Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong?

Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong?

2010, Science  -   489 Comments
7.92
12345678910
Ratings: 7.92/10 from 52 users.

Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong?There's something very odd going on in space - something that shouldn't be possible. It is as though vast swathes of the universe are being hoovered up by a vast and unseen celestial vacuum cleaner. Sasha Kaslinsky, the scientist who discovered the phenomenon, is understandably nervous: 'It left us quite unsettled and jittery' he says, 'because this is not something we planned to find'.

The accidental discovery of what is ominously being called 'dark flow' not only has implications for the destinies of large numbers of galaxies - it also means that large numbers of scientists might have to find a new way of understanding the universe. Dark flow is the latest in a long line of phenomena that have threatened to re-write the textbooks. Does it herald a new era of understanding, or does it simply mean that everything we know about the universe is wrong?

14 billion years ago there was nothing; then everything exploded into existence and the universe was born, but a new generation of cosmologists are questioning this theory. Cosmologists have created a replica of the universe by using equations; it’s called the standard model of cosmology and it’s the reason behind the Big Bang theory; however, this model is now doubted. Professor Alan Guth’s theory challenges the Big Bang by stating that the universe started out small, allowing the temperature to even out everywhere, before expanding on a massive scale.

Stars nearer the edge of a galaxy move just as fast as those in the centre. This made cosmologists think that galaxies needed more gravity, but the only way to get more gravity was to create it. Astrophysicist Dan Bauer is hunting for dark matter half a mile under the dark plains of Minnesota in order to trace and record it more effectively. The discovery that the universe is speeding up suggests that a new force is powering the universe. This force is known as dark energy, and cosmologists have no idea what it is.

The combination of the standard model, inflation and dark matter has given way to a new theory called dark flow. The nature of this theory could show that our universe isn't the only one. The standard model of cosmology has withstood much criticism, therefore making the theory stronger; however it could still be totally wrong.

More great documentaries

guest

489 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jeff
Jeff
2 years ago

Very informative. But commericals every 2mins is very frustrating

Jay MEADOWS
Jay MEADOWS
2 years ago

The answer to the question posed in the title is No...because everything we know to be true about the universe was told to us by an eye witness as He spoke it into existence - the Creator.

Robert Barrett
Robert Barrett
3 years ago

I sort of think of excess energy produced by deflection in nested rotating systems - the entire universe being a series of nested rotating systems. A giant dynamo, or series of dynamos within each other. So all that's needed for expansion is something to give it all a spin. For sake of analogy, the centrifigual force pulls the universe apart (expansion,) which in turn creates more truly empty space. As the video discussed, normal space is not empty at all, and according to thermodynamics, all that loaded space, with all that 'non-empty' congestion begins to flow back into the newly created, truly empty space. Simple thermodynamics. BUT this falling in effect in turn has the effect of an ice skater pulling in their arms during a spin - increasing the speed of the spin, and thus causing another push outward . . . and so on. Essentially, a wave, modulated around a basline. I mean, doesn't it seem they first have to cook up a ghost to explain expansion, then one to explain gravitation, then one to explain expansion, and then gravitation, and so on? So maybe what they're observing really are just faces of the same phenomenon - one which keeps oscillating within a certain kinetic frequency, so to speak. The vibrational frequency of the universe. For me - for my imagination - it seems that all the spinning stretches out new, truly empty portions of space-time - empty furrows in the fabric of space. Into these furrows falls matter. It's like . . . they assume all gravitation must accompany mass, but what if in its more basic essence, gravitation is just an absence of the Zero Point Field. Just my little fantasy brainstorm about it. The expansion energies and the gravitation energies would just be two perspectives of looking at the same thing.

Mark Ford
Mark Ford
3 years ago

The universe is also circular shaped cos theres no 1 point of position

Mark Ford
Mark Ford
3 years ago

I believe its like an artist the paint and canvas in that the canvas being space +/dark energy)was there but nothing to it until the paint added by the artist (matter/antimatter) then you have a work of art the universe as we know it its not that space is inflating space is there its just that matter etc is arriving at that point we will finally get to a point were theres too much matter 1 way or another thats game over

Jay
Jay
4 years ago

In my simple way of thinking, it looks as if galaxies are facing friction, this will explain why the arms of the galaxy are not moving like rotating radius but a rotating spiral.

Christopher Charles Currie
Christopher Charles Currie
6 years ago

FURTHER PROOF that the “Big Bang Theory” is invalid!

Ref #1: The Science Channel’s 14 May 18 Space’s Deepest Secrets 2-hour episode titled “Big Bang: The Dark Secrets”
Ref #2: The Science Channel’s Space’s Deepest Secret episode Season 2, Episode 4

For years, I have been pointing out to astrophysicists and other scientists, science channels, science organizations, and editors of science magazines how and why the “Big Bang Theory” is invalid (because it is based on invalid mathematical assumptions). But it appears that my points have been ignored. However, based on evidence recently presented in the Science Channel’s episode Ref #1a above, I shall try again.

