Into The Universe With Stephen Hawking

Into The Universe With Stephen Hawking

2010, Science  -   224 Comments
Ratings: 8.56/10 from 97 users.

Into The Universe With Stephen HawkingStephen Hawking hosts an epic brand new kind of cosmology series, a Planet Earth of the heavens.

It takes the world's most famous scientific mind and sets it free, powered by the limitless possibilities of computer animation.

Hawking gives us the ultimate guide to the universe, a ripping yarn based on real science, spanning the whole of space and time - from the nature of the universe itself, to the chances of alien life, and the real possibility of time travel.

Aliens. Hawking joins science and imagination to explore one of the most important mysteries facing humankind - the possibility of alien, intelligent life and the likelihood of future "contact." Traveling from the moons of Jupiter to a galaxy maybe not so far, far away, he'll introduce us to possible alien life forms - in stunning CGI - that face the same universal trials of adaptation and survival as the residents of Earth.

Time Travel. The promise of time travel has long been one of the world's favorite scientific "what-ifs?" Hawking explores all the possibilities, warping the very fabric of time and space as he goes. From killing your grandfather to riding a black hole, we learn the pitfalls and the prospects for a technology that could quite literally, change everything.

The Story of Everything. In two mind-blowing hours, Hawking reveals the wonders of the cosmos to a new generation. Delve into the mind of the world's most famous living scientist and reveal the splendor and majesty of the universe as never seen before. See how the universe began, how it creates stars, black holes and life — and how everything will end.

More great documentaries

224 Comments / User Reviews

  1. I have to say, some of the comments on this thread are nothing short of hilarious. The nerve of some people!

    I have spent years (albeit casually) exploring aspects of the universe through documentaries such as this, and have not once been inclined to make bold statements like some of you have. Admittedly there are a few sound comments here and there but, sadly, the majority are total and utter .... (Insert expletive).

    Unless you have qualifications comparable to that of Stephen Hawking, your word, in this context, carries little if any weight. This does not mean I discourage any radical thinking, because we would not know as much as we do without it....but there is a huge difference between the recorded statements from one of the greatest minds humanity has ever produced and that of, quite frankly, ignorant viewers.

    These documentaries have been a fascinating watch. They have pushed me to ponder and even read up on incredibly complex topics. Quantum Mechanics and the behaviour of subatomic particles continue to baffle some of the world's greatest minds - it just doesn't make sense - yet we know it to be true. Take the double slit experiment for example.

    Just because something is beyond your understanding, does not make it crazy. In future, maybe join in the discussion with a little more humility...?

  2. If you are not a physicist with an extraordinary capacity to use mathematics, don't presume you can argue. They are in a different place trying to make what they know conceivable to us as best they can. Accept!

    1. Man that's just as bad as the godsuckers telling you to believe in the bible because it's the word of god... don't accept anything, understand, you are capable of knowing the universe.

  3. Where can i find the last 3 episodes?

    Episode 1: Aliens.
    Episode 2: Time Travel.
    Episode 3: The Story of Everything[3]
    Episode 4: Did God create the universe?
    Episode 5: The meaning of life.
    Episode 6: The key to the cosmos.

    1. You can i find the last 3 episodes grouped in the series: Stephen Hawking's Grand design on Discovery plus.

  4. These are fantastic. And the little surprise of Ben Cumberbatch narrating is delightful.

    1. really Ben Cumberbatch did great!!

    2. Theres 2 documentaries he did and 1 is simply called moon and 2 is called sun that explain that the moons moving away from the earth and what will happen as its moving and what will happen when the earth goes off its axis, and ive been telling people its happening but it never gets much of a mention on uk media, and it was shortly after mr hawkins death that it actually got onto uk tv, but it started in the early hours of the morning at 4am on a week day when most people were sleeping for work in the morning or to go to school in the morning so not a lot of people would’ve been able to watch them, but now i cant seem to find either of those 2 documentary films anywhere, so do you know where and how i can get hold of a copy of those docs or know of somewhere online where people can watch either of them especially the 1 about the moon as myself and certain others have known for about 30 years that the moons gradually moving away from the earth but it seems like not much gets mentioned about it and like someone doesn’t want many people knowing about it for some absurd reason, so if you could tell me where i can find it it’d appreciate it if you can.. kind regards d daley

  5. if texastea2 doesn't yet understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, how would texastea2 know that when space-time is warped the speed of light limit doesn't apply. no one here can teach you something you will never be able to understand (i.e. the theory of relativity).

  6. gravity explained posits a new outlook for the actual mechanism with or without einstein

  7. absolute relativity theory of everything posits a totally new way of thinking
    via amazon books

  8. Nothing can ever go faster than light. Sorry but that is not a PROVEN fact.
    It is like the rest of science has become. They state theories as fact. The LHC is just that a collider. All of this boasting of conditions just billionth's of a second after the big bang. Nonsense. All you prove is that by colliding this element at this speed I produced this. You know nothing about the big bang. The only bang in the universe that has no epicenter.
    First of all the only way you scientist "proved" the big bang was by breaking another "law" you devised to fit in your equations.That is all any of this is (mathematical equations). Nothing goes faster than light with the exception of galaxies far away from us expanding away from us apparently faster than light or the best one was "in the early expansion of the universe space itself expanded faster than light". That was because without that exception the big bang is impossible (at least when they say it happened).I am still not convinced. One can explain the observable universe just as well if not better by substituting gravity with electromagnetism. At least then you would not have to break your own "laws" over and over.

    1. No resting mass can go faster than speed of C, (proven). Get your facts straight, inflation means that the universe as a whole was expanding faster than C, an analogy, akin to blowing up a balloon. As for the rest of your post, crack open some cosmology/science books before you post things you know nothing of.

    2. I am afraid I have and it has NOT been proven it has only been proven to fit the theory. As far all of your post more mistaken theory for FACT Prove the big bang even happened Good luck oh smart one. Try cracking open a DIFFERENT BOOK I admit I do not know On the contrary it is YOU and others like you that THINK you know. So prove that Absolutely nothing massless or otherwise cannot move faster than the speed of light. You are full of it,.sorry you simply do not KNOW what you think you do. You should check your OWN facts

    3. "Try cracking open a DIFFERENT book"?
      What book are you referring to?

    4. One you haven't cracked yet. Obviously an opposing theory perhaps. They do exist. One being so informed should be aware of this. Please explain how clusters of super clusters formed in 14 billion years WITHOUT breaking your law. Once again Good luck. Why is gravity so weak? Like I stated before one can explain observation better with electro-magnetism than gravity. Gravity seems far too weak to explain observation. Unless of course you change the rules now and then as we go along improving on our FACTS. So please explain how clusters of super clusters formed in 14 billion years. PS which book you want me to crack you suggest one for me and I will suggest one for you.. I am waiting for your PROOF that nothing can go faster than light. Please enlighten me.ANYONE.

    5. You have told me nothing as usual, am not wasting my time.

    6. You did not seem to mind replying with nothing. "waste of time" you answered none of the questions I posed. "of course" and I am wasting your time. I do enjoy you. Talk big but as usual you cannot explain or PROVE your theories so you turn to arrogance. Fine We only wasted time because you did not get what you wanted. For the last time Here is your big chance. Prove that absolutely nothing can go faster than light. YOU Sir CANNOT DO THAT. PERIOD. It APPEARS that nothing can travel faster than light. Man you are stubborn. Understandable, but that stubbornness has worked against man in the past. Or we would know more than we do. Amazingly you might just MIGHT be wrong. You might be right. Facts are just that and theory (no matter how widely accepted) is just that THEORY. Google THAT oh great time waster. Shove off then. Do not reply unless you have something WORTHWHILE to say..

    7. What do you propose replaces these theories that are backed by our observations?

      Einstein didn't prove that light appears to be bent as it passes a large object, others did because of his work / prediction.

      I'm not saying you're right or wrong, I don't know enough about the subject and have myself thought some of what you question.
      If his theories are wrong, why does light appear to do that?
      If the BB theory is incorrect, what else fits what we observe to replace it?
      What books give an alternative explanation that is adequate? (Its an honest question, I'm interested) Please, don't reply with something as silly as the Bible or Koran though.

    8. I have NOTHING to propose. How does that change the FACT that these are theories? I never said Einstein proved ANYTHING. I myself have never stated that I was right or wrong. One question is are you SURE mass bends light. Yes it appears to from a couple of observations during an eclipse. Positive there is not another possibility for the observation? That is a bold statement. Just as the age of the universe depends on our "interpretation" of observing certain supernovae. Another bold theory taught as fact.. Unscientific.

      I have no idea why light appears to bend. Neither does anyone else. Some think they do but the TRUTH is they do NOT. Some believe it is caused by the warping of space. Could be. Just as frickin easily it could be caused by something not even remotely related. Once again we do not know.

      One book many years old now is titled simply "The big bang never happened" well written and easy to follow. There ARE other thoughts. From some pretty smart and educated curious people just as mainstream "science"..

      I know they are shunned by mainstream but mainstream has been proven wrong time and time again. The earth is not flat nor the center of the universe.(perhaps)
      Where did the big bang happen. Why is there no epicenter.? All other explosions can be traced back. If we do not understand the lumpiness of the universe or the dispersion of matter (change the math) til it fits. Not enough matter easy(create dark matter) perfect mathematical equilibrium again. Easy peasy. Gravity not strong enough add a dimension.

      We are curious animals we yearn to know and it will never end. One must love curiosity, soon as you figure out one thing another question arises from the answer I just do not appreciate people calling theories (no matter how well they explain observed phenomena) fact. That simply does not make them absolutely FACT.
      Prove that time is a dimension? Where did the big bang happen? All of the universe is evidence. We know that nothing goes faster than light (right) then with the big bang explain clusters of super cluster of galaxies. Just how did they form? Please explain ( I know you cannot figure out where the big bang happened) even though it should be one of the easiest to do. I would be interested in an explanation of these extremely large formations of matter however. Thanks for chatting. Hope all is well se ya.

    9. Where is the epicenter?? there was no epicenter, because the BB was not an explosion! You do not have even have a smidgen of a clue as to what you are talking about! Again a waste of time, for me anyway.

    10. How convenient again. An entire universe from an "infinitely small point" that went bang without an explosion. Please tell me What it was then oh one with more than a "smidgen: of a clue? Is it a collision like the ones they do at the LHC trying to recreate the "big bang"? Is that it? It was a collision with no trace as to where it occurred. You SURE?

    11. This suggestion that space ,time everthing was began in the big bang serves real well when there is no epicenter. It serves to explain the lack of an epicenter. Once again NOT A FACT.

