or cause the big rip? Can you explain to me why, that's not a challenge- I really don't get it. I mean if spacetime itself is being stretched further and further, and not being created around the edges, then I get it. It would be like stretching a piece of rubber until it finally reaches the end of its elasticity (is that even a word?) and rips.

    In a way though the intuitive nature of the expand and collapse cycle makes me think it probably isn't so. The more they find out about the truth of physics and cosmology the more counter intuitive it really seems. Or maybe that's just me not trusting my own instincts, you know being my own worse critic. Quantum theory though is very counter intuitive. Yet it makes the most accurate predictions, the very definition of solid science. The nature of light and electrons being both partgicle like and having the properties of waves is a good example. How can that be, it just boggles my mind. So does the observer effect, if I am saying that right. It is enough to keep me wondering and pullling my hair out forever. Now I know how my mom feels when I tell her the star she is looking at may not even exist anymore, she gets really angry. Thats an odd reaction, isn't it? I don't know why it makes her angry, she will not talk about it. It doesn't make me angry, it blows my mind and makes me want to understand.

    @ everyone

    ez2b12 is now just ez, thats what everyone calls me on this site any way and it is easier. Besides people kept making fun of my nickname, you know ez to be twelve. Thanks for all your comments and inspiration, you guys are all aces in my book.

  94. I still prefer the expansion contraction theory. To me it just makes more sense. True, the universe is still expanding exponetialy, however it has to have finite mass and thus can only be streched so far before rebounding or breaking. To me the concept of central strain makes sense. What I mean is that, with expansion, you create a central point at which the stress of expansion focuses. Most likely the origin point. Once enough negative mass is created by this stain you create void. Void; IE a singularity or black hole occurs which then also spreads outward absorbing mater and causing contraction. Once the void reaches critical mass through absorption it coalesces into and explosive BB again. Cyclical nature just makes more sense to me than linearity. This even would fit with string theory and worm hole theory as that negative mass void may be a massive worm hole thus when the critical mass is reached it does not explode here but within a separate plane. I picture it as an hourglass shape (only because next dimensional imagery is beyond me) except rather than matter pouring through to the bottom globe of the glass it all condenses within the narrows until it passes stability and explodes into the lower sphere.
    I dunno maybe I'm just nuts LOL

  95. @ Leonardo

    Thanks for the link man, that was great stuff. It looks alot like microsoft's worldwide telescope, but it isn't. It was the Uniview software by SCISS. I like this better than ww telescope but it is not free and ww telscope is. If you guys have yet to play with mocrosoft WW telesope you don't know what you are missing, its a free download. I love it and did I mention, its free! You can download guided tours of just about everything you could want to see and hear about, or make your own complete with audio. Oh and one more thing, ITS FREE!! It is kind of intense so you need a good system. I have a pretty hot system and I can not load the asteroids option or things go kinda hay wire. The resolution also takes time to clear up when I zoom in on a planets surface or something, but if you give it just a few seconds its clear as a bell. You guys should try it if you haven't already, after all- yep, you guessed it- ITS FREE!!

    Something else that's really cool is the tilty table demo in conjunction with the Univeiw software. You can see it on youtube, just search tilty table univeiw demo. I love the tilty table thing, I am going to get one if it kills me. I just have to start saving, I'm sure it is expensive. I don't even know if it is available to the general public yet, but as soon as it is- MINE.

    I saw on TEDtalks one time this guy that had this computer you wear around your neck and it hangs in front of your chest. It projects high resolution on to any surface and is totally interactive. You simply use the surface it is projecting on like a touch screen, very cool. This guy could look at an object and tell the computer to scan it, then turn to the wall and project it there. Then he could use the wall like a touch screen and take the object apart or interact with it in a three dimensional space. He could also use it as a phone, the push buttons projected on whatever surface. Of course it would also project a keyboard or you could dictate to it. Very cool, but not yet available. Go to Tedtalks dot com and you can see the demo and lecture. I can't remember the guys name though, I'll try and find it and post the link.

  96. @ Ez2b12

    Morning man :)

    Thanks for your polite and thoughtfull reply bro.

    I have been following many of the newer theories that are out there and I find alot of it very interesting. I don't necessarily agree with all of it but its all interesting to me...( kind of a hobby).

    I do agree with many aspects(theories) of big bang theory, Just not all of them :)

    And I, Like many of the rest of you guys enjoy picking apart existing knowledge and theory in order to come to more refined and accurate knowledge. This is how it's done isn't it? I would enjoy discussing with you guys some more of the stuff in theoretical physics today, especially points of refute :)

    I have to go now for a bit. Hope to speak to you again. :)


    Gotta go for a bit now

  97. @general comment

    I think the entire "universe" Series is informative, inspiring, aswell as entertaining. I think alot of hard work, care and thought went into allowing us the priveledge to watch them.

