The Universe: Beyond The Big Bang

The Universe: Beyond The Big Bang

2007, Science  -   181 Comments
Ratings: 7.33/10 from 48 users.

The Universe: Beyond The Big BangDocumentary that explores how mankind came to understand the Universe and its origins in the Big Bang.

From the earliest people who looked up at the sky and wondered about its nature to modern physicists like Einstein, Gamow, Alpher And Guth.

The universe began with a massive expansion, billions and billions of years ago, and it continues to expand with every passing second.

The idea that the universe, and man's very existence, began with a "Big Bang" is no longer a topic of debate among most scientists - it is essentially taken as fact.

More great documentaries

181 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Understanding what was before us is terribly difficult...human mind is not fully capable of understanding - at this point in time - how the universe formed except for various scientific and mathematical theories...

  2. So, if the Big Bang theory was how the universe was made, if I re-created the "big bang" in a library, I assume all the matter that the books are made from would re-organize itself onto the bookshelves? Tell me again there is no intelligent being that has organized all of this for a distinct purpose? And, which part of the Big bang created animals and humans? Lots of holes in the big bang.

  3. What caused the bang in big bang... or wat was before it.... no one knws... Suppose u r moving from south to north assuming that u r moving frm present to past ( frm now to big bang).. whn u reach the north pole i.e. Big bang.. So this wud be meaningless if u say that to move in north direction further,, coz there wud be no north direction from north pole

  4. I wouldn't go quite so far as to consider the Big Bang as a given, as there are eminent scientists now in contention as regards its validity. Don't misunderstand me, however, being that I'm only pointing out that some very bright minds in the field have found reason to fault the theory as less than satisfactory. What's more, the ideas that they have generated as an alternative explanation for the origin of the universe could hardly be viewed as less extraordinary, for what that's worth. So that, indeed, for sure, it would appear that we are living in quite extraordinary times as regards scientific understanding. So much so that the old adage of truth being stranger than fiction might very well seem particularly apt. Who can know what the coming decades may reveal to our understanding? My best guess would be to steady ourselves for unexpected revelations and excitements the likes of which we could not have anticipated or dreamed of.

  5. actually the big bang as a theory completely failed. it is completely nonexistent in my book. reason being, it failed every single prediction thrown at it.

    it is basically scientific creationism

    1. You need to read about how and why the Big Bang Theory came about as your apparent knowledge of the theory is less then that of a 8th grader. The theory is nothing more then the result of current observation which is that ~13.8 billion years ago all of the visible galaxies must have been located at one single point due to their current trajectories. Also what "predictions" are you referring to? The only prediction it can make is that everything originated from a single point, which has been proven by the detection of the microwave background radiation. As for your assertion of it being "scientific creationism", the theory has nothing to do with what came before the Big Bang or what caused it, only that it happened.

      I do hope this has given you some insight into your false assumptions and might encourage you to pick up a science book and educate yourself, maybe even take a few classes. However judging by your post I won't hold my breath on it considering you probably don't believe the Theory of Evolution either.

    2. the prediction on the MBR initially was that is homogeneous and far less powerful. therefore MBR is probably the result of something else than the big bang.

      did predict the expanding universe but did not predict the acceleration, so that speed of expansion is probably the result of, yet, something else, since is still very much in effect. that something is still "dark" to us.

      -probably should have explained myself a bit more.

      while i profoundly dislike the theory is kinda still the best we have, for now. i am expecting it to fall in the next decade or someone come up with something more elegant.

      the 13.8 billion years you mentioned is a number from observation (+ the time the objects need to develop).

      the Theory of Evolution is applied science.

      - I do hope this has given you some insight into my "false" assumptions

  6. my life started with a big bang, thanks dad and mum.

    1. technically it was a creampie

    2. Mine was more of a quick bump.... Thanks mom's "friend for a night"!** :(

      **J/K - it was more like five or six nights - and a profitable week for mom's "profession" :O ;)

      (If my mom saw this I would be disowned - LOL)

  7. Since both space and time (space-time) only came into existence with the big bang, it makes no sense to talk about what existed "before" the big bang ("before" implies that time was already operative), or how "small" the proto-universe was ("small" is a space related concept). What we need are powerful new modalities that have no relationship to either space or time with which to explore fundamental questions.

  8. ok, so here's my theory; what im about to say is not backed by any science what so ever: before the big bang, on a scale unimaginably large compared to ours, they were trying to identify the smallest particules of their univers with their unimaginably large hydron collider and created what is to us the big-bang, only to find out there was a whole periodic table of new elemental smaller particules. we are living in the particules that appear for a trillionth of their second during their experiment, but on our scale it seems like trillions of years of expantion, during which we have all the time to develop ever bigger hydron colliders, to identify smaller and smaller particules... perhaps as we identify quarks and what makes up quarks, on a scale unimaginably small compared to ours, people are identifying the elusive smallest particule, at last! :{D

    1. The first time i have ever seen an opinion so similar to my own it's actually scary! Probably the last time too unfortunately!

    2. The "Men-in-Black Bus Station Locker Theory"!

      (If you haven't seen the movie, you won't get this - at all)

  9. I usually hate watching science docs, but this was one was very interesting and even if it didn't do the best at relaying the factual information I felt it was an overall success in my book.

    1. you hate science docs? what's the matter with you?