    12. Call it what you want but if it occurred it was Most Definitely a hell of an explosion

    13. Reread my post, I said "Einstein didn't prove that light appears to be bent as it passes a large object, others did because of his work / prediction."
      'Appears to be' is the important part, I didn't say it definitely did. You're wrong when you say no one has any idea why... Einstein did. He predicted it remember. (it's an idea why)
      Accurate predictions do tend to help give a hypothesis credibility. :)

      Thank you for your recommendation of the book The BB never happened. I've not had the pleasure of reading it.
      Amusing that you call the BB an explosion, that's not accurate apparently, which discounts much of what you say about explosions and finding the 'epicenter' of our universe.

      It also seems you're mixing up the scientific definition of a theory with the layman's understanding of the term. Your paragraph on that indicates you don't understand the difference. Only a few things are facts. A theory is usually as far as a scientific understanding can go. So what. If a better hypothesis presents itself, it will replace the old theory with enough evidence.

      I don't disagree with much of what you question, but you're basically just saying 'Na, it's all just a maybe, I don't like the way it's accepted or the level of understanding we have now, so Na, don't like it.'

      Again, I don't dispute much of what you question, but just saying no, I don't like it, with no evidence or better hypotheses other then you don't like the way it's accepted is.. well, just BS mate.

      Give me a better explanation, and I'm all ears. Shooting it down for the sake saying it's not proven is pretty pointless really. We may well be 'calling the Earth flat still', but at this time it's the best we've got with what we know. Come up with something better, I'm sure more then just myself would be interested in hearing it.

    14. I simply implied that your stating that he did not prove it was due to your thinking I stated he did. I do not otherwise know why you stated that. Einstein has an idea true. Absolutely. Was he right on all of his "theories" you and I will likely never know. Man will probably never know. Others observed the apparent bending Einstein predicted through observing objects that should not be observable during a total lunar eclipse.
      Please help me here if you will What is the definition of a Scientific theory? What is the definition of a scientific Fact. Seems to me that latter one is causing some of the confusion. Thanks again for putting up with me. One last question If the big bang was not an explosion (energy expanding faster than the speed of light in all directions with enough force to still have a trace left after 14 point whatever (alleged) billion years, (cosmic background noise) years. Explain it to me if you could or point me to where I could (without resorting to there was no time space nothing before the big DUD? LOL Peace Ps There are already competing theories. Theories whether "scientific" or otherwise are just that. There is no different definition for a layman theory and a scientific theory. There is simply scientific theory and then there are scientific Facts. Let me try this way is there in "scientific" language a difference between theory and fact? What is that difference? Thanks again see ya

    15. I have shot NOTHING down. I agree that this is the best that we have. Agree . Where we seem to disagree is you believe this makes it true since it is the best explanation we have. I do not. Interesting and explains that sure, but indisputable no. It simply should be stated as such. I cannot give you a better explanation than Einstein did. Funny LMAO I still do not see how that is relevant. Surprisingly (I guess) that simply equates to nothing more than that. I have no better explanation DOES not make the explanation given true. Why does that seem so difficult? I am not saying any of them are wrong. I merely said if you are saying these things as FACT which is indeed what happened to science. That is the wrong and dangerous road to go down. I have not studied the subject for along time. I live by other means. I simply seek knowledge.

    16. You ask for an explanation that is "adequate". That is the wording and language I am sick of What exactly is adequate? Only indisputable FACTS are "adequate" It is not difficult to say we think ,evidence supports a possible explanation.
      I am passionate because I used to constantly have to go to school and ask the faculty to stop telling my children that theories are facts. and leave your opinions political religious and otherwise AT HOME. ONLY THE FACTS or STATE we believe this is what happened or this how it is.
      People seem to not understand people that would simply like some proof. Prove it to me. Prove the big bang? Prove the ultimate speed is light. Prove time is a dimension and did not exist before the big bang. If space does not go on forever what is on the other side of the line where space ends? What is the force that causes galaxies to collide Gravity? Really gravity stronger than the big bang yet I can hit a golf ball three hundred yards. You sure? Why is Andromeda and the milky way colliding?
      If the universe were truly like a "balloon" how does Andromeda get closer to us instead of farther away? I would like to see that on the preverbal balloon.

    17. i have my own theory and relates to the impact of the much maligned 4th spatial dimension. In my intuitive believe this primary dimension enables matter to be created in the first place. Once matter has formed from the background 1D kinetic - we then have 3D which we take for granted. If all the matter in the universe was to be swept up then we would lose our 3D at the same time. If matter popped into existence because of the BB then again in my thinking all matter will dissapear again should the emergence of new space velocity change. All matter will be simply switched off - all of it simultaneously

    18. Do not tell me to shove off, and do not tell me what and when to reply, if you are trolling I suggest you stop! Act accordingly.

      I do not have to prove anything. You are the one that made claims, so prove them, you do not even know what facts and "theory" really means.

    19. I believe I already did. So since you cant comprehend what you read once again SHOVE OFF you are wasting time. Good Day PS You are extremely forgetful or a giant jerk one. You are the one who said I should crack a cosmology book or something YOU JERK. SHOVE your BUTT OFF I would suggest YOU stop. Stop crying. If you cannot take the heat stop lighting then fire science guy Again do not reply with your nonsense.
      You CAN"T prove anything you incredibly silly person Good Day

    20. do not tell others to shove off. thank you

    21. Who are you the conversation police? Do not tell me what to write and what not to write. When someone is nasty to me I will probably be nasty to them. Thank you Have a great day

    22. Please refresh our memory. What claim did I make?

    23. There is a difference between "have to" and CANNOT. Truth is you did not show any proof because it DOES NOT EXIST.

    24. Ps inflation is another mathematical equation that fit with what we observe. The speed has been changed back and forth to adjust for new observations. It was like a "balloon" imagine that. Exactly where was this balloon?

    25. PS Last I checked the "universe as a whole " has quite a bit of mass. Not as much as it takes to match the math again so we now have the illusive dark matter. Once again how convenient.

    26. I do not know what it is you are getting at?

      What is your agenda, your answers to the questions that you pose? it seems that you go against mainstream science, scientific theory, maths in general, your posts are not making any sense to me. What are your theories/suppositions. And site sources.

      By the way Google what "scientific theory" really means, before you go much further in your guess-work.

    27. Try proving your THEORIES is what I am getting at. SIMPLE Not rocket science.LOLI have no agenda. Some people just want facts. The truth. The truth is we do not know. We have theories that hold up to observation so far. What exactly is YOUR agenda might I ask.? Ps answer some of the questions. You guys never do that.
      Try "googling" fact and tell me what THAT really means. You able to explain super clusters yet. Oh speed of light admiral, Guru of Gravity. Gravity gets way too much credit in my opinion. Once again I state electro magnetism explains just as much with less mathematical improvising. Yes we call it improvising. You call it fact.

    28. We don't care about going " Faster then the speed of light" Possible or not. The only interesting thing now is, if it is possible to change and alter time and space around us to implement a transportation system. The universe does this on it's own. With enough study, *Money, technology, and understanding, it's only a matter of space, and time. And for the idea on whether space itself was expanding faster then the speed of light, well that is easy. Light was not existent yet. No speed barrier was approved or broken. Space and time just slipped by. By the way, why are you people arguing your theories together? Or for that matter why are you getting stressed over certain word choices or ideas people decided to post of others? All you guys end up doing is halting whatever great thought you may or may not have on cosmological studies or theories, and I mean the ones that actually make breakthroughs. Not the ones that make temper-tantrums on a site that less then 200k actually visit.

    29. It is stated as fact because there is nothing known to move faster than light. the fact is changed if something else is found. it is fact with knowledge people have now. if it is not stated as a fact, all our talks are nonsense.. pillars of making study rests on nothing. sometimes you have to assume that what you see is true to make progress.. think about a situation where our scientist would still be struggling with "is what we see around us an illusion" shit...

    30. did you ever mention that galaxies are traveling away from us faster than the speed of light?

    31. I think they are not moving away faster than light.So far it still holds that nothing with mass can move faster than light. My understanding is that space itself is expanding. The redshift we see could also be wrong.The question is what is space? What is NOTHING?

  9. proves the existence of God

    1. I will regret this but WHAT?

  10. Maths monkeys and matter,i love science it is so beautiful elegant and inspirational. Nothing is set in stone and everything is out to be disproved it is the purest form- freedom of thought,that will advance mans journey into the future.How i love that my country is classed the most atheist on earth,religion in my country exists mostly from immigrants that will be taught Darwinian evolution and thus in turn start turning there country's down the road of science and education and not faith nor belief.

    1. Sadly all of this is for nothing. We have decimated this planet and the elements it takes for us to even LIVE. We will never make it to this point. We might have even had more technology than thought in the past only to collapse. I am curious as to where you live, care to share? I would not blame you if you didn't for all one has to do is look around and see what religious convictions bestow upon ALL of US..

  11. During The Story of Everything 00:33:56 he said we are 2/3 of the way out from the center... but in the text it said 3/4. Sorry about the post. I just had to put that out there.

  12. First of all, miss astronomy girl, you don't have to know friggin intellectual jargon to come up with a theory of everything. Sure it helps tremendously to convince smart people that you may be right. Thats why its called a theory. Few have been recognized in the science community pertaining to "everything" yet a theory is a theory. I have many theories for many things but im no phd mf who took 8-10 years of school. Just because you know some terms in a physics book and an astronomy book means, doesn't been you can batter people who have a theory of some sort. If you truely, truely were an any kind of intelect of any proportion you would honor someones theory unless the theory was the universe was **** out of the animal of another realm, for example. Btw photons do exist you r*tard. Thats what the mass is, in light. Or so the s community has classified it.

    Finish your degree and reply ^

    1. Remember when the internet first came out? It was so exciting! You could chat with people from across the globe, exchange ideas and share your experiences....but then a startling reality sunk in: who wants to talk to a bunch of id**ts? There are no fascinating insights, just m*rons with bad spelling and even worse grammar.

      But to arrive my point: if someone compares their theory to Isaac Newton's you can safely assume they are delusional.

      And while I agree that you don't need a degree to have insight, it certainly does help. In your case, I wouldn't bother as you are clearly a lost cause.

    2. first of all, your plain yahoo. I MUST say.. in your third sentence you stated who wants to talk to a bunch of i*iots. Your last statement was directed towards me. so obviously you contradict yourself which is always been a sign of s*upidity.

      Secondly don't bash a persons grammar or spelling because first of all their is a margin of error between the brain and the keyboard at times. It's called a typo. The best of the best do it, heck i find typos on the biggest and most popular sites.

      Clearly anybody who contradicts themselves is a lost cause.

      Contradiction by definition basically translates to, I'm lost and I don't know what I'm talking about. :P

    3. Life is contradictory. ha ha ha

    4. Very well stated. I also think that all people who love the Good, can find It, if we look for the Good with Eyes of Love... Then, we can make this world a better place for all to learn and advance...