    I don't think anyone is intentionally trying to undermine the integrity of these docs. But instead simply commenting on an observation and stating a concern that theory (no matter how widely accepted) should not be conveyed as fact.

    Thanks :)

    Love me


  98. @ DonDon

    Morning man, hope you got some sleep. Just wanted to clear some things up about your last post to me. The BB is not an explosion that goes on forever. It was the outside force that started everything expanding. You have to remember in the vacuum of outer space there is no friction and things are almost completely weightless. So if something is pushed one way or the other it will continue to move in that direction for a very very long time. Now eventually it will slow and then stop, this is why we all intuitively thought the universe's expansion would slow one day. But instead it accelerated and they hypothesized dark energy to be the cause of this. You can't compare the BB to an explosion you are familiar with though, it created the entire universe man. Thats one heck of an explosion. The echo can still be heard in the form of the background cosmic radiation, and it happened 14 billion years ago.

    You have to really get into the newer theories out there, like quantum and string theory, inorder to understand them. Once you do though they open many doors to fantastic oppurtunities. I hate to see someone as bright as yourself just disregard them as, what was it "poppycock". My advice is stay away from those that want to make it sound as dramatic and mysterious as possible. They defeat their own purpose and drive many away thinking science has become infested with conjecture and counterintuitive theories. In reality alot of these new theories do make sense, though some do not.

  99. @Epicurus

    Thanks for the well written post Back. As I said I enjoy bouncing stuff off one another.(without disrespect or judgement.)

    Well I'll have to disagree again if I may. Likely to illicit another passionate response no doubt :)

    First of all the way you put this: "and finally, your opinion (when not backed by education in the field) is meaningless(OUCH!). i couldnt say that all those doctors and scientists with their kooky germ theory are all just nuts and the real reason we get sick is because of invisible trolls that curse us at night….its just my opinion though."

    Wow!!!....Hmm I'll assume you aren't trying to disrespect or make fun of me with this statement and comment on it. Note: I don't disrespect people regardless of there opinion(s).

    Ok I'll have to say that I don't think anyone would agree that it's fair to compare "germ theory" and "Big Bang" theory and suggest refuting one is like refuting the other. First germs exist as a matter of fact. And the data and proven facts regarding this area of science are almost innumerable. Suggesting that the BB theory is as accurate, based on as much provable fact and as credible as Germ Theory( which really isn't as much theory as fact now) may seem fair at first glance .....hmm but I don't think its fair. Just my opinion.

    Regarding your comment in your post where you wrote "Theory and conjecture are two very different things.." Seemed to suggest that I said they were the same things"....well only in the sense that both terms in the dictionary(depending on which dictionary and where you look) are partially defined by the term "speculation"....
    Both are things suggested without total proof. Both can be derived from some given fact. And the reason I used both terms is because in the series BOTH have been conveyed. And BOTH add up to exactly the same thing if they are wrong i.e.incorrect speculation. And Im not saying any of the theories are right or wrong in the series, only that I was concerned that some stuff appeared to be conveyed as fact.

    2) I thought you eloquently stated “now it is a FACT that there is a cosmic background radiation, it is a FACT that the galaxies are moving apart, and it is a FACT that elements form at particular temperatures in a gradual order….now the explanation of these things all working together to give us the grand picture we see…is the theory we call cosmic evolution (big bang)”

    Hmm Cosmic evolution is not the theory. Its what we are trying to understand. "Big Bang theory" is the theory. Let's get that straight first.


    -"Cosmic background radiation"...yep
    -"Galaxies moving apart"....check( but possibly scewed due to our lack of full understanding into the nature of light,the nature of space/time and the nature of how the 2 interact.)
    -"elements form at particular temperatures"....hmm ok given a number of other variables such as gravity, pressure, mass, velocities etc and other things we don't entirely understand...ok

    Ok so we have here 3 facts(2 of which technically are based on some not fully understood theory/physics). And When you say "now the explanation of these (only 3)things all working together to give us the grand picture we see…"

    I'll have to disagree that NOT all of "US" necessarily "SEE" this grand picture.
    Again I'm not saying I don't see this picture or understand how "WE" (clearing throat) came to these theories. They could all be 100% accurate! The point I was trying to make in my original post was that I just take acception to conveying non-fact(theory and as fact.