1. Perhaps the easiest way to prove that the Big Bang Theory is invalid is as follows:

a. The Big Bang theorists have computed (according to their mathematical assumptions) that our universe was created essentially “out of nothing” 13.8 billion years ago.

b. The above Ref #1 episode points out that the oldest star scientists have been able to find so far is over 13.6 billion light years away. Dr. Stefan Keller of the Australian National University discovered this star based on elements in its light spectrum and observing that it had an incredibly low content of iron and a little bit of carbon which shows that it is at least a second generation star (created from the debris of at least one supernova before it formed). It is significant to note that (like me) Dr. Stefan Keller evidently doesn’t believe that the Big Bang Theory is valid, because his light spectrum analysis of our star (the Sun) is that it was derived from “about a thousand generations of stars before it.” The Ref #1 episode didn’t mention a name for that star, so for discussion purposes, I shall refer to it as “OldestStarSoFar.”

c. It seems to me that any astrophysicist can disprove the Big Bang Theory simply by locating any celestial object that:

1) Is in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION FROM EARTH from the direction to earth of the OldestStarSoFar described above.

2) Is moving generally TOWARD EARTH.

3) And is at least FOUR BILLION light years away from earth.

d. That would mean that OldestStarSoFar would be at least 17.6 billion light years away from the celestial object that meets the three criteria described above. How could that be possible if the universe is only 13.8 billion years old as the Big Bang theorists claim?

2. A far simpler explanation for what our astrophysicists have been observing (one which does NOT require hypothesizing violations of the presently known laws of physics) is that the universe is infinitely large and infinitely old. If so, then

1) It appears to me that so-called “dark matter” (estimated by Cosmologist Risa Wechsler to be 85% of the universe) is simply comprised of:

a) BURNED OUT celestial objects (stars, galaxies, black holes, neutron stars, super-nova debris, gas clouds, etc.) that are up to “infinitely old” and haven’t completely dissolved yet, AND

b) Probably trillions of stars and galaxies that we can’t see at this time, because sometime along the multi-billion-light-year stream of light coming from them toward our solar system got broken for a while (i.e. “eclipsed” for a million years or so (one-or-more times)) by other celestial objects that passed between them and our solar system since that light stream was originated. If we are in one of those gaps in that light stream, we may not be able to “see” the celestial object that created that stream of light, but we CAN observe the effects of its gravitational and electromagnetic forces. The Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) scheduled for launch in 2022 (which will use outer space “lens effects” to identify “large dark matter concentrations”) might be able to help us quantify how often this is happening and how much this is contributing to our “dark matter” calculations. It may also help to identify to what extent “burned out” celestial objects are contributing to our “dark matter” calculations.

c) This is an explanation that is simpler and makes far more sense than a Big Bang theorist hypothesis that such dark matter “has been lurking in the universe since the dawn of time” or that it may be “stuff that is passing through our finger nails, but we don’t notice it!” Both explanations were suggested in Ref #1

2) The concept of “dark energy” would likely no longer be needed, because (as I will explain below) the universe isn’t really expanding in general. However, it is possible that some of the celestial objects that we can already see are being pulled by the gravitational forces of other celestial objects that are so much further away that we can’t yet see them with our present technology.

3) The Ref #2 episode points out that spiral galaxies like our Milky Way spin in a manner unlike our solar system. It is obvious to me that this is because (unlike our solar system) the three-dimensional INTERLOCKING gravitational forces of the “dark matter” in those galaxies is holding it all together just as the flexible silk threads woven into a scarf can hold things together in a fairly consistent shape.

4) The reason that there are so many “red dwarf” stars in our Milky Way galaxy is because according to the Ref #1 episode, “red dwarf” stars can “last a trillion years.” It is estimated that as many as three fourths of the presently observable stars in our Milky Way are “red dwarf” stars, so it is likely that most of “red dwarf” stars in our Milky Way galaxy are FAR older than a mere 13.8 billion years. Perhaps because I have always been highly skeptical about the validity of the Big Bang Theory, it appears to me that our Milky Way Galaxy is at least one order of magnitude OLDER than 13.8 billion years. If you view our Milky Way galaxy this way, you will find that ALL of the phenomena that our astrophysicists have been observing about our Milky Way galaxy make FAR MORE SENSE than if one views the Milky Way galaxy in the context of the Big Bang Theory (which leaves so many perceptual puzzles unanswered).

5) According to the Ref #2 episode, astrophysicists have discovered an ancient galaxy which they call “Dragon 44” that is as massive as our Milky Way galaxy, but it emits very little light. This appears to me to be an example of an almost completely burned out galaxy with perhaps only few (trillion-year-old?) “red dwarf” stars remaining. So it appears to me that the Dragon 44 galaxy could be over a trillion years old! In any case, the existence of the Dragon 44 galaxy is another pretty much irrefutable PROOF that the Big Bang Theory is invalid.