    5. Yeh yu r rite thare ashhoal.Wat an arogunt dik. Piece Bra

    6. You are funny. "remember when the internet first came out?" I am all giddy like a school girl It was SO Exciting Whoooooo Then the "startling" really? startling? wow! Do have fun playing with YOURSELF Your friends must be GOOD friends indeed to PRETEND to enjoy your "stimulating" conversation. OOPs it is Tea Time, Ta Ta

    7. What drugs are you on?

  13. Tusharika Joshi, Hawking is far from the greatest scientist or physicist. i would even say Leonard Susskind is better (after all he won the "black hole war" and is one of the fathers of string theory).
    How can you really compare him to someone like Heisenberg, Bohr or Newton?

  14. I am trying to watch" Into the Universe with Stephen Hawkins, The story of everything" on the science channel, However, It's vary difficult to follow what is being said because the back ground music is so loud a person has to strain to hear over the music. At times it's ok, but, to often the music takes over and dominates the program. Such a shame!!

  15. As much as I admire Sir Stephen - I am afraid to say he is wrong in many ways. His vision and comprehension is not complete: 1. the universe will certainly not end in a big crunch !! This is a totally absurd notion for many reasons - available in print shortly from amazon Absolute Relativity - The Theory of Everything. Newton put us on the right tracks - unfortunately his life was not long enough to give us the theory. Then Einstein put us all off the scent. dont get me wrong they are all my heroes not to mentionn divinci. The simple fact is that 2. Light does not determine its own velocity - this is a completely childish notion. Einstein had lead all astray on this one because of e=mc2. It was important and of course it relevant in our little space which we call home. 3. The speed of light is determined by the speed of expansion of the universe locally!! That is completely obvious. 4. Light is nothing more than a mass less particle - and it does what it is told by the Premier dimension which NO scientist has ever thought of apart from Newton that is!! If it where not for Einstein we would have had the The Theory of Everything last century. As it happens I have found it! Which will be printed by amazon this month.5. This dimension sort out all kinds of problems including the Horizon Problem = why one side of the universe is the same temp as it opposite face which is some 40 billion light years !!!! of course under the current way in which we consider the unviverse that is absurd and you would never find the answer because there is no answer if using the existing rules of physics.. 6. The horizon problems is so simply sorted out because the distance may be huge but the time ( event time - not minkowskis temporal time ) = a big fat ZERO. Which means each side of the universe has the same time and distance is a complete irrelevance. 7. The completly forgotten dimension ( Premier dimension - Euclids and Einsteins x,y,z, + spherical geometry courtesy of 900B>C al jayyani IS PUTTING US RIGHT OFF THE TRACK!!!!! 8. ( 7 previously ) is completely determined by the TRUE Premier dimension which has never really been thought of except NEWTON - and Myself. 9. Nothing happens in the universe unless you have the first dimension - which thanks to Euclid now has to be the 4th!!! ALL COCKED up and confused.- Amazon Absolute Relativity - Theory of Everything available march this year 2012. Speed of light determination is just the introduction. Then get onto some more interesting subjects such as the why the universe will self destruct in <1 second. Think about it!! The universe is a dimension of 1 dimension - you either have a dimension or you dont. How can a dimension dissapear by small degrees such as the big god damn crunch. This is a ridiculous notion for the mind of a child. The universe will dissapear in a flash - which includes everything. And we would have absolutely no idea it had happened as we would be part of its collapse. But there is hope dont worry - every atom since an atom was produced - has been recorded at the tape rate of 300,000km/s every second since the big bang has been recorded !

    1. No such book yet on Amazon

    2. I would like to believe you, but I'm afraid I cant give up on the brightest scientific minds and their all of the agreeing ideas from the last two-hundred years for a guy posting on a documentary database website saying, 'Hurr, I know everything, you are all wrong (buy my book!!!)'. No offence or anything, but it there was any truth or believability to your theory you wouldn't be telling people here, you would be approaching the scientific community as a whole.

    3. yes you are quite right. It is a frustrating business to have potential paradigm concepts considered by a non 200 year old dogmatic professors. Similar to galileo

    4. Actually, Einstein was closer to the Theory of Everything than Newton was. Einstein's equation's describe everything above the atomic level, (except the singularity), while Newton's equations only work on a certain range of objects. In addition, Einstein discovered what gravity is. Newton thought it was just the attraction of two massive objects. Einstein discovered that gravity is caused by massive objects warping space-time. And light is not just a mass-less particle. If that was the only thing that characterized it, then photons would be exactly identical to gluons, bosons, and gravitons. (All of these are hypothetical, but then so is the photon.)
      Oh and one question. How on Earth do you think the universe will disappear in a flash? Where would all those photons come from? Where would the universe go? Whole universes do not simply disappear in a flash. In fact, I don't know of anything that disappears in a flash. If you are going to go on telling everyone that you have a theory of everything, you are going to need a lot more facts besides "I have it! I'm smarter than all the other people on the planet who have studied this all their lifetimes!" No one is going to believe that.

    5. Einstein came up with a theory he PROVED nothing. Apparently the whole universe was at one time smaller than an atom even smaller than a quark. How did that happen? Einstein theorized what gravity is.and how it works. THEORY. Not fact. Where did the energy come from in the big bang? Black holes apparently disappear. Einstein's theory does describe a lot of what we see. That however does not make it fact. As far as we know we could be one of infinite universes there could be many many dimensions. Just because humans observe something like three dimensions does not mean that is reality. Only OUR reality. What humans observe is simply an interpretation according to how our brains work. We are constrained by the limit of our brain. For instance red is only red if your brain interprets it as red. Something else could easily see green. Where would all those photons come from. Perhaps from the epicenter of the big bang the biggest explosion EVER supposedly yet remarkably the only one no one can pinpoint WHERE it occurred. How convenient AGAIN

    6. actually he did not and we still dont know its mechanism. Einstein just provided a mathematical predictive model for it. We are as far from understanding what causes gravity as we were 10,000 years ago.
      the universe arrived in a flash from nothing so why should it not exit in the same way? You are quite right about my attitude tho! We need to open some other doors for our imagination not keep going around the same old corridors and stuck with old maths clever as they were are! It is quite natural for things to completly dissapear - all the photons would revert back into energy like all the other infinitesimals - just how they were created in the first place ( aparently )!
      Absolute relativity - theory of everything and Gravity explained via amazon books

    7. actually u r an i*iot what u say about exiting of universe in same way is possible only when gravity somehow haults the expansion and cosmological arrow of time reverses

    8. Good sir, if you paid half a wit's worth of attention he said "Some believe the universe will end in a big crunch, I however believe that it will end in a big freeze."

  16. but didn't humans find an atom that goes faster than the speed of light?

  17. Stephen hawking your so right and beside i was reading that humans should be scare of aliens and well it's good it's good and i like the way you're imagining i like your imagining

  18. Hawking is really a greatest scientist ever!

  19. now i have calmed down i will write with some etiquette, as the mass all ends in black holes and all the black holes consume all mass to a singularity point and less mass is taking force ie solar systems.I/we can conclude that when only black holes exist they will attract each other until one black hole exists resulting in the next big bang pressure can only be maintained by the laws and when pressure is larger than the constructive and retaining force it will eject as the mass will be the same (theory) this is a never ending cycle.I suggest that e=mc2 is true and the pattern happens over and over again but this still results in external power to is my email if you want facts over fiction.

  20. Since color results from the absorption of visible light, it is important to examine what happens to a molecule when it absorbs a photon, or quantum of light. Molecules and atoms absorb light only when the energy of an impinging photon matches the energy difference between the state in which the molecule initially finds itself and some excited state of the molecule. To change from a lower quatized energy level to a higher one, the energy of the photon must match the energy gap between the levels. In equation form we can write

    Elower state + Ephoton = Eupper state

    That is, in order for light absorption to take place,
    Ephoton = h = Emolecule = Eupper state - Elower state

  21. on a final note i never actually comment ever!!!.It shows how angry i am about bad math bad education and well bull**** but the license of bull**** is ridiculous just watch the film with the sound off.E=mc2 has given ****** license to manipulate math to own accords sponsorship of ****** funding ******.

  22. so many flaws exist in this it becomes as funny as god had a child called Jesus

  23. radiation would not strip the ozone

  24. I'm not sure the car engine sound analogy is a good explanation of doppler shift in the universe.
    How can we really be certain the universe is speeding up, the light from these galaxies and stars is already very far away and would be seen as redshift anyway, at least from our own perspective on earth.
    I know there was a team who did the supa nova experiments, but still it does not prove conclusively that this redshift would not simply be redshift because of space and distance already, no one has proven more redshift than there was at the time of Edwin Hubble, so as far as im concerned, there is no proof the universe is speeding up, the universe may well be fairly static, and space itself may be expanding, nobody knows and these theories are just that.

  25. It a very interesting doc. I don't quite understand the perfection of our solar system as stated by him in a universe of imperfection. He says we were lucky for this to happen as in the case of movement of galaxies due to gravity or formation of metals. Intelligent design is again disregarded by genius Stephen Hawking. Even when he talks about dark energy and physical laws governing it, its still in nascent state. I would really appreciate if someone could shed more light about perfection and imperfection of the universe.

  26. To stop this from happening, take note of the following recommendations on how to tell the difference in between a fake and a genuine handbag. As you know, it is safer and a lot far more convenient for you to know… ahead of placing your order. You don’t want to go through the tension of having to return the handbag when you discover that it is secure. In other words, prevention is better than cure.

  27. The leadline of fashion Hermes in Transformers 3

  28. Hi Vlatko,

    Could you please provide me with your email or respond using mine? I have a question for you, but unfortunately I cannot find a way to submit it using your contact form.

    Thank you,


  29. Hawking's metaphor about alien colonization falls apart when you consider that the subjects of his metaphor, humans, are ourselves searching for extraterrestrial life with no intention of colonization, but mere scientific fascination.

    1. This is not true other Ryan. We humans have always colonized everything on this earth. The reason why we just look for extraterrestrial life with mere scientific fascination, is the fact that we simply do not know what's out there. Also we lack the capabilities as a species to actually colonize anything outside our own planet.

      I like your style..dismissing the argument of the leading sciensist in this field of research..but take your time to think about what he says.

    2. @ FB2014

      Actually, I don't believe we do lack the capability to colonize the moon right now, and could be fairly well on our way to doing so on Mars, if it weren't for the 2 trillion dollars that "must" be spent every year on military expenditures worldwide. If we were a less violent planet -a more united planet- our horizons would expand enormously.

  30. Okay. I didn't swear. @_@ The stars should say great.

  31. I don't know how stupid this is, or if anyone else thought about it, but wouldn't it be great if the mad scientist missed and the past 'him' went to try again on the next 'him' who was a minute behind? What an awkward scenario. XP

  32. @eightyape #114

    I enjoyed reading your post. I do have a bit of a funny-bone and your bit about Entropy is along the same lines I've been thinking for awhile.