  10. History Channel is the worst at documentaries.

  11. damn numbers especially after thousands r difficult to understand while watching,listening to the doc for me and ppl like me i think, whose english isnt native
    wow..a doc worth watching..5 stars to alan guth..
    notes from the watching:primitive ppl looked at the sky because they dint have tv ,pc,dvd player etc screens to look at...

  12. @Az, one of the several movies I know to be great, and haven't watched..yet

  13. Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."

    But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required.

    1. You are and idiot, argument enough for someone who does not think.

    2. what you are saying here is "you must believe before you can believe"

      the same argument can be made when reading the Quran or Bhagavad Gita.

      actually faith means nothing more than believing something that has no evidence or even in spite of the evidence we have.

      faith is not something you ought to base your life on.

      atheism is not a dogma either it is just the position of someone who doesnt believe in god. it doesnt assert ANYTHING. it only speaks on the persons belief.

    3. I wonder how many people take it on faith that the ground we stand on is spherical, have never questioned it.

    4. I think atheism is a dogma - does it not oppose "Mysterious, communicative and ubiquitous consciousness created The World [old word for: all that was,is and shall be]" for "The Big Bang created time and space"? Both are necessarily dripping with metaphor in the detail. Or what is atheism? simply a ridicule of the softest targets in "christianity"? (i.e. "christians" in recovery). Or are they imagining that recovery from conditioning to be enough to entitle it to claim intellectual superiority over all human culture in all places at all times (that being overwhelmingly not atheistic)?

    5. [quote]actually faith means nothing more than believing something that has no evidence or even in spite of the evidence we have.[/quote] Erroneous assertion. That is what faith means to you.

    6. A leap of faith?

      All you are believing in is a mass hallucination, you are being hypnotized by either groups of people or one damn good three piece suiter, screaming all the glory's of your so called gods, one that can get crowds into a frenzy and panting like mad dogs, so they will be rolling around on the floor, or speaking in tongues.

      And praise be! we are saved! Of course costs you a ton of money for letting someone drive you nuts! Because all the fundys are just that, cuckoo birds.

    7. Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."

      A) not a dogma.
      B) no assertion is made.none.
      C) your statement is begging the question.
      d) pure BS.

  14. Okay so this fight against MrMajestik & Dr. Critic
    I would like to take Dr Critics side. I am in no way religious but athiest and do not believe that in any 'comprehensive' way that a god/almighty exist but just think back to Einstein - one of the greatest scientists/ mathamatician to have ever existed, a religous believer to almost solve the 'string theory' the theory that explains the whole question of how everything was created, something solely against his own beliefs. This proves that even 'if' and 'why' a god exists that you have the right to take the side that you believe in. If we were created by the big bang or something even before that then why were we given the mind, the willpower to comprehend something as complex as god itself purely because whatever it was that created us whether it be a massive being of power or something even tinier than a molecule itself wanted us wanted the vast universe of life to live and for a purpose but to us 'man' is something we still cant comprehend

  15. The universe is "god", and it's quite beautiful and amazing.

    1. I think Islam says the universe is the "face of god", which has a meaning, and cannot be disproved by atheists demanding to know where the nose is lol.

    2. How very witty and clever! (not)
      The non-existence of any god whose nature is pedantically outlined (as are all those that humans like to relate to one another) can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. That leaves room only for god(s) to which we cannot relate, whose existence is far-removed enough from ours such that it is a pointless topic of conversation. Good luck in your ongoing mission to believe things!

  16. Researcher:

    "Ever heard the name ‘Science’ and ‘Scientists’? What makes the world work? Who gets you medicine when ur sick? Who lets you communicate with your near and dear ones? With whose contribution did you have the capability to come to this wonderful website and type “Typical Atheist Hogwash”. I could go on. . . . Most people actually they know what science is and what scientists do. But actually *THEY DON’T*!

    theres no point in telling him that, he probably thinks god did all that lol!

    1. One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him. The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."

      God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this, let's say we have a man making contest."

      To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!"

      But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam."

      The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.

      God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!"

    2. One day a saint was taking a stroll with the devil - they came upon a glowing bejewelled box in the sand marked 'Truth'. The devil leaped first and seized it with joy. The saint said "What do YOU want with that??!" Devil smiled and replied "I'm going to organise it"

    3. I like a little humour here and there! Bravo! Encore!

    4. @Alf Beta
      The Gods Must Be Crazy! great movie!

    5. [quote]Who gets you medicine when ur sick?[/quote] The same people who get you medicine that makes you sick. Check ratios of treated complaints which are iatrogenic.

  17. Awesome and wonderful information! :)

  18. God can be explained. Not yet, obviously, but I simply cannot agree when one says it is beyond comprehension. Everything that exist can and will be found, measured, quantified and explained thoroughly given enough time. If it really cannot be explained, it doesnt exist.

    People have faith because they look for answers. I have faith in humanity because it looks for those answers relentlessly. Your faith is simply missplaced. If you truely believe in God, find him the only way we know how to: scientifically. You definitely will not find it in books written billions of years after his creation came to be. You will probably not find him on this planet. I'd bet you won't even find him in this galaxy.

    The answers will come if you actually look for them. Looking for them doesnt challenge your faith. It is the reason for your faith. I dare you to try.