6) The speed of light is a ratio (186,000 miles/second = space/time) which is generally assumed to be constant (except by some Big Bang theorists who have hypothesized exceptions to the 186,000 miles/second speed limit in order to explain why their physical observations don’t “add up” to fit within the 16.8 billion-year timeframe of the Big Bang Theory). Anyhow, the idea that the speed of light (within a vacuum) is constant in Einstein’s E=m(c squared) equation is that if an object is traveling at less than the vacuum “speed of light”, then it must acquire at least some of the properties of matter. Indeed, astrophysicists have observed that visible light rays really do “bend” when passing a massively heavy object like a black hole. This means that visible light rays (like matter) REALLY ARE affected by the force of gravity. Furthermore, observations that the visible displays of supernovas are briefly preceded with neutrino waves indicate that those neutrino waves are traveling through space at a slightly higher speed than visible light rays (because neutrinos aren’t affected by electromagnetic forces).

a) In the first half of the Ref #1 episode, the narrator says “The Big Bang kick started the expansion of the universe. Since that moment, space itself is stretching further and further apart.” This statement was followed by a statement by Astrophysicist Amber Straughn that “the light from the universe is literally stretched.” She goes on to explain that “light from so far away objects has been stretched for so long that the light has become redder than the eye can see and has been shifted all the way to infrared.” Those observations by Amber and the narrator are correct, but their explanations for why that is happening are evidently wrong. It appears to me that it would be FAR more realistic (and simpler) to assume that the light rays that we are observing from OldestStarSoFar have been slowed down by the cumulative forces of gravity and electromagnetic fields encountered while passing through a “gazillions” of cubic meters of “outer space” which are far from being “perfect vacuums”, because they contain light rays from all over the observable universe as well as (in many cases) weak gravitational and electromagnetic forces, neutrino and gamma waves, space debris, hydrogen atoms, etc. Also keep in mind that during the 13.6 billion year trip which the light rays from OldestStarSoFar traveled to reach us, many types of celestial objects may have passed by NEAR the path of those light rays thereby increasing their influence on those light rays. So each cubic meter of “outer space” exerts a weak “prism effect” on light rays that pass through it, and the cumulative effect when passing through “gazillions” of cubic meters of “outer space” can be significant.

b) So the “red tint effect in all directions” which our Big Bang theorists have claimed is proof that the universe is “expanding in all directions” can be more simply (and I believe more accurately) explained as being this gravitational “prism effect” that “gazillions” cubic meters of “outer space” cumulatively have on the light that is passing through all of them. This criticism also applies to Professor Saul Perlmutter’s conclusion that the universe is “expanding at an accelerating rate”, because he apparently assumed that the speed of light remains constant as it travels through “outer space”, but for the reasons described above, the speed of light actually slows down a bit as it travels through “gazillions” of cubic meters of “outer space.” If our scientists have light sensors that are sensitive enough, they might be able to create outer space cubic-meter simulators that will measure to what degree exterior gravitational forces, electromagnetic forces, neutrino waves, gamma rays and light rays from all directions, hydrogen atoms, space debris, etc. have on precisely measured light rays passing through various examples of near-perfect-vacuum cubic-meter containers.

c) It is important to note at this point that the slowing-down-effect that a stream of billions of cubic meters of “outer space” has on light rays ALSO slows down everything else that is passing through that stream of billions of cubic meters of “outer space” (although perhaps not at the same rate). This includes radio/microwaves, electromagnetic waves, neutrino waves, “gravitational waves”, etc. That stream might even “slow down time itself”, although that might just be a perspective illusion.

d) Furthermore, if our universe is “expanding in all directions” as our Big Bang theorists claim to be happening, then how come we’ve seen so many photographs of different galaxies colliding with each other! That couldn’t happen if that claim was true. Furthermore, astrophysicists are also claiming that our own Milky Way galaxy is on a collision course with the Andromeda galaxy. This was my first observation that convinced me (decades ago) that the Big Bang Theory cannot possibly be valid.

7) Also, the Big Bang theorists’ claim that the radio/microwaves from all directions that show up on our TV screens when we select a non-existent channel are “echoes of the Big Bang.” This explanation is dubious, because this observable phenomenon can be more simply explained as being merely jumbled up radio/microwaves from celestial sources that are too far away to be distinctly identified by our present radio/microwave telescopes. It’s kind of like the overlapping broadcasts you hear as you “lose your channel” while driving beyond the effective range of the radio station that your car radio was tuned to. Besides, if they were really “echoes of the Big Bang”, they would have passed by us by now, rather than apparently “continuing forever” as shown in the “cosmic microwave background chart” that supposedly goes back to 400,000 years after the Big Bang. If the “echoes of the Big Bang” theory were true, then it appears to me that by now our radio/microwave (direction finding) telescope projects would have been able to determine the spot in our universe where those radio/microwaves originated, and they would be able to distinguish between original radio/microwaves and echoed radio/microwaves.

8) The Ref #2 episode also shows that astrophysicists have discovered “super massive black holes” that are 13 billion years old. If the universe is only 13.8 billion years old, then how can “super massive black holes” form during the 800,000 years since the Big Bang? To try and explain this, Big Bang theorists have invented a hypothesis that the first stars must have been “super massive blue hydrogen stars” (no such stars can presently been observed) which grew fast and then blew up as “hyper-novas” in a “few million years.” This still didn’t credibly explain how super-massive black holes could form in such a short amount of time. Later on, they hypothesized that perhaps some of those super massive blue hydrogen stars simply “collapsed directly into a black hole”(which may violate our presently known laws of physics) “and then gobbled up other black holes”, but even that doesn’t satisfactorily explain how super massive black holes could form in such a short amount of time. It takes a lot of time for a black hole to “gobble up” another black hole (without exploding), because they tend to spin around each other for quite a while as they approach each other. Our Big Bang theorists seem to be “scrambling around” to dream up hypotheses that violate the known laws of physics in order to explain what they have been observing in a way that conforms to the Big Bang Theory! This itself is symptomatic of a popular theory on the verge of collapse! I figure it will just be a matter of time before improvements in our technology will begin to reveal (directly) that there are MANY celestial objects in “outer space” that are far older (and/or farther away) than 13.8 billion years.