    Again Thanks for the stimulating convo :)


  100. Excellent, Thank you Vlatko. Discouraging that the integrity of the documentary is in question. All too often the narrator contradicts the scientist/interviewee. I guess like with all things man is ignorant of, one should hear all the views and go with what makes the most sense to them. Love this stuff that's out there on the bleeding edge of knowledge. 5 stars for TDF, Thanks again for serving up this great site

  101. There's nothing more fascinating than unviverse. Thanks for this!

  102. @DonDon

    Theory and conjecture are two very different things..

    Conjecture: to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure reliability.

    theory: an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

    Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.

    now it is a FACT that there is a cosmic background radiation, it is a FACT that the galaxies are moving apart, and it is a FACT that elements form at particular temperatures in a gradual the explanation of these things all working together to give us the grand picture we the theory we call cosmic evolution (big bang)

    1. "now it is a FACT that there is a cosmic background radiation, it is a FACT that the galaxies are moving apart, and it is a FACT that elements form at particular temperatures in a gradual order….now the explanation of these things all working together to give us the grand picture we see…is the theory we call cosmic evolution (big bang)"

      Spot on @Epicurus.

  103. @DonDon

    your first issue.

    the issue with the galaxies moving apart is because they all tend to be moving outward from a singularity, so if you do the logical thing and follow the time line back and the path they are on and trace it back you come to a singularity which is also predicted by the physics we have. the theories are backed by very complicated maths. i hope i explained to you before that a theory is not just an idea.

    your second problem. the big bang is going to continue to expand it seems due to the velocity it is moving at, but since all matter will become so far apart there will be no heat and it will be a completely different universe with different laws that i cant even fathom.

    and finally, your opinion (when not backed by education in the field) is meaningless. i couldnt say that all those doctors and scientists with their kooky germ theory are all just nuts and the real reason we get sick is because of invisible trolls that curse us at night....its just my opinion though.

  104. @ez2b12

    Thanks for the posts man. Its the first time I've actually posted on this site. I like discussing science and and theoretical stuff. It's nice to be able to break things down and bounce stuff off others without judgement or disrespect.




    1)Those theories about why the galaxies are moving away from each other arent mine. They are theories I've heard in the universe series actually :)(but still can't see why they couldn't be viable independantly without a "big bang" starting from a singularity the size of an electron.LoL

    2) I've never met an explosion that continued on to infinity :)
    If thats what the big bang is supposed to be, I'll have to say the theory needs some extensive refinement.

    3) In all honesty I find most of the theoretical stuff regarding cosmology and its physics out there today to be poppycock. Just my opinion.

    Love to discuss it more with you guys..
    Maybe tomorrow....tired.....must sleeeep ....sleeepy

  105. @ achem

    Whew, I'm glad that wasn't your statement man. I was thinking that wasn't like you at all. Get'em Vlatko.

    See Don I told you, Achem is great and would never just lash out like that. Actually I told him I thought you had taken his statement badly judging by your statement above. Should have had more faith in you man, sorry. I just saw the name and assumed it was really you.

  106. @ DonDon

    Sorry if I read too much into your statement, its nice to meet you as well. As far as the seperation of fact and theory for those who are new to science, we would also have to explain what a theory is in science as opposed to a hypothesis. I agree though that it should not be stated as fact, only as logically and mathematically sound reasoning about the unobservable. It should never be stated as or called conjecture though, as it is not. I think you should explain one time what a theory in science is and that things that can not be observed or repeated in a lab have to be theorized about when talking to new comers. Then you should feel free to present theories without having to emphasize it constantly.

    The reason I think this is important is because constantly stating this or that is a theory and what a theory is makes lectures and science programs very boring and uninspiring. This is why it is left out in most television science programs like The Universe. They are about entertainment and mystery more than education, and this is good. We need the new generations come up to be interested and in awe of science, and cosmology in specific. Lets face it if people get interested and want real education they will not turn to cable TV but more intellectual mediums. Most intellectually based mediums like lectures or science journals usually make it clearer. You are right though, they do state things very matter of fact like instead of making it clear that they are theories. I just think there is justification for doing this in a cable television program.

    As far as your theories on why galaxies are moving away from each other, I can't get behind them as they are not logical or intuitive. The cause of the expansion is the big bang, not that it just started expanding and we have no idea why- that would be illogical. Things having mass do not just start moving according to the laws of physics, an outside force has to act on a body in rest to make it move.

    Dark energy was hypothesized inorder to explain the acceleration of the expansion versus it slowing down as we would intuitively expect. Dark energy was never hypothesized to be the cause of the expansion, they wouldn't create something they can not prove exists to explain something that has a logical explanation. Sorry man, but the BB is a very logical theory that is backed up by plenty of intuitive evidence. Thats why it is generally accepted as fact, just like the theory of evolution. If it were just a hypothesis with no logical reasoning to back it up, I could accept your criticism.