    1. Insomniac: "Everything that exist can and will be found, measured, quantified and explained thoroughly given enough time. If it really cannot be explained, it doesnt exist."
      This hasn't been established in any way, and seemingly it is beyond the scope of science to prove or disprove it.
      Actually even "matter" can't be explained thoroughly, whether its regarded as a 'lump of stuff' or an ordered relationship of interacting energies in probability intensities.
      The human mind works wonders, but doesn't much like realising its limitations. But it can, by rigorous thinking, do just that, and like all truths perceived by the mind it is a good thing. Fortunately I suppose the mind as analytical engine is not the only truth-seeking faculty in what we call the human being. However,it is capable of thinking that it is, and naming itself "I" (it's a namer amongst other things, so of course it names itself).

    2. @Insomniac "God can be explained. Not yet, obviously, but I simply cannot agree when one says it is beyond comprehension. Everything that exist can and will be found, measured, quantified and explained thoroughly given enough time. If it really cannot be explained, it doesnt exist." Just for fun, replace the word "God" with "This surface I'm on,and everything connected to it" and replace the thinker Insomniac with the thinker Garden Beetle in my garden, and have beetle say what your post says. I'm not mocking, I wonder what you think of the exercise, flawed as it is maybe.

  19. Ask 100 people if your think your opinion is right, you will soon find out if your right or not, who needs to ask 100 people if god exists you know what the answers will add up to, i find this works for most things. hope it helps some lost messed up god loons. yer your all messed up well 90% of people think you are. war is all the word god has given us.

    Just be nice you don't need a god for that.
    peace to all

    1. 90% of people may think they're capable of thinking just because words happen in their brains without there lips moving. But they'd be wrong

  20. Document made without considering astrology work done in china, india or persia.... I feel it is a incomplete document.

  21. I created the universe...from my butt. Duh.

  22. @MrMajerstik

    My reply to your comment should definitely not be taken in any serious sense. I was merely having a bit of fun. I agree with most of what you've said, would be hard pressed to find anything specific that I don't agree with.

    It's a pity that something like Quantum Mechanics has become scam bait.

  23. @sexmonkeymonkey

    Re: The bear in woods...My point of that was to suggest that a reality exists even when no one is around to see, smell, hear, etc it. Saying the room or smell doesn't exist if no one is there to sense it, does not jive with my reasoning. The room and smell both exist, it is like saying atoms didn't exist in 2500 BC much less 200 years ago. My comments were really directed at some tard, Dr. Critic, who was advocating "intelligent design" a few statements back... I must humbly apologize to razor...I think I was in a hurry and addressed my response to him and not Dr. Critic. Then Razor commented using some metaphysical quote and I think I snapped...and broke the flow of the last several days posting which were on science and QM. I would not even begin to know what to argue in that area, my field of study is sociology...don't like math but I love learning about things that I don't necessarily understand. Anyhow...kinda rambling off topic. So in keeping with my point, of significance, the need to explain the vastness and marvel of the universe with "God did it" just doesn't satisfy. I think several peeps on here show why the vast majority of humanity will simply accept "In the beginning..." It is much easier to absorb and eliminates the need for more questioning or learning.

    1. Confusion source? Same word 'smell', used for 2 things not the same. Smell experienced is interaction of environment and nervous system and is thus only there when experiencer is, and depends on experiencer, beetle, horse etc. But Chemicals,temperature,humidity et al complex-that-would-cause-smell-experience-if-experiencer-were -present: would be there with or without experiencer. Das ist klar, mein commissar?

  24. Yes, that's why I qualified my statement with the words, "...or a starting point, for information..."

    I just have the same recervations about internet information as Richard Dawkins. It's too easy, and it's too easy to manipulate on the fly. Leads to the tin-foil hat wearers going hog-wild. I mean you guys use realiable sources and check the veracity of author's claims, etc. as do I.

    Which by the way, I'm having a hell of a time with a bunch of tin-foil'ers over at that Zeitgiest as a government movement (nonsense) board... You think talking logic to Creationists is hard... try to talk sense to a World-Wide-Conspiracy nut!

  25. MIT open courseware is also very good for maths and physics. It is aslo totally free and has complete course video lectures (as well as problem sets and assignments) in many subjects.

    I strongly recomend Walter Lewin's classes on classical mechanics and if you're feeling brave his classes on electricity and magnetism.


  26. Well the internet seems fine for me.

    Many courses about Quantum theory at Stanford University.
    some neat math!
    If interested take as follows first, it is free!

    ..."youtube-lecture 1 quantum entanglements, part 1 (stanford)

  27. Fascinating. Well, if you can believe Wiki, (and in many, many cases, you can't... take that to heart, younguns! The internet is actually a poor substitute, or just a starting point, for information!), it seems that those scientists may be on to... something.

    Revisions in Newtonian mechanics may indeed be needed. But, seriously, this is really blasphemous in large, powerful circles of academia!

    It will take awhile to get an idea like that through the "courts" of scientific approval. Which is a good thing. New ideas must be beaten to hell, and radical scientists must be put through the worst trials by fire before their ideas become accepted. This is a good thing.

    Nature builds strong organisms by beating the CRAP out of them for millions of years. If they survive, they flourish. Same for new scientific thoeries.