9) The second hour of the Ref #1 episode describes how the Hubble telescope was programmed to observe a specific point the universe for 100 hours (it required 650 orbits) in order to identify the oldest galaxies that the Hubble telescope could see. The last photo (farthest photo) showed that there were LOTS of galaxies in that particular tiny portion of the universe over 13 billion years ago. How can we reasonably assume that so many galaxies could have formed in that very tiny portion of the universe in less than 800,000 years after the Big Bang?

10) Astronomer Michelle Thaller says that “Initially, the universe was unimaginably hot and dense, so much so that our laws of physics don’t apply.” This appears to me to be an example of carrying an invalid mathematical model to a ridiculous extreme. Theories that violate our presently known laws of physics should be viewed as a potential “red flag” as far as validity is concerned. The same can be said regarding the narrator’s comment that “’Inflation’ is science’s best explanation for how our cosmos formed. The entire universe would begin stuffed into an infinitesimally small space and expand faster than the speed of light.”

3. In the Ref #1 episode, Cosmologist Risa Wechsler explained that she was using a supercomputer to test mathematical models of the “creation of the universe since the Big Bang” and to “trace the evolution of the universe back to the Big Bang.” This is what convinced me to write and “publish” this new rebuttal of the Big Bang Theory, because it appears that our scientists aren’t even bothering to test the validity of the Big Bang Theory itself. It is, after all, just a theory (i.e. an hypothesis). She should ALSO be testing mathematical models of the universe based on the assumptions that the universe is infinitely large and infinitely old. Since the term “infinitely” is a concept rather than a number, I suggest that she use the largest number that her supercomputer can store as a number to simulate infinity.

4. Two widely accepted “pillars of the scientific method” are:

1) Karl Popper’s “empirical falsification” technique that is “ if you can find an exception to an hypothesis, then that hypothesis is invalid” and

2) The “Law of Parsimony” principle (a.k.a “Occam’s razor”) that is that “the simplest hypothesis (i. e. the hypothesis that has the least number of assumptions) for accurately explaining what is physically observed is the best hypothesis.

5. So it appears to me that many of our astrophysicists have NOT been following those two basic principles of the scientific method. Essentially, what I am asking them to do is to FOLLOW those two fundamental principles of the scientific method!

CONCLUSIONS: Our astrophysicists have been so enamored with the Big Bang Theory that they are no longer asking the right questions. This is a violation of the scientific method!
RECOMMENDATION: Our astrophysicists should also be questioning the Big Bang Theory itself. Please forward copies of this document to scientists and scientific organizations who SHOULD be concerned about this.
Thanks,

Feel free to publish the above (and the post script which follows) or to use these points in your own articles

Christopher C. Currie, Master of Science, Information and Computer Sciences, Georgia Tech
161 Lake Shore Drive, Pascoag, RI 02859 401-568-8266

PS: Last night (21 May 18), a 2-hour episode of Space’s Deepest Secrets titled “Secrets of Alien Universes” aired which included the following observations:

1) The first hour describes an interesting discussion of the issues involved in attempts to create a “time travel machine.” Among other things, it points out that the forces through which a vehicle travels while orbiting the earth (at a very high speed) actually slows down the clocks that are in those vehicles. In order to remain accurate, our GPS satellites have to apply a “fudge factor” in their computations to offset this predictable phenomenon.

2) The second hour discusses various efforts to apply “quantum mechanics” equations to celestial objects and the universe. To begin with, it is important to realize that quantum mechanics is essentially a statistical approach (as far as measuring goes) for describing the universe. For example, for the sake of measurement and mathematical manipulations, light rays are parsed into digital “photons” which has proven to be a useful technique for many practical purposes. However, it appears to me that the quantum-mechanics-based claims that tiny objects can “exist it two places at the same time” merely means that the slices of time during which those measurements were taken were NOT small enough and/or coordinated enough to uniquely isolate such tiny, rapidly moving wave-parsed “particles” (i.e. the “shutter speed” wasn’t quick enough). Or perhaps the techniques used for identifying such particles weren’t fine enough to uniquely identify such particles as being the same wave-parsed “particle” in each case. In other words, it appears to me that the results that they are getting are sometimes more a function of the method that they have chosen parse waves rather than actually identifying “the same object in two places at the same time.”