    Do you feel that life be termed, most simply, an Entropy-Fighting Machine? This idea seems to explain why most humans value asthetics and have a fairly consistent concept of Beauty. We seem to enjoy cleaning our environments with an almost OCD-like compulsion. When I've pondered why, the idea of an Entropy Fighting Machine is about all I can come up with.

    1. You should remember that life only reduces entropy for itself by increasing entropy in its environment. Rather than an entropy fighting machine, life is more of a byproduct of entropy working on much more massive scales.

  33. Stephen Hawking is touted as the "greatest mind on the planet," but I find his basic premise in "Into the Universe" to be quite false. Scientists have given scientific names to I believe 23 "humanoids" preceding Homo Sapiens. They all came into existence and ceased to exist in less than a million years, a moment in geological time. Hawking suggests that a million years from now Homo Sapiens will be desperately attempting to maintain their existence on nother planets. Nonsense. Why in the world would he imagine there won't be another 23 versions, all more highly developed, even using only existing evolutionary mechanisms? Homo sapiens at that time will be an historic curiosity.
    We claim to "understand" the genetic code. More nonsense. That won't be true until we can manipulate and modify the code at our whim, creating any sort of organism we imagine. That capability will certainly be achieved in just a few generations, and then enhanced. Higher intelligence? Piece of cake. For years we have doubled the intelligence of our electronic brains every year and a half. In a million years there won't be 23 new versions, but more like millions of them. If it's at all useful, the intelligence of dozens of current species could be increased to that of Homo sapiens.
    Dr. Hawking is relatively high in intelligence, but apparently deficient in imagination. As Einstein stated, imagination is more significant than intelligence in the progress of science.
    You probably don't have the space for this, but my second complaint about the video is that more than 90% of the imagery may only be seen on a television set. Stars amd galaxies streaming past the camera on the left and right as it travels tens and thousands of times faster than the speed of light. As we approach the speed of light all the imagery in front of our vehicle is compressed to a point directly in front of us, and that behind us is compressed to another point of light. Until they both disappear as their wavelengths take them out of the visual spectrum. And by definition nothing can exceed the speed of light. These points should have at least been mentioned.

    1. You, sir, lack imagination.

      You lack to imagine that this rock may be doomed. Looking for other places to live is not only wise, but it is also what we do as humans - I should say "Homo Sapiens" to appear intelligent.

      Evolution for humans is at a stand still. Maybe we'll lose a toe or something, but why would we change? Evolution occurs do to the survival of the fittest. Everyone is fit enough to survive. If anything, the less intelligent, - should I say? - religious and poor breed far more which should result in a less sophisticated majority. I'm not saying I have a problem, rather its just a fact to further an argument.

      Also, you can have all the computers you want; they don't think for themselves. An electronic brain must be huge (I'm thinking of the Watson thing on Jeopardy) to make a sentence, to decipher language. Computers aren't answers; they're catalysts to answers. They can't "imagine" an answer. You first need an answer to find a solution. Try learning physics.

      Also, we do know and do manipulate the genetic code. We take yeast and E. Coli, and insert genes into them to make proteins - ones like...oh I don't know...insulin.

      Lastly, you also uncertainly said, "If it's at all useful, the intelligence of dozens of current species could be increased to that of Homo sapiens." NO!!! What would a dog with human brain capacity do? Bark because it can't talk? Will Flipper grow a hand and write underwater - He should be friendly to us, so we can supply him with space pens.

      I usually don't care to respond to this crap, but stop thinking you know everything, and start thinking. Who are you to take a dump on Hawking? Anyone reading your unresearched throw-up on the internet has no clue who you are.

      I do - you plan on learning physics and astronomy through the t.v., and, for some reason, you have a problem with the visuals.

  34. So many comments. Aliens have already been here, the ones who are say 4.5 billion years ahead of us. To them our universe and Galaxy is like a cosmic playground. They are probably at maxium knowledge in the capabilities of traveling the vast distances.

  35. I am fixated on how a worm hole can be expanded to human size. Even if time travel seems unlikly through this method it would be neat to see a portal... and what innovative thinking.

  36. any tips to get around the block? please help vlatko

  37. @dano

    I downloaded the add on, as it was just a divx type (somewhat reliable source). Having said, it still did not function correctly (out of sync), and I ended up re-opening the file with regular Windows 7 Media Player and it worked PERFECTLY.

  38. @Get Real #124

    99.9% correct. Very good choice, whomever made that decision.

  39. @Anyone

    I've just arrived in here, and have not yet read far into the posts, but @ post #8 in ref to posts #6 #7 - I actually found it quite clever, regardless of a small typo stuff up. It was quite clear that this is all it was. Way to fail eyepoppin.

    As for 'wasting' money on social issues, it is by investing money in said things that science is infact benefitted greatly.

    I don't even need google (or prior knoweledge) to know that it is unlikely that Stephen Hawkings attended a public school and/or had Dad bouncing Mum off of the walls every other night after his evening bottle; homework is already difficult enough in getting started, let alone finished. Self esteem, adequate sustenance and understanding how to socially interact
    appropriately are also pretty handy in getting a kid through a day of school.

    Stephen Hawkings has not only a very rare LEVEL of intelligence, it is also a very rare TYPE of intelligence. Both are neccesary in order for him to do what he has for science - and he had to do so much of it, for the greater part, with the scientiffic community working against him. Who's laughing now eh? My point here is that little 'Stephens' could be running around anywhere right now. We need as many as we can get.

  40. Stephen Hawkins strikes me as the Mass Media Poster Child for what they want you to think a genius is and what he thinks.

  41. StageVu requires I download a plugin before it presents the video. Does this cause a mess on my computer or should I just find another source to watch this particular doc?

    1. @dano,

      StageVu streams divx videos only, and you'll just need divx web player to watch their videos. It's harmless, in fact it's useful.

  42. @Henry&Dave:

    Carl Sagan's Cosmos, episode 4 I believe. Deals with red shift and blue shift as well.

  43. @Dave

    Actually... If there was a way to expand space behind you and compress it in front of you while traveling at or near the speed of light, it will be possible to travel faster than the speed of light without actually breaking the speed of light (which I believe is impossible because of the many wacky paradoxes that form when traveling to the past.) and therefore travel great distances in littler time.

    In other words, by expanding and contracting space you can move through it in a way that would seem as the space is moving around you and not the other way around. I believe I have seen a good explanation of this theory somewhere on this website but don't remember the name of the documentary.

  44. no man can be like him.hawking is just awesome.

  45. i like your shows cuz i can get everything which is requried to me.thanx for making such type of shows by which we getting lots of knowdlage.

  46. personaly, I'm baffled by all this, for me it's obvious that there must be something else out there! in fact, lots of somethings! I think it's rather egocentric and dumb to even consider being alone, just because of the sheer size of the cosmos! As to alien absolutly fascinates me that there are creatures out there who we probably will never even realize existed, it blows me away to think about the possible umungous number of advanced civilizations that have existed and have already been left behind, forgotten and burried by the unforgiving reality that is time; crushes me to imagine the infinite number of civilizations that are yet to exist and prosper and finally unavoidably vanish. the bottom-line is that I'm convinced that alies do exist, I'm also convinced that we, the human race, will never ever see one! we are indeed tiny, but beyond tiny, we're pety..we will carry out our own desctruction before anyone else out there has the change to! I wonder how they will react once our tuned up greeting card gets intercepted by an alien civilization! probably what a glorious that will be in that far away world! I just hope we are lucky enough that someone else out there took the liberty to act as we did, seeking out neighbours and friends in the vastness of space, and sent an undeniable proof of the remote existence of intelligence! I could write about this all day long..but in the end, it's on earth that we stand and it's earth we have to worry about! it's beautiful to send our minds woundering through space an time and in the end I think that that ability to understand and seek conprehension of what's out there has the ability to give us all perspetive! although I also agree that there are more pressing matters on our own backyard. Stephen Hawking is a genius (lacking a stronger word) who fought through desease just because of his love and fascination for the place we live in and someone , who in the end, contributed to science in a way tha few have, in a time of all-knowing frenzy such as ours! LONG LIVE STEPHEN HAWKING! LOVE YOU MAN!

  47. I thought the part about time travel was interesting. However he forgot to explain the most basic fact, no surprise he's a genius after all.

    We travel time all the time already, we just do it one second at a time.

  48. So from what i have watched so far Hawkins subscribes to the theory that time is linear and we are the pinnacle, the height of evolution. There are a few anomalies he forgets, like the pyramids in Egypt, south America and other things that were seemingly impossible to build at the time, and he also said we know more about the universe now than ever before, which is probably true, but, again he makes no mention of the advanced knowledge of the heavens that some ancient civilisations had, way before the west, i guess that wouldn’t fit in.

    I would have liked it if he explored the possibilities that time runs in cycles as the Vedic texts and Mayans suggested.

    IMO, we should concentrate on the earth, we have got so many problems we can’t seem to sort out here, lets sort those out first then think about space, time travel.

  49. Suppose if the existence of life itself was a fundamental physical certainty inherent in the universe itself?

    We are here (or so we perceive we are at least), we have the concept of consciousness, this consciousness is apparently seeking to unify its theories of existence.

    It seems silly to ignore the fact that the absorption of light by our eyes, our physical vibration in the physical universe, our translation of vibrations into electrochemical energy by our ears and the fact that these, and all mine and all your own, physical processes are all intrinsic parts of the physicality of the universe and life is unique physical phenomena.

    The very chemistry of life creates a layer of matter on this planet seemingly coexistent with and part of a layer of water, life here has a radioactive signature even - blaring radiation throughout space- even before this we were creating "noise" and in this we and this noise of life must effect the universe as a whole in some way and the phenomena of perpetuated energy we know as life has a energetic "signature" if you will! just like microwave radiation or infrared life is both massive (in that it has mass) and is a "waveform" also -in that it stretches back into the history of our ancestors and projects forwards in our descendants- it has mass although that mass is transmutable thought out the waveform- when we die the mass of our bodies is gone but our "signature" continues and evolves exponentially(we hope! if im right its an inevitability!)

    Just as we perceive the effects of a supernova on a nearby galaxy through radioactive and gravitational force then this "noise of life" must effect the universe around us ( we are effectively shouting across the stars with all our broadcasts in the modern era!

    I wonder what might hear us or shout in reply? maybe contact with aliens is inevitable and this "life force"- for want of a less mystical sounding term is pretty much a physical certainty- maybe the universe simply propagates energy in this way and evolves along with life and vice-versa- we are a part of the universe after all, (or are we? insert matrix style existentialist query here, are we really here? and is the grass really green?)

    We should factor in both our physical existence and our physical signatures effect on the universe as a whole when attempting to postulate a "theory of everything" -which always sounded a bit silly to me anyhow imagine it;

    "I have a theory of everything! What? Everything? Yes , everything!! OK... then what's in my pocket? erm......."