  28. As far as problems with gravity... here is a list of problem from wikipedia

    Extra fast stars: Stars in galaxies follow a distribution of velocities where stars on the outskirts are moving faster than they should according to the observed distributions of normal matter. Galaxies within galaxy clusters show a similar pattern. Dark matter, which would interact gravitationally but not electromagnetically, would account for the discrepancy. Various modifications to Newtonian dynamics have also been proposed.

    Pioneer anomaly: The two Pioneer spacecraft seem to be slowing down in a way which has yet to be explained.[21]

    Flyby anomaly: Various spacecraft have experienced greater accelerations during slingshot maneuvers than expected.
    Accelerating expansion: The metric expansion of space seems to be speeding up. Dark energy has been proposed to explain this. A recent alternative explanation is that the geometry of space is not homogeneous (due to clusters of galaxies) and that when the data are reinterpreted to take this into account, the expansion is not speeding up after all[22], however this conclusion is disputed[23].

    Anomalous increase of the AU: Recent measurements indicate that planetary orbits are widening faster than if this was solely through the sun losing mass by radiating energy.
    Extra energetic photons: Photons travelling through galaxy clusters should gain energy and then lose it again on the way out. The accelerating expansion of the universe should stop the photons returning all the energy, but even taking this into account photons from the cosmic microwave background radiation gain twice as much energy as expected. This may indicate that gravity falls off faster than inverse-squared at certain distance scales[24].

    Dark flow: Surveys of galaxy motions have detected a mystery dark flow towards an unseen mass. Such a large mass is too large to have accumulated since the Big Bang using current models and may indicate that gravity falls off slower than inverse-squared at certain distance scales[24].

    Extra massive hydrogen clouds: The spectral lines of the Lyman-alpha forest suggest that hydrogen clouds are more clumped together at certain scales than expected and, like dark flow, may indicate that gravity falls off slower than inverse-squared at certain distance scales[24].

  29. I just figured dark matter was neutrinos... I think we need to keep forces about where they are now or we will never get to the point to need dark matter.

    We keep the forces where the are to make the universe and star dust, add dark matter to keep galaxies from flying apart, add dark energy to keep the universe expanding.

    You screw with a force then the whole model has to be rewritten. Since im not in the mode to start all over I will stick with my neutrinos bet

    1. It is pretty well established that Neutrinos are not dark matter. Neutrinos can interact with the nucleus of an atom, which would not be possible for a WIMP, which would only have the Gravity force, but not weak force. Neutrinos are far more likely to be super small particles, since we have managed to "catch" some.

  30. @Hate_Machine, (Pretty_Little)

    "...we can only observe about 5% of the universe… the rest is dark energy and a splatter of dark matter."

    Ah! Fascinating subject! I was all over Dark Matter for years! Studied it, wrote sci-fi stories specualting on what it could be, etc...

    But, recently, last year some time, I was watching the Science Channel and I saw a documentary on gravititational forces and the idea that they are leaking into our dimension ('brane) from another. They touched on Dark Matter and Dark Energy and the equations that seem to prove their existence.

    What got me thinking was this: a small part of the doc was devoted to the scientists, (few but reputable), that dispute the dark matter theory saying that the equations could easily balance if they throw away Newtonian gravitational rules!

    Now, this is scientific heresy as you would imagine. But their arguments were quite logical and they intrigued me. I do not subscribe or say that I have verified any of this, because, I have really not had the chance to even look these guys up and read their work in detail.

    But, think about it: maybe the forces of gravity actually do not respond always as Newton described, everywhere in the Universe... isn't that possible? If so, than the idea of dark matter is no longer needed.

    Maybe someone knows more about this and can talk about it or point us to some reading/docs on the subject? Valid idea or silly idea?

  31. @Randy - and thanks for reminding me of the 80s... ill send you my therapy bill

  32. Good stuff, @ H.M. and @ Randy.

  33. Well to throw another shoe in the cogs... we can only observe about 5% of the universe... the rest is dark energy and a splatter of dark matter.

    Even though it goes by a simple name no one has any clue about the who what where or how of the dark stuff. They are simply place holders in an equation that has to be there or the universe will fall apart in our models.

    I personally believe that they are about to figure out the dark matter thing (30 or so years later) but the energy thing will be a while.

    1. [quote]we can only observe about 5% of the universe.[/quote] and "we only use 10% of our brains", and "90% of DNA is "junkDNA"". I see a pattern here, and it seems to be at the receptor end LOL

  34. Well, that's all true, but, my original point is getting lost and it is my fault. The cat experiment reference really threw you off, Pretty little Hate_Machine!

    I'm really only talking about Achem's original point that we can't prove the existence of the unobserved Universe. AND, more importantly, that it is pointless to really dwell on it, because we have enough to study in our observed Universe! LOL

  35. If we had an infinite number of monkeys open an infinite number of doors, all things in the universe would show up on the other side. Stars, planets, quasars, you, me, another room full of monkeys and doors.

  36. This all comes about because we cannot know where an electron is orbiting. We just have to know the chances of where it will be. There are very high chances that it will be in one of the defined orbits. But it is just a prediction.

    Your door experiment leads us to believe that it is 50/50 whether the room is there or not. In reality it would be like 1 / .1 x -10^100000 or some really crazy small number... but that number does exist in reality.