3) Anyhow, in the second hour the cosmologist Prof. Mac Tegmark of MIT says the “We don’t have a shred of evidence that the universe ends here” (beyond what we can see). That’s great! But then the narrator explains that Max believes that there is an infinite number of “other” universes “each containing the same finite number of atoms.” WOW! He gets it right, but then falls back to putting his faith in the Big Bang Theory. Then the rest of the second hour describes a variety of different theories as to what the characteristics of such a “multiverse” would be. This appears to me to be examples of carrying the mathematical equations of Quantum Theory to a ridiculous extreme.
ccc

PS2: As far as I know, our scientists have NOT been able to credibly demonstrate that ANYTHING can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. So the “inflation theory” excuse (that our universe initially expanded many times faster than the speed of light) dreamed up by Big Bang theorists to explain away the proof that the Big Bang Theory is invalid (i.e. paragraph 1 in the article above) is no more valid than a claim that “A fairy godmother did it with her magic wand.” The failure of our scientific community to insist that Big Bang theorists stick to the scientific method is DISGRACEFUL!

ccc

Ace Nowlage
Ace Nowlage
6 years ago

Please have a seat and listen to something very important concerning anyone truly desiring true facts leading the way to fully understanding what your universe is all about. It is very helpful to learn all the theories out there because it builds a foundation for you to compare actual truth from what is false. After you've heard all there is available you may take what I'm about to tell you and understand why it eludes satisfying you. I tell you now, that all that is observed is taken for granted that it is about matter in motion. Science is about observation and verification. What is missed is three essential facts when observing and collecting and analyzing. One, TIME is solely a concept not a thing. Two, all observed matter is not moving. Third, I am hesitant, and so then refuse, to reveal it here. Like it or not, and you probably don't like it, one and two are accurate facts. I feel a little pity for mainstreams' headlong rush into chasing after things that aren't really moving all the time believing and basing theories on the illusion that they are. I think it fits to say that what is seen is the trees but not the forest, but more honestly they see what they see but not what is unseen. The Third important fact would be very hard to swallow so I prefer to spare it. Your goal is to figure out what and why everything is, right? It can be accomplished but not by thinking like everyone else. I've been to the edge of our universe in a dream and this is because I knew not science would give me the right answers but only the universe talking to me directly holds the truth. I found answers there that maybe you can find if you go there too. Best of luck to you all and I leave you with a last clue, which is that it is what you aren't seeing (where you aren't looking), that is what is moving, meaning that what everyone is observing is virtual, an illusion of sorts yet certainly real. It's all quite real, yes. Think about it. Keep asking how/why the smallest of a so believed particle of matter can move, or in other words change it's position. In fact it doesn't because it can't. Ask yourself why it actually APPEARS to move! :)(: Pi * Y = infinity, solve for Y then you will touch the end of the universe then turn to look back fully understanding. The largest number I know is 1, yet I know that one can not exist without another one, so 1 + 1 = 2, but the 2 is itself a 1, and lastly, everything is a smaller division or fraction of the 2 that is 1.

philosopher
philosopher
6 years ago

I think you'll find the two things in the universe: the so-called 'dark matter' and dark energy. But since consciousness is the ground of all being all matter is a false analogy, I think you'll then find that the universe is an irregular cone, the curvature of space unknown, and things revolving around the planets by a gravitational pull. Further explanation is in the argument of Plato, who says: all the planets and fixed stars revolve around the Earth, as a beam of light goes through heaven and earth like a pillar, and the Spindle of Necessity is the earth's axis. Any denying of all this learning isn't understanding subjective facts.

Farhan
Farhan
6 years ago

Evolution is not true. Men didn't evolve from apes. Proof is right here!!!! This DNA like looooong comment (basically putting blame, personal ego sorta things)

Apes don't argue these much (unnecessarily)

tomh
tomh
7 years ago

The Big Bang creates everything out of nothing. Since this is impossible, all that follows is nonsense. the fact is there is no proof to support any of these conjectures.

Let us leave these dreams behind and spend some time investigating the Electric Universe. perhaps there we could find some factual data to help us understand how at least part of this works.
try: thunderbolts.info

Vladimir Vasylenko
Vladimir Vasylenko
7 years ago

46:34 "...cosmologists look up at the sky, and understand the story of creation". Bollocks.

Cosmogenes
Cosmogenes
7 years ago

What we call "universe" is nothing but a local cluster of galactic superclusters in an infinite and eternal Cosmos, which is "all that is or ever was or ever will be" as my favorite cosmologist Carl Sagan had put it. I see the much neglected Plasma cosmology as a much more sensible model than the Big Bang theory and its innumerable twists and modifications. The old principle says it all: ex nihilo nihil fit - nothing comes nor has ever come from nothing.

jaberwokky
jaberwokky
10 years ago

"Beyond the event horizon,
Beyond the lights of the stars.
A place of eternal freedom
The void where all illusions die"
- Jon Nödtveidt

If that doesn't catch the essence of our existence then I honestly don't know what does.

*Edit* : Also this doc is fantastic. No easy answers, no forgiveness. Science does not get off the hook either. We need more stuff like this.

Sean Lee Walthour
Sean Lee Walthour
11 years ago

UNIVERSE means the encompassing principle of EVERYTHING in existence. THEREFORE the idea of more than ONE universe is nonsense at best. How can there be another everything, if everything already counts everything. No matter what we diiscover today or tomorrow, its part of existence, which is part of the whole. No such thing as other universes, unless ur definition of universe isnt the definition that exists ;-)

GeorgDec
GeorgDec
11 years ago

I thought the standard model was like Gisele Bundchen.
Now that's ininite curves over compact field interactions.