    Oh, and one more thing. Hawkin's nothing was suppose to exist before space time. If we take space time out of the picture we can have complete nothingness. The psuedo-nothingness you speak of talks of vacuums that exist inside the fabric of spacetime, and you are right. These places of nothingness are actually teaming with quantum activity. Just a thought, I may be way off as I am not a Hawkins fanatic. I respect him greatly and believe he is a geniuse, but I haven't really gotten into his theories and all like I have Einstien or Sagan. Thanks for the conversation Don, you seem a nice and intelligent fellow.

    Oh, one more thing- cut Achem a break man. He really is a good guy that has a lot of useful knowledge. Not that you were beating up on him or nothing but I think he took it badly from his comment above. I bet you guys could go on forever as you both seem very knowlegable and nice to me. I'll but out here, sorry if I over stepped my bounds.

  107. Heyas everyone! :) Well one thing i'd like to point out is yes these are theories and yes they can take a stretch of the imagination but allot of theories have more scientific back up then most realize.... Taking it from another point of view who is to say that where that initial Infinitely dense and Infinitely hot point of matter or energy "Was not created by something or someone" it can be the same as people dismissing evolution. Evolution is also a theory but is common accepted knowledge and I happen to agree with that theory. But you have to admit to yourselves that the challenge of explaining the big bang and the origin of matter might be a wee bit beyond our capability hence the predisposition to attribute it to extra ordinary beings or deity's.... What i'[m truly saying is why cant everyone get along... Sure we all have differing opinions but the only way we get past that is through autodidacticism.

  108. @Vlatko:

    Seems like we have another troll, impersonating, this time impersonating me, Trust you will look into it, thanks.

    1. OK done that @Achems.

  109. @ ez2b12


    Hi again. I just wanted to address some of the other stuff you said in you msg directed to me. First off I think maybe you read far too much into my post.

    I would like to address this part in your post that you wrote

    "If we followed your logic or desires for communication nothing could be discerned about many of the important mysteries that plague mankind. If they were discerned no one would want to hear about them or would have any belief in them, repeating constantly that this is just theory, as you said, doesn’t exactly build confidence in the unscientific mind. "

    Wow! You got all that from my post :)
    I think I'll have to disagree with this opinion aswell if I may.

    Let's break this down. Being clear and distinguishing fact from theory can not and does not impede the discerning of truth. For a person who has never been exposed to a theory, would greatly benefit from the information knowing that it was theory as opposed to fact. In fact, if that person thought it was fact as opposed to theory because it was presented as fact, then discerning new facts could very well be impeded. :)


    Yours here agreeing to disagree


  110. @ ez2b12

    Nice to meet you all you guys :)

    I Didn't think my comments would draw any criticism. However, I should have known better. (Since most science people are really quite passionate).

    Anyhoo, I was simply stating an observation after watching some of the latest installement of the "universe" series. That I noticed more and more theoretical stuff being presented without indicating that it was indeed theory.

    And my concern was that simply that.

    My analogy of this with religion and preaching and such was just supposed to be a loose kind of comparison, not a direct one.

    Although you gotta admit....they way many of them wave their hands around in the series when they are explaining stuff makes them look like pulpit preachers....LoL.

    Hmm OK EZ2B12. If the BB is not the reason all galaxies are moving away from one another what is? huh. Well without giving away the theory of everything I'll take a stab at your question.

    Some people are in the camp of space expanding and actually expanding faster than the speed of light. So therefor the space between all the galaxies is increasing, therefore the galaxies are moving apart. But wait! If space is expanding faster than the speed of light, how come all the galaxies aren't moving away from each other at at least the speed of light? Hmm....Then there's the other camp. Dark energy! Forcing all the galaxies apart..hhmmm.
    But wait why can't either one of these theories occur without coming first from a big bang. A singularity the size of an electron? The answer is ........There's no reason they couldn't.


  111. @ez2b12

    Thank you for taking the time to answer

  112. @ DonDon

    Thanks for being polite about your disagreement, most are very rude like Charles with his comment above. I disagree with your assement of cosmology being preached from some imaginary pulpit, I have heard them say many times, Hawkin included, these are theories and not proven facts. If the BB is not the reason all galaxies are moving away from one another what is? What caused the cosmic radiation we hear constantly throughout the universe? It seems very reasonable to say all things started from a certain point and that an explosion of some kind would be necessary to propel all things from this point. An explosion would also explain the cosmic background radiation. Since radiation energy can become matter, you know matter and energy are the same thing in different forms, better expressed as E=MC(2). It also makes sense to say that hydrogen may have come from this radiation energy given off from the BB. From their we can spell out the rest of creation with logic, like heavier elements being formed inside stars and so forth. So at least you have to say that my belief in these theories does not equal faith, which is defined as belief in the absense of evidence. We have evidence and plenty of it to point to these theories as correct.