  37. #Randy - your right on about the NiN reference. As for
    "Proving the existance of the room without seeing it" you dont have to prove it... you have to know that it is both there and not there.

    Say for example you were buying carpet and you needed to know the sq footage to purchase. You would need to include the room because sometimes it would be there and sometimes it wouldn't. You never know if it happened to be there or not until you open the door... but every time you open the door the outcome would be different.

    The scary part is this experiment is actually true. There is always a very VERY small chance that the room on the other side of the door doesn't exist anymore. The chances of it not being there are so small that we never have to worry about it... but there is still the chance.

    1. I'm not sure if you're post is really there or really not there or both, same goes for this one. There's only a small chance of it not being here though which is enough to keep me typing. Assuming I myself am here of course, which I can't really assume, in fact the more I think about it I'm pretty sure I'm not.

  38. @Hate_Machine (great name BTW, Trent Resnor reference or...)

    LOL, yes, I realized the example was, shall we say "flaccid" as soon as I hit the send button! So I tried to correct it.

    I realize the cat was illustrating an entirely different principle, but... hmmm... I'll try... the METHOD is the same to illustrate a differing point???

    Am I salvaging myself or digging myself in deeper, LOL!

  39. @Randy - You have it wrong. You speak of the Copenhagen interpretation but you are off.

    In the case of Schrödinger's cat it is alive AND dead at the same time. Again... It is both. Until you make the observation you have to account for it being both. That is why it is called wave particle duality. Again thats duality.

    In your experiment the room "does exist" and "doesn't exist".

    You dont have to prove it exists or not you just have to account for the duality.

    Sadly your experiment for god has gone haywire! You would need to both "believe in god" and "disbelieve in god"... accounting for the duality in your experiments.

    Wow... kinda crazy.

  40. Good on you @ Randy:

    Actually was thinking "Observation Effect"

  41. Ooops, I should have said, "...LIKE the old Shroedinger's cat thought experiment..." because, obviously, he was illustrating a different principle entirely.

    But the idea is similar, perhaps, as an example...? Can anybody back me up on that, or am I talking out of my ass?

    HAHA, some really stimulating conversation on this site! I love talking about big things with big minds!

    I miss my old PHD buddies...

    1. The underrated Prof. Edwin Loop actually exploited what he egotistically called the Schroedinger Loophole to cut costs on cat food

  42. @MrMajestic for Achems Razor:

    [[You say…”there is reality, matter, and (sic) “existance” without human cognition”…that is a dumb statement, because how would anybody know??]]

    MrMajestic, I think what Achems Razor was getting at was the old Shroedinger's cat thought experiment.

    You and I both "believe" that the room still exists when we close the door, but we can't prove it, until we open the door again.

    Proving the existance of the room without seeing it, is like trying to prove the existance of god, for example. I can believe in the room but I can't prove it without evidence. The evidence would be... open the door.

    But like god, the idea is fun to think about, but generally pointless because without observation, as Heisenburg, (and I appologize for the bad name spelling), suggested in his work the act of observation changes the outcome of the experiment.

    No one can prove the existance of the unobserved world, but that is really the pervue of the philosophers, I think, rather than the scientists.

    1. This is like, is the refrigerator light on when the door's closed, yes?

  43. @Achems Razor - ah so its not actually a theory or anything remotely resembling a theory... guess thats is where I went wrong. Thanks for explaining your "umbrella term".

  44. No problem @ H.M.

    "Quantum Theory" just means is an "umbrella term" for all Quantum, like Physics, mechanics, and anything else concerning Quantum,

    All you have to do,is google "Quantum theory". Knock yourself out.


  45. @Achems Razor - I know of quantum mechanics and theories like M(Brane), String, but i have never heard of a "Quantum Theory"

    Who devised this theory, where is it published, what does it state. Where there multiple authors? What schools do they work for( i assume the are professors).

    I just need the facts... I am more then willing to read up on the matter once I know who wrote the theory.

  46. @MrMajestik

    To be fair. If a bear craps in the woods then it gives off a scent. It doesn't stink until a person smells it and labels it as such :P

    And Quantum Mechanics is unfortunately a very unknown and easily twistable part of science... I'm considering writing a book called "The Quantum Diet", not sure what I'll put in it but I bet I could sell 200,000 copies easy just with that title.

    As with anything mysterious people will try to make it fit their belief system or will build a belief system around the unknowns in it. And other will scam people by using the buzzwords it creates. Much like I'm considering doing :P

  47. @ Eric Howe:

    Oh! but I can read it! even though it is second hand, what "first hand" theorems have you presented lately???

  48. Oops sorry My bad...

    I din't see there was a 'Manage your Subscriptions' option.. LOL

  49. Hey Vlatko,

    We should get an add-on functionality of 'un-following' a comment thread on this website. I guess that wouldn't take more than a few LOC..

    @Mr. S D - Yeah :), referring to Morther - people should at least give some thought to what B.S. they are writing.

    Cheers :)

  50. @ H.M.

    You do not know what Q. T. is??

    You could of fooled me, when you where "Waxing Rhetoric" about the fathers of Q. T.,...Schrodinger, Bohr, Planck, on "the genius of Darwin"...04/24/2010 at 04:02

    1. everyone knows the key words

  51. @Eric Howe - I stand corrected.