The Sage of Wake Forest

?????? ???????
?????? ???????
11 years ago

what the music on 24:44?

Ndumiso Muntubantu Madlala
Ndumiso Muntubantu Madlala
11 years ago

Our knowledge is limited by our instruments... e.g not long ago everyone knew that the smallest particles were "Quarks" till someone made a particle accelerator now i think thy have something called a starndar model even though those particles dont behaive like anything thy know... and long before that everyone knew the world was flat... n technologly advanced and it was proven wrong...

gravity_is_simple
gravity_is_simple
11 years ago

Dark matter does not exist....Once these so called scientists/physicists work out how gravity works, the answer will be apparent..The trouble is..Once they do work out how gravity works, their funding will be cut...So, in short, they'll keep inventing such things as dark matter and they'll continue to 'look' for non-existant things such as the Higgs because that ensures them of a payday for eternity!

f--kinhell
f--kinhell
12 years ago

Alsy,.Cerebral thats me! Heard of an hoover?thats just what it is, the furthermost of the universe is being sucked into a megamassive black hole and all the rest of the universe, including our galaxy, is going the same way.Mans perception is still that of a child.We have more growing up to do.The more we perceive over the next million years the more we`ll know as fact.Creation?Evolution?I sit on the fence and wouldn`t be so foolish as to discount one or the other or the other or the other or the other.........

Seek_Knowledge
Seek_Knowledge
12 years ago

No, faith in God Almighty is the answer. Science has proven about 75 to 80% of what God Almighty has mentioned in all non-fabricated religious scriptures to be true. The rest, well Science hasn't advanced yet. So watch this space!

Jesse Hanowell
Jesse Hanowell
12 years ago

Wow, you are all some amazingly stupid people.

bignoodle
bignoodle
12 years ago

And why does the average joe seem to think that he has the answer, when clearly there isn't one? Big bang - really? For crying out loud, have they ever thought that maybe there might actually be some questions they and even scientists can't answer? That seems to be the more logical explanation. This is propaganda, just like landing on the moon etc. Garbage, don't be fooled, not everything has the answer that modern science can discover just yet.

bignoodle
bignoodle
12 years ago

Really? %96 of our universe is missing? How do they know it is actually %96 if it's not there? What do they compare the known quantity against to find out the percentage if the remainder is unaccounted for? For crying out loud people, WAKE UP. It's just idiots that make stuff up in order to get exposure as they feel their work is unappreciated. They're sort of trying to justify their own existence. Nuff said.

john kay
john kay
12 years ago

hi, my 2 cents on the big bang( just an average joe ):
1. i agree with the notion that OUR universe started with this theory
2. i do not agree that there wasnt anything (time, space, universe...) prior to it - for there to be a big bang / explosion then something needed to explode, and i have heared some theories of parallel dimensions? ...already existing...but havent really checked those out yet but I understand the concept

So, I was thinking, how can there be a big bang occur but without anything existing prior to it ?

Heres what I came up with:

I forgot what you call a star/planet that explodes (supernova?) but imagine the biggest event like that creating OUR universe as we know it.

So just as we have a universe with these billions of entities in it and supernovas occuring within it(that create whatever they create in their aftermaths of explosions)

Picture ANOTHER LARGER universe with billions of things in it and lets say one of those things explode "supernova/big bang" and from that event OUR universe is created (hence the big bang) and we just cant see or are unaware of our parent universe yet (meaning things existed prior to big bang) we just see/aware of within our explosion's domain

Make sense?
Should I never post again?

have a good 2012 folks

John Bartholamule
John Bartholamule
12 years ago

Why dont they remove the link if it does not work is my only questions...

Pauline Carr
Pauline Carr
12 years ago

Hmm seems the British BBC have blocked this content in my country Britain ;)

streetrockcity
streetrockcity
12 years ago

ok, try this, dark matter, dark energy and dark flow are all the same thing. they are all dark gravity. dark gravity is not caused by matter bending spacetime but by the motion of the multiverse. but this theory only works if my other theory on how stringtheory works using supersymmetry.

Matt Montelli
Matt Montelli
12 years ago

this ,,,theory is wrong.because of our location we as yet do not compensate for respiration .the grand universe has a procession ,as well as an expansion time ,then a pause before contracting ,this takes place about every 1 billion years

agun
agun
12 years ago

I'll take the liberty to explain the universe by logic rather than science. I will do this by stating the obvious.

-The universe started at the begining of time.
-Time was the first thing to exist (nothing can exist for 0 seconds)
CONCLUSION: Thus time created the universe. That includes the space.

But how did time create the universe?

-Something cant be created out of nowhere
-Space and energy exist
Thus:

Space and energy where already there before the cration of the universe but it did not exist. They where unfinished entities that only need time to exist because:

-For something to exist it must exist somewhere where time exists.

END OF LOGIC.

Maybe this dark matter is just "unfinished matter" (matter that does not exist because of a lack of time) that other "finished matter" is atracted to.