    You also must remember that no one wants to hear how all of this is theory every five seconds, it would make these documentaries pretty boring and repetative in my opinion. Trust me any one of any intelligence knows that when we are talking about the creation of the universe or the BB theory we are not expressing proven facts. We are applying logic to the situation and coming up with the best logical explanation for something it is impossible to prove, no one was there after all and it can not be simulated in the physical world. The computerized simulations are in agreement with the science though as well as the math. These standards are accepted for many things that we can not witness or simulate, so why not the creation of the universe?

    If we followed your logic or desires for communication nothing could be discerned about many of the important mysteries that plague mankind. If they were discerned no one would want to hear about them or would have any belief in them, repeating constantly that this is just theory, as you said, doesn't exactly build confidence in the unscientific mind. Theory in the world of science doesn't mean a guess or conjecture, it means this is the conclusion of logic and math coupled with common sense and critical thinking. If we are not to trust in these things what are we to place our trust in, nothing?

  113. Don't know where to start, was busy so just picking up the threads now,

    The BB yes, at the planck time the universe went into motion, from the singularity, but some say was not a big bang, more like a big whimper, there was no noise to make a big bang, when the universe went into motion, it was called inflation, far, far, faster then the speed of light, and at the far reaches of the universe it is still going faster than the speed of light, so that light will never reach us, and even speeding up, so in my books it will forever keep expanding.

    Einstein said nothing can go faster than the speed of light, but he means in the formed universe, that is now. the far reaches are still forming, expanding, therefore still faster than the speed of light. still inflation happening.

    You have to keep in mind that at the deep fields of space that we can see, inflation, expanding, is not happening as we speak, but "already" happened billions, billions, "of years ago" when the universe was new. You know, "light years" for the light to reach us. The red shifts that we see in the deep fields of space happened billions and billions of years ago. We are looking at a time machine.

    Will think of other things to say later.

  114. @ Epicurus

    I do believe I understand the other sides actual position. My issue is with presenting theories(speculations) almost as if they are established fact. I merely was pointing out how this is similar to what religions do. I was simply suggesting that it should be clearly indicated what is theory and what is fact.

  115. @ Epicurus

    I'll have to disagree with you on several points if I may. 1)Theory and Conjecture are both speculation.
    2)The big bang theory is just that.....a theory of cosmic evolution. A speculation....not a fact.

    I understand the concept of the conservation of energy very well...something Stephen disregarded with his Black Hole theory.... i.e."Hawking Radiation"

  116. @DonDon, theory is NOT conjecture. they dont preach it like it is gospel. they tell you what they can determine based upon the evidence they have. the big bang (cosmic evolution) is a fact and the theory is the explanation of that fact.

    also when someone like Stephen Hawking or any physicist says "nothing" they dont really mean NO-THING. They are hoping you know one of the basic laws on the universe and that is that energy can not be created nor destroyed. they recognize that there has ALWAYS been something.

    when he mentions god he means the god that most westerners think of when they hear the word god and that is magic being that lives outside the universe and is REQUIRED for the universe to exist. he is simply stating that there is no need to invoke the idea of an INTELLIGENT being setting everything in motion.

    you seem like an understanding person and your issues here only stem from a misunderstanding of the other sides actual position...not your fault i suppose.

  117. I have really enjoyed watching many of the "universe" series. Props to Vlatko for these and all the other great great docs I have been able to access. Thanks Bro.
    But at this point after watching all of them(universe series) and the beginning few of this new one I felt I needed to comment on some observations. I'm finding more and more as the series progressed a disturbing trend. Where various physicists/entertainers in the series are repeatedly talking about certain aspects and theories almost as if they are fact (or gospel). For example the big bang, and singularity. And what happened milliseconds after the big bang etc. With no mention at all that almost of everything they are saying is striclty theory and conjecture. It smacked me as like almost any religion. Where the preachers speak of things as fact and all the desciples need is faith.
    I think they need to get back to more fact and truth and less entertainment and pulpit preaching. Having said that I still think the series is worth watching for most people without extensive science backgrounds.