  52. @HaTe_MaChInE, @MrMajestik

    Not quite, Razor's religion is his second hand pseudoscientific interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (just like the religion of most Christians is their second hand context-free interpretation of bronze age mythology). The map is not the territory and even the map is of no use if you can't read it.

  53. @MrMajestik - Achems Razor religion is "Quantum Theory" and his dogma is wave function collapse. I would like to see one reference that anything with quantum mechanics is dependent on "how would anybody know".

    For the life of me I still have no idea what "Quantum Theory" is.

  54. @ Joe:

    I never know about hate machine, but I am guessing he is all right, in a perverse sort of way!

    Hi, WTC7: Yeh! Mr. M. ain't been around very long! :D

    And Mr.M: I will leave him to go ponder what it was I was talking about.

  55. Don't worry Achems Razor, Mr M will learn if he stays here a bit longer. You, a religie?! LoL :-D

  56. lol - Razor, I think hatemachine was just messing with you. Of course, no one here thinks that you believe we are a bunch of ants lost on a lily pad.

    Well, do ya? jk ;)

  57. How is this for monosyllabic...if a bear sh*ts in the woods, does it still stink? The answer is yes, whether anyone is there or not it still produces a reality. I guess I am not understanding why you are on my case, if you are not arguing for divine creation...

    I do not grasp what you are talking about, you seem to be talking about, perhaps I miss read your point...sorry! But how is that a dumb statement? It is more factual than Jesus rising from the dead or coming back to save mankind from (his) own stupidity.

  58. Mr. M.

    You can go to a religious board if you want, I will not be there, as am far from religious.

    It is apparent you do not grasp what I am talking about.
    Therefore monosyllabic.

    You say..."there is reality, matter, and (sic) "existance" without human cognition"...that is a dumb statement, because how would anybody know??

  59. I guess what I was getting at was your inabliity or unwillingness to simply accept that the "Cosmos," as vast as it is, could have come about without the intervention of a human-like (construct) supreme being with magical powers.
    To challenge your last gasp of debate: Everything is NOT a mind construct...the material world (universe) exists without us (humans) to think about it, contemplate its marvels, or label what we see. There is reality, matter, and existance without human cognition. We really either need to chat or move this discussion to a religious discussion board, please let me know the address/link and I will be there. :D

    1. ''...the material world (universe) exists without us (humans) to think about it, " well, yes and no. universe as we see it is internal to us - we see red, we measure frequency, we get x Hz. These 2 experiences are not similar. No reason assume either are Reality. Reasonable to posit that something causes both. What is it?

  60. Mr. M.

    I can't accept the vastness of the Cosmos???, then you do not know me, or have not seen any of my blogs.

    Have been in, and so far down the rabbit hole, probably never will get out!!

    I do not think in monosyllabic terms like you do!!

    Lets see if I can piss you off with this one! Everything is a mind construct!!

    1. clearly everything in mind is factor of mind

  61. @ H.M.

    I know he is using a metaphor, but one that suggests there are much more unseen realities, then what even science has to offer, with its limited understanding of all there is, as yet!

    We have a long way to go, and we should be open to all new possibilities! Not closed minded thinking.

    And then it is suggesting "that bad word again"! "(Quantum Theory)"

  62. @Achems Razor - I like Brian Green. "Elegant Universe" is on of my favorite books + docs of all time. You are quoting a metaphor.

    The actual paragraph reads as follows:

    "So. if we live in a three-brane, there is an alternative explanation for why we're not aware of the extra dimensions. It is not necessarily that the extra dimensions are extremely small. They could be big. We don't see them because of the way we see. We see by using the electromagnetic force, which is unable to access any dimensions beyond the three we know about. Like an ant walking along a lily pad, completely unaware of the deep waters lying just beneath the visible surface, we could be floating within a grand, expansive, higher-diminsional space, as in Figure 13.3b, but the electromagnetic force - eternally trapped within our dimensions- would be unable to reveal this."

    I hope actually reading the full text lets you see he is using a metaphor. Not trying to say we are ants on a lily pad.

    1. exzactly, incontrovertible

  63. Pissed off no... LMFAO ...yes!

    Razor- What is my point? You can't accept the incomprehensible vastness of the universe and still accept (our) your insignificance in it? My brain has no problem with thinking and abstraction, perhaps yours is limited to black and white thinking...Sorry about that!

  64. @ Charles B:

    Don't let them get you down, you are basically alone in you own quest, against all us heathens(LOL), Lay it into them!, see how pissed off you can get them!

    It really does not matter one iota what anybody believes, we all end up in the same place, wherever that might be!

    And you should not loose sleep over this, loose sleep for what, simple words on a, (must add) a great doc. site.
    Doesn't really mean nothing, can't take it to the bank can you?

    All it is, is just another reality we are making with our minds. Period!

  65. Mr. Razor: People aren't being very nice to us lately, are they Mr. Razor. I'm still quite upset at Overy. What's gotten into people tonight? It's rare that I feel this miffed that I can't sleep well.

  66. What is your point?

    You say it is obvious that more exists than meets the eye. And then you say we are nothing but insignificant? There is no higher dimensional space?

    And it is not my metaphors, nonsensical?? am quoting a top theoretical physicist!,

    actually recommended by none other than the Hate Machine!