    Isn't the third law of thermodynamics kinda wrong in so much that life is a perpetual force of organization of matter directly opposed to random badger hat incredulity shoe-box .... sorry i meant entropy for those with no funny bone- I thought fermi right be might there for a second... oh maybe he was... maybe we just needed a fourth law that sits in partial opposition to the third -a law that supposes a fundamental order to the universe in the perpetual resonance of ordered and structured matter that is life - or maybe it was just wrong and rising entropy is not the absolute constant we think/thought it was. bold i know but I'm right i reckon, been thinking about this a good while.

    I have many more thoughts on this but for now... My questions are thus?

    What affect does the life on earth all its humming and buzzing have on its gravity and the gravity of Jupiter for instance? and vice-versa of course? or the sun? or zeta reticule? or the spiny gravity thing... that may or may not be a black hole... at the middle of the milky way?

    You couldn't get a more biological reference for the biggest thing in our skies! So why then? Are we not considering the biology of the universe and ourselves in its physical interactions and our theories of gravity and such? The physics of water seem so very odd in comparison to other elements too and we are seemingly a continuous reaction perpetuating as part of and symbiotic with this stuff - are we just like a fizzing sodium in a petri dish of water- are we simply a reaction? or is it more complex than that? it would seem so cos none of it adds up just yet.

    We are perpetual but our matter is constantly renewed through our life cycles and perpetuated through death by our offspring. We are seemingly very old- even in comparison to the universe, in our current understanding of its timescales, life is no spring chicken- if life as we know it evolved at a particular moment in space-time in reaction to, or as a consequence of, other physical processes to fill a gap so to speak!

    - to provide a force of that is both ordered and chaotic at once- much like the fact that a particle can be both a waveform and a massive particle. life can be considered as matter or a perpetual energetic force. life if considered over time often shares but doesn't consist of the same massive particles it consisted of before-n you are not the same body of particles you were last week are you?(at least seemingly it doesn't HAVE to consist of the same particles which is my point) but it appears as a consistent reaction or "waveform" with a resonance all the way back to the primordial ooze (or whatever it was) that is continually evolving in its structure and appearance.

    On the other hand if you were to "freeze" this reaction in time and "capture a particle" of life then you are presented with a body that has observably has mass but in analyzing or observing its mass you lose the ability to observe its place in the waveform view of life - all the life on earth in fact if halted in time would have a specific mass but in observing this you would have halted its progress through time and not observed the qualities life has as a perpetual force or wave.

    HeHe heres another, Isn't it possible to consider life as a form of radiation?

    We procreate - seemingly we have this in common with stars in their so called "nurserys". We put Sodium into petri dishes and acknowledge we are not quite as simple a physical phenomenon of this type. We are a reaction amongst the matter not just of it. I put it to you that physics is out of touch with humanity but not in the way it thinks it is. I put it to you that the music of life is as important as heat, light and gravity in the physical machinations of the universe. pretty cool? huh? or am i just crazy?

    One thing I do know is im certainly not as naive as some who think the answers are all found or we have all the theories that might matter in our everyday lives or stupid enough to believe or seek a theory of everything- you would effectively be god and the universe (or you) would have to cease to exist as it would all collapse into the space behind your eyes where the whole universe would suddenly became as clear as day and completely nonexistent at the same time as your understanding of it in its entirely would simultaneously force it to collapse into nothing and explode into everything all at once.

    perhaps there was a big bang and "god" or "the singularity" -ie. everything suddenly became forced to become nothing- perhaps the whole of existence is a sophisticated ever resonating flip between void and substance and we are the vibrations dancing on this metaphysical rubber sheet, like a trampoline where you are effectively bouncing on both sides at the same time.

    like coexisting between genius and mental all at once, i dunno what you reckon?

    Thanks for reading

  50. "It’s a testiment to humanity that we can actually work with and define infinity with pencil and paper."
    ok i will give this a try for you infinity, infinity +1, infinity +2, infinity +3, infini . . .
    Has anyone got an infinite sheet of paper handy?
    You can work in maths with the concept of infinity but isnt it by definition an intangible and inconceivable concept?
    although an interesting man i met said this once
    "infinite conciousness is the only truth, everything else is illusion" infinity may well become tangible if we were to consider ourselves infinite.

  51. "If a multiverse does exist, it is reasonable to assume that it would share the properties of the universes it produced. We would see some evidence of actual infinities in our universe. But we do not. Therefore, the concept of an infinite multiverse fails to even rise to the level of reasoned logic or philosophy, having more in common with wishful thinking or religion.."
    I am forced to agree with this but its all so very deterministic. . .

  52. The universe is still expanding into the space between your ears.
    What if "dark matter" was conciousness and our universe was 2/3 thought and 1/3 matter.

    1. i prefer to think that the universe is creating the space between ones ears non stop at the speed of light. It does not force the ears apart because the physical ears exist in 3 D and space only 1 - the primary one which remains constant and isometric. 3D is a result of matter existence. Remove matter and you remove 3D.

  53. "If you’re thinking that complex organisms came to be by accident, you’re surely mistaken. Evolution through means of natural selection is what allowed humans to be."
    But what if it wasnt by "accident"?

    but by some fundamental law that life is intrinsic to the fabric of spacetime?

    The universe (or our perceived universe at least)might actually require complex organisms to occupy and evolve in some part of spacetime in order for the universe to exist at all!

    Stars appear to have life cycles with similar characteristics
    as do humans.

    Can somebody please tell the creationists that our concept of god is evolving.

  54. Is the existence of life actually a fundamental law of physics itself?
    If so, then the food chain and predation would also be "physical laws" and this thought makes me slightly nervous about alien life.
    On the same hand it would mean love aand sex were also constants.
    So its not so bad.

  55. Speculative rubbish, mostly, yes I agree but very inspiring speculative rubbish.
    This is Hawking at his populist best- confuhawkingcious he say
    "In the absence of our knowledge about the laws of the universe our best course of action is to use our imaginations"
    The term Einstein used was "thought experiments" i seem to remember.
    Right or wrong ideas opened to question help us create a clearer picture of our part and place in the universe.

  56. The existence of life is a fundamental law of physics
    This fact alone makes for why we cannot find a complete set of physical rules for the universe because you cant measure yourself with yourself.
    Maybe the cosmological constant is actually life...

  57. This man is not crazy, and not absurd. He is briliant!

  58. And Curtis, you have no clue what your talking about, You really need to have some background information on all these topics you think you are debunking. If you think that we have no way of confirming exo-planets such as Gliese 581 c or e, then you have no business ranting your c@#$ on here cause you really have no idea what your talking about. Like someone said earlier, Hawking doesn't explain everything fully because he expects the viewer to have a small, general background in cosmology, ok?

  59. Half of you need to learn how to spell!! Some of your entries are so bad it's like, "What the hell are you talking about?" Jeez, before you go talking about Time Travel, Panspermia, and the Theory of Everything, at least go learn something that is much more basic first: spelling! Wow, you guys suck.

  60. speculative rubbish .. i will be torn to peices i know but i feel this is our reality , but then i do believe in God (not religion) and treasure the gift we have been given.
    Untill i see otherwise , i believe we are very much alone in the universe and the universe is ours to colonise if we find it possible..i do believe in different dimeensions though and therefore different realities and in those realities other life forms ohhere comes the abuse lol..
    i am allowed my opionion the same as everyone else is allowed there's :D

  61. Curtis:

    Explosions? Supernovae perhaps? It is widely accepted among the scientific community that under the immense pressures and temparatures of collapsing stars, certain compositions of matter are formed. These compositions are what make up the matter we know/consist of.

    Having said that, I haven't watched this Doc yet, so I'm not gonna get direct quotes or references.

    Might be time to watch it now, although I hate having to listen to his robot voice. It's grating.

  62. @Randy

    There's no doubt that the human body is far from a "perfect design" but what I'm saying is that I don't believe that humans and all the other millions of species in the world were just magically created out of a bunch of explosions

  63. @D-K

    Wow not sure where to start. I'm not the one that said that complex organisms came to be by accident, that was Hawkings.

    Just a heads up, there is no such thing as nothing, better send Hawkings a memo, cuz he said that one too.

  64. @Achems Razor

    Well if Hawkings says something it must be true. Ya I don't see how I missed that before. How is it reasonable to assume something came from nothing? Give me just one explination of getting something from nothing. As for "Gliese 581" you think a planet can be discovered that is over 200 trillion kilometers away? I guess you and your buddy Stevie can jump on the Starship enterprise and go check it out. Also if you believe in Hawkings theory you might as well believe in a bearded man in the clouds, because they're both a load of b/s.

  65. If God give me the power to give another 100 years of Life to any one person you want. So, I will give it to Shri Amitabh Bachchan ji No No No sorry sorry I will give it to Dr.Stephen Hawking the Genius on Earth or GOD BRAIN. DEVESH LODHY, NARORA, UP OR ICMR-AIIMS, NEW DELHI- 9311445684

  66. This is the best documentary film I ever watched after the Jurrasic Park in my life, but unfortunately i missed some episode. but I recorded two episode on my Phillips Ipod and during traveling i enjoy to listen these repeatedly with full Curiosity. I am checking program schedule on discovery website several times for "In to the Universe" but unfortunately i not find the repeat telecast so please someone help me.

  67. 'Stephen hawking' the man with absolute genius brain. Just a request for him, plz invent a time machine for the sake of mankind...

  68. Way to assume aliens are going to be similar to humans at this specific point on our time scale. if this documentary were done 500 years ago when human exploration was more important then he would have called the aliens intergalactic universe mappers. 1000 years early and the aliens would be considered the enlightened thinkers here to free our brains and answer s@#$. but because right now at this point in time our resources are the main concern he just assumes thats going to be the aliens main concern. power and resources.

    What a s@#$%& thing to assume. I like hawking. but this is just s@#$%&. and what about the possibility of us not being compatible with aliens on the scale of bacteria. Our bacteria on earth being dangerous to aliens. and visa versa. why not mention anything about that? clearly that could be an issue as well. incompatibility!

    I love my documentaries. but this one is just mostly nonsense mixed in with some imagination and decent hypothesis'.

  69. @Sadie

    Buy him some Arby's, he'll be your friend for life.


    Our bodies are complex, but there are also ALOT of mistakes in there. A LOT of bad design. Our eyes for example, are pathetic, comapared to many, many other species.

    We never should have stood upright, very bad evolutionary mistake. We have these useless vestigial organs, left over from past evolutionary culs-de-sac, that just rot away inside us, causing infections and cancers...

    Nothing sacred or divinely inspired about us, or any life, actually. Just self replicating DNA. It happens, *shrug*

  70. @Curtis: Man was not created out of nothing, he was created out of matter.

    "How were we created by accident? With how complex our bodies are I don’t see how that is possible"

    It's not about us, a very simple batch of amino acids and proteins were created from nothing (inorganic matter) by accident, which over time evolved and adapted to indirectly become humans. Hawking often skips certain steps because there is already a consensus on those points in the scientific community, he counts on the viewer having some pre-existing knowledge on what he's talking about.