    Also I would like to suggest To Achem(please take no offence), that much of what Stephen Hawking's has said about God and The creation of the universe is also conjecture and theory not fact. I strongly disagree to many aspects of what he suggests. For example that the universe and everything can be created from nothing. Uhm.... "nothing" doesn't exist Stephen. There is no such thing as nothing. It's simply a human contrived concept. If Stephen or you or anyone else can show me where there is "nothing" I might have more "faith" in his speculations. Empty space (a term thrown around way to often) is not empty(as in nothing there), anywhere.

    And While I respect his , yours and everyone's opinions, the fact remains he, you and everyone else has been wrong before. Let's keep opinion opinion and separate them from real facts plz.

  118. @ emanuel

    Great questions first of all, I will make an attempt to answer but you should probably check other sources- I have a limited knowledge of such things.

    Light is the fastest thing in the universe as far as we know, though their has been speculation otherwise. In 1967 a scienitst named Gerlad Feinberg hypothosized the existance of tachyons, a particle thought to exceed the speed of light. According to Einstiens theory of general relativity this is not possible as mass increases proportionately with speed. A particle moving at more than the speed of light would have a infinite mass and therefore require infinite energy. You can actually measure this increase in mass, we call it g-force, its what makes it hard to rise from the back of your seat in an accelerating car.

    Light can be measured in two ways, as a particle called a photon and a wave. Electrons act the same way, as a particle and a wave. Light has mass like qualities but not real mass. In the case of it being attracted down a black hole, it is just an illusion. Gravity does not attract light, it can be affected by gravity though because gravity essentially curves space-time. Since light always goes in a straight line relative to space-time, if it encounters a curvature in space-time it will continue going straight but since space-time is curved, "straight" will be curved as well. In the case of black holes, the curve is so steep that the "straight" path actually spirals down to a single point from the perspective of an outside observer.

    No, all matter does not contain every element known to man. It is made up of whatever certain elements comprise it only. All elements on the other hand are made up of matter, which is inturn made up by particles. If we continue to break these particles down we get down to the basic fundamental particles that make up all matter. When i was young we thought that the proton, nuetron, and electron made up every thing that had mass. Well they do but they are also made up of even smaller particles themselves. Look up the standard model of particle physics and you will see these fundamental particles and their respective properties. I can name a few but not all: leptons, gluons, quarks, photons, etc. Some of these particles carry forces like strong and weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, gravity (carried by the gravitron we have yet to actually find), and mass which they think is carried by a particle called the higgs boson but have yet to prove its existance as well. Confused yet? welcome to particle physics.

  119. well maybe that's where the nothing turning to something came into play. my brain hurts

  120. if the universe is expanding and then contracting over and over again, then what started the first expansion?

  121. There is much I do not understand and thousands of questions i'd like to ask..

    How can light be the fastest traveling force if at the big bang the universe expanded from atom to golf ball size in 1 plankt of that still slower than light?

    If blackholes suck in light does that mean light has mass/is matter?

    Is it possible that what we are seeing from the LHC, is that every atom contains all the different types of matter and elements found in the universe?

    Any insight or suggestions to forums and threads would be appreciated.

  122. @ Reasons Voice

    No, I don't think they/we have settled on the something from nothing theory. It is probably the leading theory right now though. I myself, like you, tend toward the idea of the universe expanding to a certain point then collapsing and re-expanding via the energy of another BB. It just makes more sense to me as it is intuitive, were as the something from nothing theory is counter intuitive. Being intuitive though is not proof, it just means it is more friendly to our concept of reality.

    The something from nothing theory, as I understood it, required quantum fluctuation to make it happen. Now, if there was nothing, not even space, what quantum material was present to fluctuate? I suppose they mean that the quantum fluctuation took place within the singularity, this still gives us no idea of where the singularity came from or how it existed in the absense of time and space.

    All of these questions are answered by the collapse of a previous universe to a singularity resulting in the BB. But many do not like the repeating universe theory, why I do not know. Maybe because they can not imagine the present state of things allowing the universe to collapse in on itself. It is currently expanding faster and faster with no sign of ever reaching a limit thus turning around to collapse. This is the only thing I can think of that would make the repeating universe theory hard to accept. But like yourself I am no MIT grad and can only use my limited reasoning abilities to hypothesize our ultimate fate. I have massive respect for Hawkins and he goes with the something from nothing theory, in fact I think he came up with it. Hawkins knows his stuff to say the least so I have to listen to him.

    In this case isn't our ignorance grand. I love these mysteries about how the universe came about and how it will end. In fact I love all the mysteries of the cosmos and physics. I find all the beauty and awe one could ever stand in these questions and studies. No need to make up magical gods or creation myths. In my opinion most that need these man made constructs can not understand enough of physics and cosmology to even get how beautiful and mysterious it all is. I feel sorry for them really, that is until they start ruining things by trying to make us that do get it bend to their absurdities.