  67. Please stop with the nonsensical metaphors. It is obvious that more exists than meets the eye, and that is why we create religion to explain it, which tends to be more metaphors and symbolism. Touch'e to Hate Machine's last post! Nicely done :D

    We could be "floating in a higher dimensional space" but we are not, we are an "insignificant thinking species on an insignificant planet in the universe" and thinking our existence is important outside of our family, friend, and community is just wishful thinking and narcissism. Deal with it!

    1. "objective" mental analysis is actually subjective impression -"insignificant" species on "insignificant planet", derived from earth-based conclusions of material scale of universe - illusory

  68. @ john:

    There is more to existence then meets the eye.

    But..."We don't see them because of the way we an ant walking along a lily pad...we could be floating within a grand, expansive, higher-dimensional space"...(Brian Greene)

  69. This topic will never be solved. No one will know the answer to our purpose. Is everything the way it is because of a completely random sequence of events? Are human beings really that significant in our existence? From what science has proved, I seem to slightly believe we are more insignificant then we think.

    1. science doesnt know what matter is

    2. science is a religion, in every respect

    3. [quote]No one will know the answer to our purpose.[/quote]
      I suggest keep that conclusion at bay. it is not needed and may self-fulfil

  70. @dr. critic - "expand their minds to believe in the unseen" I have no problem believing in the unseen. I am a firm believer that there are atoms and electrons and neutrons and even quarks. But I believe in those because there is science (experimentation and observation).

    Since you still don't seem to understand what science is I'll try to simplify it a bit for you.

    The first step in the scientific method is to define or purpose a question. There is no limit to what this question can be. The best scientists have great imagination in asking guestions no one else has asked.

    You say "you can only base your thinking on tangible evidence"

    This is 100% incorrect, you can only base the answer on "tangible evidence", or observation and experimentation.

    My opinion is that religion is the mud that the simplest minds get stuck. Since all they see when they look around is their religion they think they understand this world. While the rest of us see not only your mud puddle but every other puddle and many other things that airnt mud puddles.

    You say its not easy to believe in god... I say every 2nd grader I have ever talked to believes in god, and the easter bunny, and ghosts. Sure its hard to believe in the easter bunny... Its so hard that I find it silly.

    Just because your religion is complicated to you doesnt mean its complicated to me. Its just a feeling, obviously a strong feeling, but a feeling none the less.

    The deference between me and you is I dont try to convince people that my feeling is better then theirs and that unless they feel like I do they are missing something.

    1. science is a religion, based on beliefs

    2. [quote]Its just a feeling[/quote] The word 'just'...implies a philosophy of low rank for 'a feeling'. This is not axiomatic, it needs defending. A feeling may be in error. A thought process may be in error, based as it always is on an assumption eventually. If one digs far enough.

  71. Creationists, religee's, fundies, pope blowers...Fail!

    1. you forgot scientism

  72. We have not really debated...You have refused to debate me ...
    eric_bayview at yahoo dot com.

  73. Dr. Critic...You are clearly in denial. Also the vast majority of the world believes in some superman in the sky...Not easy to believe, I think it is clear that most people are groomed from an early age to believe such fairy tales...I was too, born Catholic and then when I was 12 I accepted Jesus as my "person savior" (love that lingo), I was a firm believer until rational explanation of religion lead to to doubt, questioning, and eventually disbelief...I would love to believe there is something but that is like you saying you really believe in Santa Claus ...You don't do you? So you can imagine that it would take more that a "feeling" to lead me towards religion of any is all bullsh*t and to look out into the heavens and say someone created it just seems to be a simple minded person...You cannot accept "just happen" in case of big bang... but I am sure you would argue without reservation that an all-powerful supernatural god just parents either ...funny how you can rationalize that. God is easy to believe, esp. when you are fearful of death, have a shi*ty life, and are emotional lonely... Atheism is not seems frustrating and hopeless but it is real it is not a created and rehashed story it is simply the rejection of ancient folk-tales and superstitions. Life is precious because it is a one shot opportunity, not because some fictitious god "put me here."

    1. sorry you got the catholic thing, long recovery. "superman in the sky" is straw man, burn him. Don't delude that there is nothing to the subject of divinity or supreme realms but childish churchisms. baby, bathwater, foolish

  74. Dr. Critic people throughout history all have different feelings about different gods. what makes you think yours is the right one.

    and you sound like someone who hasnt read the bible. i certainly have a number of times and can easily say that one of the best tools for making an atheist is the bible. its is so obviously wrong that a child will look at you funny if you tell them it is true.

    you keep saying "if you dont already know i cant show you" well thats great and i have heard the same thing from muslims and buddhists and hindus.

    what makes your religion and god more correct than theirs? and how can you know objectively?

    and the copout that god wants people to come to him through love and faith...if that were the case maybe he should make himself easier to love...not only that but maybe he shouldnt punish those that dont have faith since we cant force ourselves to have faith. being the all knowing being he is he would know what we would require to have faith and by not providing that he is willingly and knowingly damning us beyond our will.

    1. straw man

  75. @ Capricious - not just “feel” the presence of an imaginary person but a wrathful person that watches you all the time and might ask you to kill your son: paranoid schizophrenia

    1. straw man

  76. well, it's been nice debating with you all! Good night....