    If you're thinking that complex organisms came to be by accident, you're surely mistaken. Evolution through means of natural selection is what allowed humans to be.

    Although according to quantum mechanics, there is a chance, however small, that you spontaneously formed out of random matter. I somehow don't think he was talking about that.

    Just a heads up, there is no such thing as nothing, there's always something. Even in a vaccuum.

  71. @Curtis:

    What's Glesa? are you referring to the planet called Gliese 581?
    How was the planet discovered? if you still go to school ask your science teacher. If you do not go to school, than google it!

    You think that Hawking's is crazy when he says we were created from nothing? why would you think that? why, he even says that the whole Universe was created out of absolutely nothing, it sounds perfectly reasonable to me. as a matter of fact that is what his new book called... "The Grand Design", is about.

    He makes everything perfectly clear to me. I don't see any other way of how everything was made, unless you think that there is a bearded man hiding up in the clouds looking down on his flock of sheeple that made us and everything.

  72. I'm not sure what Hawkings has been smoking, but I want some. His description of how we were created from nothing is absolutely ludacris. His crazy ideas and even crazier stories of how and why we came to be is bizarre. He offers no real explanation of proof of what he say has any scientific fact to it. Many times he claims that what happens is from luck or accident. How were we created by accident? With how complex our bodies are I don't see how that is possible. And yes I know that many things in our world are created by "luck" or "accident" such as petroleum, natural gas, diamonds, etc, that are created over 1000's of years with heat and pressure from the earth, but these examples are a far cry from something as complex as the human body. As for "aliens" or other intelligent species existing in the universe I say that it is definitely possible, after all we are here, but to say that the universe is infinite is a little ridiculous. I have no idea how the universe came to be, but to believe Hawking's is no more unrealistic than the bible and how God created all of the "heavens and earth". Also the topic of Glesa, the earthlike planet supposedly discovered in 2007, I have a hard time comprehending how exactly it was discovered. Hawkings says that if a ship could be created that would travel 1000 times faster than the fastest space vehicle created to date, it would take 77 years to reack Glesa. So how was this planet discovered? Obviously no satellite or spacecraft has gotten anywhere near the planet, and that distance is definately too far to see even out of the strongest of telescopes. To me Hawkings theory is nothing more than a crazy old mans rant probably based on a dream explained by "magical" explosions that seem to explain it all. I don't buy it for a second.

  73. My fear isn't that extra-terrestrials exist...the odds favor that they do. It's that either we will be delicious, or they will.

  74. dude, i f@#$%^& love Stephen, he has such a great imagination but it is insanely logical, but you b@#$%&* governments will not listen, your need for corporate investment and power is transforming mankind into an inevitable disaster. We will become so engulfed in ourselves that we forget the very fabric of what we and if we are not careful, we will consume the life that has spectacularly developed and flourished on this planet. Lets hope there is a god who can interfere if we ever do come across a reflection of what we have developed into in the vastness of space.

  75. I wish Stephen Hawkins could quantify the passage of intelligence through time - or the sharing of his brain, down the M4 motorway cos he only lives 40 miles away from meeeee

  76. Hawking ROCKS!!! Can't wait to watch...
    Oh isn't he a scum atheist?
    Oh well, sometimes you just have to NOT believe! :))

  77. I feel that, an advanced race would really not care to meet us in person. Anything and everything that can be learned from/on this planet can be done remotely. And, seeing that we really can't get our lives together, I wouldn't blame any other life forms from just watching us from a distance. The only reason they would make contact would be to take something, but for learning purposes, simply observing would be the best option.

  78. Hi,can anybody tell me why i always have such a problem with viewing the videos on this site....i mean my internet is fine,if i go to youtube i can load any video very quickly,but on this site,even when the vid is fully loaded,its still very "skippy".As you can imagine this is extremely annoying,just wondering if anybody else has the same problem?it happens with every single video ive watched on this site.


  79. "The way we will make contact (and its now beyond our capability to stop it) will be from the radio signals we have been sending out for over 100 years. With that said his work is superb."

    You called Stephen Hawkings idea absurd so let us break down your logic here.

    The universe is AT LEAST 156 billion light-years wide.
    We will make contact with with ET through radio waves.
    We have been sending out radio waves for 100 years.
    Radio waves travels at the speed of light.

    Something is not adding up here

  80. I want to go into the universe with Stephen Hawking...

  81. @normal
    "How can we travel into the future if it has not happened yet?
    What will be there when we get there?"
    During time travel into the future this future happens.

  82. This man is awesome:)

  83. “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? …

    Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why?”

    Stephen Hawking

  84. The answers can be found on another stephen hawkings project the great hadron collider wich migth uncover how the first particule born. the particule of god.

  85. Great doc. Only one issue. Highly intelligent beings could not travel vast distances (millions of light years) to visit or colonize other planets and be hostile. We are hostile, and we can barely stop killing each other enough to technologically advance. We went to the moon in 1969, so why cant we go back? Most of our money and highly skilled scientists, are wasting time creating new ways to kill each other.
    And also why leave out the possibility that we could have originally been from another world. Science has proven that the Earth has gone through many world changing events that could have completely destroyed all or most of our technologies. Just as if we were to have a nuclear war or world ending event, most of the people who survived would not have the knowledge to recreate every technology we have now. Only a select few know how to make a computer, or even fix an electrical circuit. We would revert back hundreds maybe thousands of years. And if we had no way to maintain our libraries the knowledge would seem as if it never existed. Just like the reset on your PS3 or for you old schoolers Nintendo.
    Great great doc. We need more free thinkers and less dirty politicians, who usually help no one but themselves.

  86. I usually do not waste my time with people like @What:

    So, you succinctly portrayed my sentiments exactly @D-K.

  87. @What: Astounding! The simplicity of your words do little justice to the undeniable brilliance they convey.

    Fret not, sarcasm is but a concept, it's not real!

  88. time is a concept, it doesn't exist, you can't travel through it. ever think that maybe "time" isn't going slower around larger masses, but maybe the mechanisms used to measure time are slightly f--ked up by the larger masses? you understand that it's obvious we'll never be able to go back in time so what the f--k makes you think it's possible in any other direction?

    "time having wrinkles when you magnify it" is the dumbest thing I've ever heard, wtf is this supposed "genius" crackpot babbling about? oh you've examined time and magnified it, don't insult me you goddamn retard.

    time doesn't have any attributes in common with length, width, or depth and playing word games only makes it seem so until you think about the actual meaning not unlike any other stupid conclusion you can come to with word games. there is no 4th dimension and little strings on the subatomic level don't amount to warp gates. quantum physics is bulls***.

  89. One thing that I found quite annoying in the Alien doc is when he said if the extraterrestrials were an advanced species that discovered bombs they would surely blow themselves up. If he was so sure about them, wouldn't he be sure about human existence. Is he sure that we'll blow ourselves away?

  90. Will have a look, thanks.

  91. @D-K:

    Yeah, I tried to offend also, am bored myself.
    Actually I'm not even into mammary glands, but other things from the female sex, (LOL)

    Completely agree with making our nows future friendly, so then what? makes our upcoming futures friendly? I hope so.

    The many worlds theory to me is fascinating, But even Einstein said spacetime is illusion, everything is static, correct me if am wrong though.

    Check out Barbour's site if you want, might find it interesting.

    Just google..."Julian Barbour"

  92. I'm not a fan of tough tits, I need jiggle in my life. I was also merely poking fun at you, I'm glad it semi-offended you though, as I was bored.

    There's also some difference between planning for the future, and making your "nows" future-friendly. I personally, belong to the latter category.

    I do NOT believe, I'm not one for believing.. especially when it comes to things of spiritual/extra-natural nature. But one thing that always kinda struck me as "off" about the "many worlds theory" is that by the concept that everything imaginable has happened, that would also mean that there is (at least) 1 "world" that will have the means to established communication or possibly even interacted with out reality, and has done so.

    It's basically the same as the time-travel paradox.

  93. @D-K:

    And my previous post to @Randy: was quoting "Julian Barbour", a theoretical physicist, on his "end of time" theory,

    Have studied his works for quite a long time, He might even be considered a rogue scientist to some, but I like rogue scientists!
    Nothing to do with any "secret" whatever.


  94. @D-K:

    Ha, Ha, you are jumping the gun. I said basically works, and I said planning, not envisioning, envisioning is what I believe the secret whatever is about.

    I always plan for the future, does not mean it always works though, what do you do? let things come as it may? you must believe in fate then? that everything is preordained? well not me man!

    I respect you and all, but if you are disillusioned, tough tits!

  95. Achem's Razor believes in The Secret.

    "Am a firm believer in planning for the future though, planning for the future basically works if you want something bad enough, has been proven to me many times"

    I am disillusioned.

  96. sir,
    it was amaizing episodes. u have helped indirectly in completing my theory{Hyper-Stertica Theory}.

  97. @Randy:

    Ha,Ha, you are saying what I have been saying all along, there is no past present and future, everything that happens or will happen already happened, all at once. Everything is static, we are just pulling out snapshots of our nows, of which go to infinity.

    And what I mean by infinity, taking into consideration infinite probable universes. That of course is basically a thought experiment, because many world theory is a math construct so far.

    And by pulling out our snapshots we pick and choose the snapshots of our life, according to our probable actions that gives us our focus of the seemingly flow of time. "Our nows." Which will say again, follows one after another. There is no other way.

    But, "Like they say, tomorrow never comes!"

  98. Jeeze, I just can't stop myself...

    Also, keep in mind that everything we see in the physical world is in the past. It takes time for light to bounce off of the objects that we see or the sound waves that we hear. Then, it takes time for the brain to interpret these things and edit them according to our particular predelictions.

    So, everything we see, hear, and know is in the past. It is impossible for us to know and understand the present, "The NOW!".

    Impossible. Demonsterably impossible. We simply can not, in any way, know what NOW means. It is unknowable.

    So, just save money!

  99. Hello! Achem's and Epi-Logic!!!!

    Listen! I don't mean nothin' by what I said, I am bitter and morbid, as you know... LOL!

    But, not that this was in any way original or trying to say that I had some "special" knowledge.... I mean, I discovered many years later that my ideas were mirrored by many cultures and societies, and I am sure you guys have thought the same things over the years, yourselves.

    In 6th grade, the teacher was droning on about cloud vapor and meteorology, and I was zoning out, as I usually did... you guys can relate... and I started thinking... "NOW!" it's gone. "NOW!" it's gone.... and that is when I realized that time is an illusion and that the Universe happens all at once.

    Later in life, I read the works of great philosophic masters and then of physics and mathematics geniuses and realized that that is, indeed the case.

    And as I aged, I realized that my life is a blink. I realized that I will open my eyes one day and be on my death bed and my life will have evaporated instantly.

    It's all done before it's begun. Eternity happens all at once. There is no now.