    @ Achem

    O.k. but what proof do we have that the quarks and gluons came from the cooling radiation energy of the big bang? I am not trying to be obtuse i just want to know why it is settled on that these particles were created from pure energy. My best guess is because we have all agreed and tested E=MC(2) which states energy and mass are the same things in different states. So to get mass from pure energy would be like the reverse of fission, getting energy from mass.

    But how could we really test this theory? I mean we can split an atom and some mass will convert to pure energy, but how do we reverse that. Fusion doesn't do it as we already have mass in the form of the particles we are fuseing, do we end up with extra mass when we fuse particles? If so that would be the answer I suppose, some of the energy from the fusion has transformed into new mass.

  123. ok ive just realised you can turn bubbles off lol

  124. Anyone else find youtube text bubbles and googleads really annoying? This video is infested with tube bubbles. Is there anywhere else I can watch it?

  125. Have we settled on the everything from nothing theory? I thought that there was still theory about a collapseing reexpanding fluxuation. where the universe colapses inward untill it reaches critical mass then we get a big bang. I understand the principles and thus believe the theories sound. However I am far from MIT grade in my math skills so the "proofs" illude me.

  126. @ez2b12:

    Yes, sort of joking, guess I have a twisted sense of humour sometimes, sorry about that! It was a bad choice of words, I apologize.

    Okay, glad to fill you in, It is called "Nucleosynethesis": creating new atomic nuclei from pre-existing nucleons (protons and neutrons)

    The thought is that the primordial nucleons themselves were formed from the quark-gluon plasma, from the BB., when cooled below 2 trillion degrees a few minutes after, starting with only protons and neutrons, nuclei up to lithium and beryllium (mass Number 7) were formed in small amounts. Then the fusion process shut down due to drops in temp. and density, as the universe expanded.

    Was enough matter for gravity to form stars, which then as you know had supernova explosions to form all the elements of the universe.

  127. Thank you for this documentary Vlatko.
    You are the BEST!

  128. Insightful documentary, and good to watch. Motivated me somewhat to delve deeper and learn more about the subject. Much appreciated!

  129. @ Achems Razor

    Surely we have more proof than that. I am not disputing that hydrogen did come from the radiation energy of the BB, but I need more proof than "I am here". How would we know it didn't come fomr something that happened after the BB if that was all the proof we had? All other elements than hydrogen, helium, and lithium came from stars for instance. Maybe you were just joking around?

  130. @ Jon

    I love Microsoft ww telescope, play with it more than myself,(LOL) I like to download the demos that take you through tours of say mars or some other location all the while explaining what you are seeing. Did you know you can make your own tours? You can move the view through what ever three demensional space you like and then add your music and speech, its great. I do it for the physics class at the college I attend. The instructor gives me printed text and I read it as I move the viewer through whatever he is talking about, then he shows them to his class. His pc has not got enough juice to run the software, its pretty intense stuff. I let him use my pc for showing them to his class. I can run everything except the asteroids, if I add them my system goes hay wire.

  131. Gracias Vlatko!

  132. The animations and imagery is amazing. I loved the music, everything we see is so humbling. People who never look up and have no clue about whats out there don't know what they are missing. To anyone who wants a cool app for your computer, download the MICROSOFT WORLDWIDE TELESCOPE its amazing, its like a refined google earth, but for space!

    thanks for these space/astronomy/physics doc's been getting impatient waiting for new ones.

  133. @Prix:

    Yes, you no doubt are referring to empty space, which is not empty at all, the quantum foam et al:

    But before the singularity, there was not even space, space is a "something" that was inherent in the singularity,

    Therefore a "void" a nothingness which by definition does not exist.
    Because by that definition is impossible to comprehend.

    You have to be cognizant in a nothingness to define it. which is impossible. So therefore there is always a something.

  134. @Achems Razor

    I thought even when we say "nothing" there is always something. I think i remember a line from another documentary about this nothingness. I think it was quantum physics. Something around the lines of "quantum physics says that even in emptiness there is something there."

    @Charles B.
    Hello sir!
    There seems to be more proof supporting bing bang than god. It's just one step towards something bigger. I has come so far to explain how we evolved, how the planets are created, how the universe came to be. And still there is room for God. Anyone that is religious has to accept that their only argument toward science is "What was before that? What created it?".