Attepting to explain what gravity really is makes my brain hurt.

Dustin Sheline
Dustin Sheline
12 years ago

I am obviously not certain about this, but I think it might be possible that the Universe has always existed. The "Big Bang" may have been the result of a collapse of one of the infinite universes before the universe we know today. Our problem as human beings begins with our inability to imagine anything not having a beginning or an end; however, the laws of conservation of matter and energy would seem to lend credence to a cycling universe that did not have a beginning. We can prove that the Big Bang actually took place, but we cannot measure before the event; we therefore assume that there was nothing before the singularity. All of the material in the singularity was enough to solidify our current universe; perhaps, the material could be recycled from a previous, unstable universe. Also, given the parameters of our finite brains, we may not be capable of wrapping our minds around the true nature of the Universe.

Chad7
Chad7
12 years ago

everything came from nothing....because thats scientifically possible... LOL

Caleb Arnold
Caleb Arnold
12 years ago

Why is it that a star can explode and have a chance at creating a black hole but the BIG BANG did nothing to the frabric of space. You cannot say there was no space at the time of the BIG BANG because there was.. This is why the big bang theory is wrong. The energy created would of blasted a hole into the fabric of space.

kevin122380
kevin122380
13 years ago

Its simple...there is NO god. Just infinite galaxies and universes with no beginning and no end! Beginning and the end of things is merly a perception. We live,we die. Therefor, we think that everything in the universes began and will end on our watch. However, thats not the case! Humans are morons! We think that were important or some imaginary space zombie is coming to save the day! That in itself is self-centered!

Jami Baade
Jami Baade
13 years ago

As for the big bang theory, when was the last time there was an explosion on earth by itself, out of nowhere, with no one creating it or having a hand in it? Beside volcano eruptions, mother nature,etc. Someone with intelligence, put a bomb together with ingredients that we have to work with here on earth.

Science is really good at mathmatically proving that a ball was thrown, at this velocity, for this timeframe but does not and can not address who threw the ball in the first place.

Everyone with an intelligent mind can see that religion is flawed and is like a game of telephone played over thousands of years, but that does not at all disprove the existence of an intelligent design or creator. Different religions have different stories and different ways of paying homage to their creators just like language has dozens of ways to name the same thing, a table for example.

Even Einstein didn't doubt the existence of something more, and an intelligent design. With every design isn't there a designer? Maybe dark matter is spirit? If you are a thinking and feeling human being who believes that we evolved from a piece of lava or an amoeba billions of years ago - and that our complex strands of perfect DNA evolved by chance and the conditions on earth just happen to be perfect for human life at the perfect distance from the sun to survive... to me that is the craziest theory of them all!

I think the universe keeps expanding because we keep looking where we aren't supposed to look, and I suspect that the brightest minds on earth will never figure this one out until we are meant to.

Jami Baade
Jami Baade
13 years ago

As for the big bang theory, when was the last time there was an explosion on earth by itself, out of nowhere, with no one creating it or having a hand in it? Beside volcano eruptions, mother nature,etc. Someone with intelligence, put a bomb together with ingredients that we have to work with here on earth.

Science is really good at matmatically proving that a ball was thrown, at this velocity, for this timeframe but does not and can not address who threw the ball in the first place.

Everyone with an intelligent mind can see that religion is flawed and is like a game of telephone played over thousands of years, but that does not at all disprove the existence of an intelligent design or creator. Different religions have different stories and different ways of paying homage to their creators just like language has dozens of ways to name the same thing, a table for example.

Even Einstein didn't doubt the existence of something more, and an intelligent design. With every design isn't there a designer? Maybe dark matter is spirit? If you are a thinking and feeling human being who believes that we evolved from a piece of lava or an amoeba billions of years ago - and that our complex strands of perfect DNA evolved by chance and the conditions on earth just happen to be perfect for human life at the perfect distance from the sun to survive... to me that is the craziest theory of them all!

I think the universe keeps expanding because we keep looking where we aren't supposed to look, and I suspect that the brightest minds on earth will never figure this one out until we are meant to.

thedilema
thedilema
13 years ago

there all doing too much

Simon Snotface
Simon Snotface
13 years ago

Excellent Documentary.

skypilot003
skypilot003
13 years ago

when

Abhinav
Abhinav
13 years ago

As for the folks that think that religion is a source for pain and dogma, you're right. But to be honest what isn't. Anything Us humans have created, is rife with destruction and corruption. Be it science or religion or government, everything that has a human element onto them automatically factors in everything that is f*ck*d up with humanity (Greed, bigotry, narrow mindedness etc etc).

@Randy: Since everyone here (Except a few who are here for the thrill of trolling on some poor sod) is here to increase our understanding of universe around us. Could you in a nut shell enlighten me with your understanding of Indian cosmology (Astrology). Even though to a layman, it may seem like mundane stuff, its got quite a lot of scientific thought in them (Im sure, carl sagan did a documentary on indian cosmology back in the 80's).