    Know what I mean?

  100. @Epic_logic:

    Yes, I try to live in the now, with my thoughts, but like most people dwell on the past to much.

    Am a firm believer in planning for the future though, planning for the future basically works if you want something bad enough, has been proven to me many times. Probably has something to do with QM. forming your own reality and all that stuff, (LOL) Hippie?? maybe. (LOL)

    But like I said everything that lives, is in the now, how could it be any different.

    Yes, thanks to @Hate Machine: for his take on Myers Briggs personality types, I lean towards a INTJ personality type.

  101. @Randy: Our CEO.

    Hello. Long time no see.
    I agree, learn from the past, and plan for the future. And by planning for the future we are formulating our probable actions.

    But! I'm sorry, there is no way of getting around that everybody and everything that lives, lives right now, in the moment, I am living right now, in the moment writing this am I not? Unless it is an illusion, (LOL) if I was not living right now, I would not be writing this, what has the hippie stuff have to do with that?

    The death you talk about, if there was no death there would be no life. Period.

    We are probably talking about the same thing, just putting it differently.

    Wish you the best!

    I,m just saying!

  102. @ The guys!!

    Nice to hear from you all... Some people live in the 'now' and some do not! Achems and i are two of these in the now types, its very much related to personality types (Myers Briggs, based on Jung's work gives some clue to the different types). From @Randy's comments (big Hi to you) it seems as though you are a person who mentally is in in the past and future, just like my best friend who is the same...

    Depends on the person.

  103. Allow me to amend what I just wrote:

    "We can not live in the “now”. Mature, adult humans learn from the past and plan for the future. Children and animals live in the “now”. The “Moment”…"

    Allow me to clarify; we are animals and I do not mean to seperate us from animals in some way. In fact, among that which we call animals, there are many that learn from the past and plan for the future...

    So, let me say, only human children live in the "NOW"! Adult, mature, human-animals learn from the past and plan for the future.

    Most "animals" are better at that than humans, in fact.

    Our frontal lobes really screwed us up, I think. When our species is done, I really think Nature (whatever that might mean), will keep that self-examining, life-questioning frontal lobe nonsense from developing again. It was a fun experiment, but really... very self destructive.

    The next dominant species will probably be a social insect; a hive-mind, like the ant, termite, or bee.

    I've written papers on this, and stories... although it is certainly not original. Frank Herbert's "The Green Brain" was a huge eye-opener for me when I was 9.

    What a failed species, are we...

  104. I would respectfully amend Achem's above statement. I think I know where he was going with that, (that time is an illusion, yes, I agree), what I object to is the "living in the 'now'" ideology.

    There simply is no "now". The Zen mystics, thousands of years ago, as well as the Hindu Fakirs, and many other ancient peoples, realized that "now" does not exist. And then, of course, much later, math and science proved it.

    We can not live in the "now". Mature, adult humans learn from the past and plan for the future. Children and animals live in the "now". The "Moment"...

    I'm sorry, Achem's, I know you are sensitive to this... but that is hippie thinking... (sorry!)

    You can not live in "The Moment" you can not live in "The Now". You must learn from the past, and then plan for the future.

    Time travel? Who cares? Learn from the past and PLAN for the future.

    We are all already dead. Is that morbid? LOL!

  105. @Kels:

    Yes, no real future, and no real past, the only thing that is real is our nows. We all live in the "now", not in the past which was our nows that preceded the now we live in.
    The future is not real until by our probable actions that will make the future, what I mean by probable actions is our probable nows that we take to formulate our future, one now at a time, say if you will one moment at a time.

    As an analogy, to learn something new, to decide to change professions, sometimes even the simplest things, say, take a different route to work, even to flip a coin, to do this, or to do that, may turn life around on a dime. heads us into new probable fields.

    These are all probable actions, but the probable actions that a person did not take are still real and viable and exist, re; many worlds theory, parallel universe theory. Only we are not cognizant of them because we live in this one vibrational spacetime, our universe, of which there are unlimited universes, re: string theory.

    Linear time is a series of nows, or to make it more simple, "of moments", that seemingly flows to us, always advancing, but at the quantum level there is no flow of time.

    So time travel may be possible, but where will you end up? Could be a probable universe. Because of unlimited probabilities.

  106. To "normal", you're thinking of time as a liner 2D object, where as you need to think of the 4th Dimension space-time, where there is no real 'future' or 'past' but a smudge like existence on a plane. Time is a human invention, space-time is like.. space. It's not 3D, it's more than that. I can't explain it well at all, but research space-time and you'll get your answer :)

  107. Hawkings determination of the likely cultural proclivities of an intelligent extraterrestrial civilisation derive from a sample size of exactly one, namely us. Hardly a sound data set upon which to base a hypothesis. And this man is lauded as a scientific genius? Sychophants the lot of ya.

  108. Genius

  109. I'm a professional accountant though but space and persons attached to space knowledge like Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan have always inspired me. When I read 'A Brief History of Time' I fell in love with this genious of our times... His imaginations are far ahead of our times... Too vast to grasp..

  110. For certain types of people life has nothing better to offer than a chance to explore the unknown.

  111. I would rather enjoy my life here on earth for 80 years than spend 80 years of my life in a spaceship to reach the end of the universe and find out I am back where I started from. :)

  112. If you think our radio signals will contact anything at all I suspect you are grossly uninformed as to the true vastness of the Universe. The distance our very first radio signals have traveled is pitifully small.

    If we are to be the ones to make contact, first a radical change in our understanding and manipulation of physics and the Universe will have to occur. What we currently have on hand is insufficient.

  113. aliens may not be hostile but we as a race are

  114. It is nothing short of sheer Ignorance to think we are alone in the universe.

  115. I love science/universe documentaries, but honestly...Stephen Hawking doesn't cut it for me.

    He's just plain boring and narrow minded. Having a "theory" for everything doesn't make it so.

    Perhaps he should consider the fact that there's more to the Big Bang than he can see and not be so definite/firm about it.

    PS - I have not watched this doc.

  116. @Achems

    I tried but , uhh no.

  117. @D Ghosh
    Well I got from the first part that you like to see science ask questions and for us to prove them but what was the rest of this? Please elaborate as you seem to be throwing a bunch of things , that dont match , together.

  118. sorry dustin but the radio waves we send out degrade into noise after just a few lightyears

  119. Can someone decipher that for me?

  120. First prove antecedents of the readers which you can not so make these appear only on invitation that is better take more time to ask scientifically & technically qualified experts, editors of qualified journals & magazines & experienced science & technology journalists(who can easily read a paper & find its worth and can prove the authors bluff)about the quality of articles,videos,letters with comments.The odd readers would be very pleased & beneficiary without looking further.

    Dr.D. Ghosh,M.Sc(Applied Mathematics with courses in Statistics to Field theory from Landau ,Fluid Mechanics & Heat Transfer,Elasticity,Statics & Dynamics,Integral Equations & other relevant areas of Mathematics),Diploma Post Graduate in N L Mathematics,Ph.D in Fluid Mechanics & Heat Transfer, then staring & grinding at the universe for the last forty years to be exact with vast studies & experience in Rocket Science & Technology,Satellites & Missions,Launch Vehicles,Space Flights & Interstellar Journeys beyond Solar Systems & to the Stars, Fusion Propulsion & Annihilation Combustion.
    Now retired at the receiving end without resources,funds ,libraries,computers at home.
    Free the American & many other Journals & other publications like conference edits,advances, special issues from the clutches of dollars,pounds & rich publishing agencies & make these free from encumbrances to be made available in the Internet at the cost of some billions a year. May be we can demand Obama, Putin,Abdalla, many Kings & Queens in this Earth.Let thousand flowers bloom, remove poverty & destruction,horrible diseases & fanaticism. India

  121. There is something that has bothered me. Scientist say that it is impossible for aliens to be visiting us due to the time it takes to travel from one star to the next, what gets me is how arrogant they are about it. They say it is not possible to travel faster than the speed of light. My thinking is this; 100 years ago they said it wasn’t possible to do the things we do today. If there are civilizations out there, and just looking at the numbers it would be naive to say there wasn’t, they would be billions of years more advanced than us. There are quite possible ways to travel that we are ignorant about. Who knows what the future holds, I just wish I could be around to see it.

    1. Indeed, we are in a way too "arrogant" (if that's the right term here). Most people are thinking way too much inside the box when it comes to these things. Also take aliens for example, sure we know they can form under the circumstances we have here on earth, we're the proof of that, so it kinda makes sense we're looking for alien life within these parameters. But who is to say aliens would even need water or a certain temperature, or that we could even recognize alien life, all these aliens are much too "earthly" for my tastes in these documentaries (especially ridiculous if they have "technology" similar in appearance to our understandings, with spacecraft and such). That's fine and all, since that's all we can imagine/know, but a lot don't even point out the possibility the appearance and needs of possible aliens could be really "out there".
      But at least some have the "life *as we know it*" in there somewhere.

    2. (st*pid edit function doesn't work :/)
      What I was going to say that this is actually one of the few documentaries I know of that does it right :).

  122. @All the people who say very advanced aliens would not be hostile. I agree. At least not intentionally. When we humans clear a piece of land to build a house we don't consult with all the ants if you know what I mean.

  123. How long have we dreamed of time travel? Did the Greeks, or the Egyptians have ideas about time similar to our present-day conceptions? I think what's going to move us forward is to continue progressing with manipulating biology and robotics that can push us further in the cosmos, one step at a time.

  124. Peole I am so grateful that I found such an open people here who are able and willing to discuss such a such a complex problems and with whom I can develop a solid debate without anyone attacking each other, just putting forward their arguments in a civilised way. THANK YOU ALL, GO ON!!! :)

  125. Cant find words...simply jaw-dropping! This man is a great visionary and it is amazing how openly he puts forward such unimaginable facts and theories that only a small portion of people can swallow or accept. All my admiration

  126. i believe that space travel is the single most important aspect of humanities future - if we are to survive as a species. i also believe that Hawking noting one of the biggest problems we face towards making space travel possible, as financial, represents many more problems than just money. our world is utterly disconnected and much to immature to handle the responsibilities that come along with space travel. a people at war with themselves will never make it. a people whos masses lack the education and the "want" to be educated to understand why space travel is so important, will never make it. our lives are so small that our concerns are too selfish to support any ambition besides each our own. in 500 years a lot of these ideas are possible, but in order for it to be, the inequalities and illusory separations our governments, religions, and greed breeds must come to an end, or else there will be no peace; and for something like space travel to be we represent ourselves to the rest of the galaxy, we must be peaceful within ourselves. a warring civilization could never benefit. an alien race may be hostile towards us, or any other alien race - but notice they do not war within their own civilization..they are intelligent enough to know it is of no benefit to them to do so.