    I wonder...what if we found out what created us. Would faith still exist just because we wanted that specific God to be there? Or what if there was a God? Who would it be? Which religion? Or maybe God didn't even communicate with humans. So many possibilities, to say that God did it is narrow minded.

    Also, I would like to believe that we are in a Black hole and that blackhole is on a bears behind. But believing it doesn't make it true. I can believe but the big bang theory is more of a fact than belief. We can demonstrate that it really happened but not why. I have to accept it as a fact for the time being. And of course it will change, science always does.

  135. @ez2b12:

    We do have proof, we are here, are we not? the proof is in the pudding.

  136. @Charles B:

    Trying to figure out what it is you are saying, you probably meant "apart" from the hand of God.

    Yes, Your, or anybodies Gods had nothing to do with the big bang! Not even one of your Gods out of the 28,000,000 million in recorded history.

    Everything came from the singularity, everything, even space itself. And the singularity came from absolutely nothing, the whole universe came out of absolutely nothing. Have being saying that all along, years back, before I even watched any of these docs.

    The big bang came in about SI 5.4^-44 sec. or to simplify 10-43 sec.
    And it came from absolutely nothing, wrap your noodle around that Charles. (LOL)

    Still have to get Stephen Hawking's new book "The Grand Design" where he makes that very clear!
    If there is any Gods than it is he, the little man in the wheelchair with the big brain.

    Food for thought EH?

  137. You you guys believe this all happened part from the hand of God? Everything from nothing in a millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a second? How foolish of you all.

  138. awesome series..!!
    completed this...& the universe season 5,3 & through the wormhole..will watch the universe season 1,2,4 later..thanks TDF.

  139. Extraordinary. An "illuminating" attempt to paint the earliest moments of the universe. The best I have seen yet. Thank you for making it available.

  140. @ Achem

    O.k. I get that, but how do we know that they formed as a result of the cooling of radiation energy, like they said on this show and others I have seen? If we have never seen radiation heat cool and form these quarks and leptons ourselves were did we get the idea from and how did we test it or prove it?

    Dont get me wrong the sequence makes perfect logical sense, quarks and leptons make sub atomic particles, sub atomic particles make up the simple elements like hydrogen, which is just one proton and one electron with no nuetrons at all. But still we have to be basing this theory on more evidence then just the fact that the sequence makes logical sense. We must have some proof, don't we?

  141. I love all these cosmic documentaries as fact i cannot get enough!

  142. @ez2b12:

    After a certain amount of Planck time, two types of matter formed, "quarks and leptons" an electron is a type of "lepton"
    Quarks form protons and neutrons,

    Two up spin quarks, and one down spin quark form a "proton".
    Two down spin quarks and one up spin quark form a "neutron"

    Hydrogen was formed earliest because it is the most abundant in the universe.

  143. @ Achem

    Wow, did I misunderstand them, or did they say what I thought they did. If they did then they were wrong, huh? Thanks for clearing that up for me. So how do we know that hydrogen came from the radiation energy of the big bang?

  144. @ez2b12:

    I watched also, when the particles collide they do not create any new particles, only expose/create subatomic particles that where already inherent in the original particles to begin with.

  145. O.k. am finished with the first part but I am already confused, no suprises there. They said that the particles produced in the particle collider at Cern were created from pure energy, just like those in the big bang. I thought they were the smaller parts of whatever they smash together- usually protons I think, not created so much as exposed. Did they mean that the big accelerator at Cern was going to create so much energy from smashing together protons that it would not only break the proton into smaller particles but also create some particles from pure energy? Have we ever been able to witness radiation energy turning into particles of mass? If not then how do we know that particles could be created from radiation energy? I have always heard that is where hydrogen, helium, and lithium came from, the radiation energy of the big bang. Were any of these particles created from the nuclear explosions of bombs we set off in testing, or the two we dropped in Japan? Were is Achem when you need him?

  146. yes... bout time!

  147. its nice to watch i love to watch about the universe its great...

  148. I'm in like "Flint"!

  149. OH yeah, thanks Vlatko. I have been waiting for some more cosmology stuff, my favorite. As soon as I go around the neighborhood beggin for candy I'll watch it. Gonna be good, i can feel it in my boner, whoops I mean in my bones-sorry yall.

    1. Not a problem. Thank you guys.

  150. A fantastic, enlightening evening's entertainment. I only hope I can remember most of it. Awesome, in the old meaning of awe-inspiring.

  151. Yep, I was keeping an eye on this site every single day for over 2 weeks now, and as there wasn't any new science documentaries, I started to lose patience :)

  152. Yes! Finally new Universe documentaries! Love TDF! can't thank you enough for the site Vlatko.