DArko
DArko
13 years ago

Are these documentaries all of the education that You Americans can get? Seems like a brainwashing. "All cosmologist agree that the Universe is 13,7 billions years old.", "Evolution is a fact."... According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe came out of nothing(!) - prediction of a group of people that become a "scientific fact". NGC 7603 - google it :_)

Your Mom
Your Mom
13 years ago

Would you rather believe that your days are limited or unlimited? See, that's why us Christians excel positively, because we have a positive state in mind that we will some day be with our creator. Now do all your fagtarted puns all you want, but I'm rock hard.(and I'm not commenting again.)

Asim
Asim
13 years ago

Excellent Documentary. Thought provoking - showing the evolution of human understanding of the universe.

J
J
13 years ago

Some of these comment sections are just getting to be stupid.

VYou should open a forum on the website so these comment whores can have a playground to write their useless comments in, and change the comment section to a review section with legitimate posts about the actual documentary.

Im all for commenting on videos and how they were, but using the comment area as a personal chat area is just getting annoying when you want to find a simple review of a video without every other comment being something non-related to the video because some ego on the other end has to comment on every letter said in a sentence to feel socially gratified over the internet.

Please redo the comment system V!!

Jo McKay
Jo McKay
13 years ago

Wow. Have to say, just in case anyone checks back here - tho it took MUCH longer to read all the comments then to watch the film, this was an excellent comment thread. I thought after viewing the doc - first dark matter (almost thought I was dealing with that), then dark energy (wtf), now I'm introduced to dark flow? All I can say is that better be some book Stephen Hawking writes! Truly, dark matter was beginning to look a lot like 'religious rationalism' to me. (it's invisible, but has effects, so we know that nothing has to be something...)The LINK that Vlatko provided really helped. As I infer, so, in the matter/anti-matter symmetry, we 'may' be looking at a 'preference to matter'? That would explain a lot. What I liked most about this doc was the honesty - that's what I like most about the scientific method (Though 'individuals' may hold onto their theories, others insist that however interesting, there's no Nobel Prize until you prove it)! Then re: the thread: some 'very' smart people willing to listen and debate and disagree. I was also thinking hallelujah (facetiously) maybe a few smart women as well, then (sorry Sophia) when the 'age of aquarius' was brought in to play, I swear my groan must have knocked out a satellite (hope Sophia will watch the doc link provided - you do have a smart and inquiring mind; I hope it's open too). But this got me thinking. Why is it that women (so many anyway) find it seemingly impossible to imagine the "there is no life after death" scenario. Even for the sake of discussion, hypothesis, what if?, etc. And I think it has to partly be biology, maybe soft wired rather than hard wired? Would women in the last 40,000 years or so have been willing to face the (very real) life threatening danger of giving birth to children, if they accepted that there child had a very low mortality rate, and IF they survived beyond age of 5, would still only live an average life span of 30 years (until very recently), if HER potential death and HER child's mean there is oblivion? My guess: Some MAN (probably a cleric) invented the ideas of an after life and immortality so that women would be 'willing' to go through pregnancy,child birth, and more than half their life trying to keep the result alive! Now today, even if the risks are not as high, the energy and commitment is still significant, so what if 'mother's' need to believe in something more in order to say yes to the work involved?

D-K
D-K
13 years ago

@Addiyat:

While I am above making fun of people for their apparant mental deficiencies, I will point out that Randy no longer comments here, in case you were expecting retort.

addiyat
addiyat
13 years ago

Randy and his gong,
Put aside ur phony love for math and science..........Fear many crunches and crashes like..credit, CDS, Soverign Default, Mortgage and many...First try to bring ur self at least up on the surface..and breathe...not the smoking pot..

All u need is being a MEN from 'Cattle', a clear commonsense and bowl of morality....U r a History...America is a History now.....All ur evils paying u back in full, u lowest of the low.

alalilua
alalilua
13 years ago

It is not right to think on such a large scale. We had explored so little and we have just started to make some assumption about the world around us.. This is one thing.. The second it is the fact that with each step we took reality changed every time, even when facts were beneath our noses.. :) We should start to question our instruments, not to presume how everything came into existence after the no sound explosion.. What if our cosmology is like a mythical journey while compared with the real thing? What if life is the opposite of creation? What if there was something there from the beginning that started to decay.. what if life is just an error or a disease, a chemical experiment gone wrong???? life is too fragile to be here for a reason.. we are again into an old paradigm.. we look at ourselves as we were the center.. everything that there is. And this makes our vision to be narrow. We believe the universe is it was small and then it got big.. but the smallest things we can see with the aid of artificial tech might be as big as everything that there is... Time gets the same sort of premonitory "scientific" view, but again, who can ever say that time is to be measured in this way???? The thing that we know is that we do not know exactly nothing. This is the biggest discovery ever! :)

Doc
Doc
13 years ago

Good documentary, however I was kind of waiting for the punchline

vj 612
vj 612
13 years ago

randy man u can really go on and on...it takes all kinds to run this world...and ur just one of them...its good u made alot of money turning spaceships around very cool...and like you said ur time is up ...so let us clean up the mess ur gen created...they r countries in which men have guns pointed at there heads i bet maths is what is going on in his head when that happens...we need to be civilized...means to keep an open mind and the best people to keep an open mind who have the most knowledge in their respective fields someone like you...well nobody can open it for you....