  127. Really good series, well worth a watch.
    Here is a thought, if aliens came to earth and were simply a more advanced version of humans we would be royaly screwed. I cant see us going to mars unless we come across somthing worth exporting, otherwise i fear mars will just become another dubai catering only for the super rich.

  128. How could all that text be called called a Movie Show?

  129. Great doc "The Story Of Everything". Now i know that all the matter was actually created from Hydrogen by pure chance. Than it converted to Helium, than the Helium converted into everything else from Oxygen , Iron and finally, Carbon... And all of this, because of a vast series of PERFECT IMPERFECTIONS. Imperfections that were so PERFECT to create everything ..... out of a PERFECT nothing ... Hehehe ... Cooool ... Sure the man knows things :)

    I really like Dr. Hawking. He is a genius but c'mon ... Do you really think that all things that we know are products of pure coincidences?


  130. Why did they replace his robot voice with a normal one? The old amiga voice box sounds much better than the daft voice that replaces it. Are the makers ashamed or do they think we couldnt understand what hes saying? This must have been made in the states. When youve heard scottish, geordie, brummie, welsh, etc. His robot voice is nothing. All hail Hawkeye Hawking king of the Britains.

  131. @Chris. Infinities do exist is the universe. They exist in the construct/discovery of Maths! for example the counting numbers and the mandelbrot set. So, your need to find infinities in order to answer philosophical and religios questions lies in maths, maybe only in maths. It's a testiment to humanity that we can actually work with and define infinity with pencil and paper.

    Maths is more practical than you think. There is a requirement-math tools are created/discovered to answer this requirement-hence infinity arises naturally out of necessity.

    Paragraph 3 of your post is just what you say it is, an assumption. Its not a necessary and sufficient condition. So it can be misleading to take it as fact and infer later conclusions from it.

    The best way we have of describing physical situations with a view to infering new information is with maths, but really it's just a mathematical model of a given situation that adresses different questions to a religous model.

    Even though we use infiniy as a symbol to describe a never ending situation. in practice, but not exclusively, it is used to represent a given situation for extremely large values of variables. This may be the context that it is being used in for the multiverse (if they exist). The math language used in this case is as 'x TENDS to infinity' that is it never reaches infinity but keeps on getting bigger. Its not a number and it's not fixed.

    I hope that i am not too far off the mark with this post and that it gives you some food for thought.

  132. I want to badly know how to buy this latest DVD by Hawkings. I've looked on Amazon but have gotten comments like, "Save your money, buy a good BBC copy." This seems to fit the bill, and I've been watching this exact series on cable here on a channel called D-SCI, I suppose that means Discovery Science.

    Yet I cannot find this DVD. Is it even abailable yet? And if not, when will it be????

  133. our civilization is far far beyond what it could be! after the money will gone, and when technology will start rule to the world, only than we could explore the universe. Why?money make few people to rule, and all the rest are working for them. with technology, there will be no need to work anymore in psychical way. after that we could invest all our powers to build first better planet, homes, food for everyone and than we could search the universe. "aliens" couldn't be aggressive if they are advanced. it is stupid idea!why? if they would be aggressive-there would be inside split in their civilization, and it couldn't developed. we can look just our civilization, we are still aggressive, we are still using money, we are still using 99% cars on gasoline...what i want to teal money, power, poverty... can't bring us development.

  134. I want to know the answer to this question: Will we ever become a civilised society? A society where all the life is given a chance? A society where morals and compassion are the most important values to become an honourable citizen, not selfishness, brutality and ruthlessness. That'll be the day...

    Anyway, great series of documentaries and I enjoyed every minute of it. I do believe in the "big crunch" though and the universes connected through giant black holes...


  135. This has me thinking... If we visit the underground ocean of mars and/or europa and find no life, wouldn't it be a good idea to plant seeds of life? We could engineer organisms, suiting them for their environment, to have a higher success rate.

  136. Brilliant scientist, especially the way he creates presentations for the lay person to understand.

    The only thing I find a bit troubling is how such presentations dismiss the multiple highly-unlikely events that produced our universe as chance by preaching their infinite multiverse religious concepts. To wit, that in an infinite number of universes created by an infinite multiverse, universes like ours would be an eventual certainties.

    The MAIN problem with the concept of an infinite multiverse is not the "multiverse" part, it's the "infinite" part. The property of infinity is ascribed to the multiverse solely in order to make the mathematics come out right to produce our universe in the endless sea of possible universes. However, actual infinities do not exist in our physical universe and there is no logical reasonable basis to attribute the existence of actual infinities to a multiverse that produced our universe.

    If a multiverse does exist, it is reasonable to assume that it would share the properties of the universes it produced. We would see some evidence of actual infinities in our universe. But we do not. Therefore, the concept of an infinite multiverse fails to even rise to the level of reasoned logic or philosophy, having more in common with wishful thinking or religion.

    Without an infinite multiverse as the origin of our universe, we are forced to return back to the more reasonably based concept that our universe is alone, that it is finite in matter and energy, that it had a beginning from nothing, and that the many highly mathematically unlikely events that led to a small planet being in the right place at the right time, having just the right elements and conditions produced life.

    And that science will not be able to so easily explain it all away simply because it makes them uneasy.

  137. What a fascinating, imaginative adventure into the thinking of a true 'free thinker'!

  138. Certainly one could assume the idea that it took humans, lets say roughly 6 thousand years ago to sail the open seas. Then it took humans many more years to utilize these "ships" and actually inhabit all land masses on Earth. Air travel in comparison is so, so young. Sure technology is more advanced now then back then but it takes advancements in many areas to discover new land. I am 26, I believe I wont see a man on Mars. Then again I'm usually so skeptical of humans current rate of evoltion.
    ^^^^^^^^ - don't think that's a word, haha but it should be.

  139. The logical advance in evolution would be what Moravec and others were writing about decades ago, machine intelligence. Protoplasm is too fragile to safeguard in the deadly vastness of outer space. On the other hand, a creature designed to live between planets and asteroids, making pit-stops for resources, would be a natural progression.

    Leave the nest babies, CONQUER THE DAMNED UNIVERSE FOR OUR TEAM! No babies yet? Get back to work humans!

  140. Regarding time travel to the past.

    I think that the problem is stated well by Hawking, the feedback loop would destroy the wormhole (let's hope nothing else). But if you take a sci-fi angle like Stargate (movie, series,etc), I think you could find a theoretical solution. If you somehow keep up the natural ambient radiation from entering the wormhole to the past, the feedback loop could be avoided. Instead of a pit where things "fall" into it, maybe a event horizon like in Stargate's tv shows.

  141. hi every scientist in opinion there aren`t any extraterrestial life thats mean all of this reaserch its weist of time in other wise i say yes meybe ther are but in other paralleld univers in my mind i know there are 7 univers maybe in one of them ther exsist an extraterrestial life
    at last the wise its not whay we are hear its what we must do for our life

  142. this men is amazing i relly respect him he is my hero afer einstein but it will be my place means my destiny i am an algerian kid

  143. Great documentary, good hypothesis.

    Imagine if we lived in a society where the pursuit of usable and reproducible science was the goal instead of building better ways to blow ourselves up.

    I think that Aliens would best wait 100 to 200 years for us to destroy ourselves and then make contact. They can then approach us as saviors or conquerors. If they tried contact now, or aggressive negotiations, a unified planet Earth would act in xenophobic and aggressive ways. Then we'd steal their ships and tech and use it to expand our empire.

    In all honesty I don't think humans have yet evolved emotionally as a species to be worth contact. Who wants to contact the red neck neighbor who likes to pollute and kill for fun and profit?

    The majority of humans are decent, civilized people, but if I were an alien race watching us, and our governments, I'd believe self destruction was our only goal.

    Hope we live as a race long enough to meet our neighbors. We will have a lot to learn.

    Thanks for reading, have a great day

  144. We are trying to explore the Universe with only the background of four to five thousand years old intellectual background. Most of the statement are Very new but were already discovered sometimes back in human civilization. Document is Good at last parts... initially i may have a different view.
    Like the One I dont agree is ..... If we humans feel that the earth is not safe for long time and look for other destination then how can we ignore the fact that in similar conditions we may have come to earth from other universe in search of existence. If we think that earth is not safe and find other planet why cant it be vice versa.
    every Statement can be debated... from the document but whatever... it brings some idea for our human civilization that can be good. So far we have been all fighting for resources... first that should come to an end.

  145. Aliens would not necessarily be “hostile”. They would simply be far more interested in their needs than in ours. From our viewpoint, the difference might not be noticeable. They might even feel bad about exterminating us. To find material wealth in the universe would not require interstellar travel. The only thing worth traveling to the stars to obtain would be habitable real estate. At relativistic speeds, by the time you make the round trip no one at home would be around anymore. If you are traveling long enough from the ship’s viewpoint, your home’s star might not even be there anymore, so exploration isn't a logical rational.

    I would prefer not to meet the neighbors myself.

  146. wow! amazing....

  147. @ Charles B:

    Yes, a good series.

    Particulalry liked it when Hawking's said the universe came out of absolutely nothing! Brings to mind "Null Physics" That I have included on other docs.

    And human existence may be the product of "Panspermia" which I have also included on many docs.

  148. Wow! This is a very good doc series. Right or wrong, Hawking certainly is brilliant, I must admit.

    Thanks, Vlatko! :-)

  149. The Story of Everything was AMAZING! Definitely my favorite. I was actually really moved in some parts - which really surprised me.

    Without imperfection - you and me would not be here. ~ Stephen Hawking

  150. Great docs.

    Have watched "Aliens", "Time Travel", will watch "The Story Of Everything" later.

  151. this guy is mad, and i like it :)

  152. How can we travel into the future if it has not happened yet?
    What will be there when we get there?

  153. What an amazing human being! Praise Stephen Hawking! Thinking about what he brain must be able to do at idle, hurts my little pea brain at full throttle! :D
    Live Long and Prosper, Mr. Dr. Hawking

  154. way to fail^^ mike geez.. either post your comment once or don't say anything! save yourself the embarrassment great doc. by the way.. this is what we should be spending money for.. not stupid social problems that are only created to distract us from the ultimate truth.

  155. Very very cool doc, but i doubt aliens millions of years more advanced than we, WOULD BE HOSTILE. They would be the ultimate scientists.

  156. very very cool doc, but i highly doubt aliens millions of years more advanced than we, would not be hostile. They would be the ultimate scientists.

  157. love it

  158. Nicely put dustin. :)

  159. To clarify Hawking doesnt think contact is a good idea. I think we have no choice, so we should prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

  160. So Hawking just made some interesting comments on extraterrestrial life the other day in the news and I would like to say his ideas on that subject, in my opinion, are absurd. Our attempts to contact other civilized beings via vessels with gold plated markings of what we are and where we are do nothing but increase our facination with the subject. The way we will make contact (and its now beyond our capability to stop it) will be from the radio signals we have been sending out for over 100 years. With that said his work is superb.

  161. This man is wonderful.