  77. They have a name for people who just "feel" the presence of an imaginary person: schizophrenia.

    1. narrow e-m spectrum, majority reality outside mental nurse's understanding

    2. You have never known that someone is present, or looking at you, and seen that it's so? You've never felt someone thinking about you, and got the text message straight away? In enough circumstances to make you think about it? You've never sensed a vast and awesome (not in the modern sense of slightly interesting) presence? You are not indigenously related to the land you stand on, but don't be so superior about it ! Some people may, oh yes, have experienced things which you have not. What they make of them is what they make of them. You can make nothing of them, they didn't happen to you. And fear not, they won't if you concentrate.

  78. and I'm sorry but religion does not limit one's ability to think....if you think that then you do not understand fact I could easily say that just the fact that you don't believe in a god or religion is a limiting factor in itself for your mind....for you can only base your thinking on tangible evidence...whereas people who have religion and God can expand their minds to believe in the unseen...

    1. you'll not easily get fair consideration of that statement!

  79. AS for Mother Theresa's incredible is it that a human being would still doubt and yet live her life upon her belief as a servant of God and Jesus to help the poor...that is what is called a Saint...most of the Saints had lost their belief for many years....Jesus even lost his on the that argument does not ensue the fact that she is a horrible person in fact it makes her an amazing person! How many of you would have such altruism for something you doubted??? That's called sacrifice...

    1. Bible very suspect , too many translations, adopted by Romans/Americans

  80. "I feel it" that there is a God...not about is factual ...tangible...God is it's not as easy for people to believe...which I understand ...if you cannot I cannot convince you...I never said a scientist would just "feel it"

    1. Prove that you love! Scientifically. Or declare it unreality. If science can't prove it, it don't exist. What pretension!

  81. you are mixing my thoughts....religion and science can be explained separately...of course...however God is the creator of all....if you can't understand that then I cannot convince believe what you do...and so do I...I can see the commonality...both Hawking and Einstein said they loved science to understand God better and see how his mind works....exactly how I feel....

  82. All of that is Mother Theresa propoganda....made up by people opposing the church...if you've actually been to or seen any of her monestaries you would see how it would have been impossible for her to have contributed all of her money to them...they were basically dumps....sorry but it's true....

  83. Dr. Critic:

    Mother Theresa is not a good example of decent human being, Mother Theresa was a monster. Almost all the money she raised was spent building an order of nuns, the pittance that was left over was used to give the sick poor a hard floor to suffer and die on. She did little to help the poor, she was more interested in her own legacy and supporting the Catholic Church's insane and inhuman policies.

  84. Dr. Critic...If a scientist of any kind said I think my findings are true because I "Feel it" he would be laughed out of the scientific community and likely whatever job he held. Science is not a feeling and you are very good at trying to make blind faith and science merge. Funny how you use Mother Theresa as and example of religious belief, because is well known that she battled doubt through most of her life.

    Hate machine...Thanks for the adulation! I am the real reason science is getting a bad name? They like me, they really like me! 1st of all I didn't know science had a "bad name," 2nd that statements just makes you lose all credibility. I gave my yahoo messenger address ...if you wanna put you money where your mouth is, please feel free to add me and we will chat!

    1. Take it from me, that silhouette on the left which I am not intelligent enough to know how to enhance, science has a bad nam.

  85. @dr. critic - science is a process not a being (not a god), if you dont alter the process it doesnt matter what you believe. That is why science works across nations and customs and beliefs.

    Obviously you use a mixture of mysticism and technology to make your own definition of science.

    When I speak of science I refer to information about the physical universe observed using the scientific method.

    "MANY scientists are religious... Einstein, Hawking, Neil Armstrong (astronaut)" - all of these people made a separation between science and beliefs.

    If you actually read quotes from Einstein and Hawking you will notice that they lean toward a god that is little more then an observer. Both will outright criticize the bible.

    I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

    I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

    "So for you people out there who think religion limits one to certain ways of thinking" - religion by definition limits one to certain ways of thinking. Your religion limits anyone that wants to think there is no god.

  86. @ Hate Machine....if you think that believing in God can negatively interfere with are not aware of what God is....God IS science...he created it....he created a formula for the way EVERYTHING works....what i'm trying to say is science and God ARE NOT separate!

  87. .."for however you judge others, is how you will be judged"....

  88. @ MR. it does not bother me when others believe in their religions....In fact it does not bother me that others are not religious or do not believe in God! To each his own....but that's not how I choose to live my life...Mother Theresa was one of the best examples for a human being to be. Loving one another without judgement is the golden rule and that is what I try to do....So, no I do not judge those who do not believe...but I try to love them. Mother Theresa spoke of those who found their "religion" in their work or hobbies and did not judge them...and it says in the bible..."whatever you do it with a full heart and (in my name)"...

  89. I have not been "taught" anything, but chose (as an adult) to become religious and worship Jesus and God because it's more than books and the Bible my friends. It's a feeling of knowing that there is something more out there that science cannot explain. It's experiences in life that make you realize you have a higher creator....If you think you are "above" spirituality and God, then I feel sorry for you,...because your vision is limited...the greatest minds in the world have believed in a higher being....MANY scientists are religious....Einstein, Hawking, Neil Armstrong (astronaut)....and please read and study the Bible before you jump to your conclusions.....You should have no opinion about something you have not chosen to immerse yourself in....would you choose to debate about medical procedures if you yourself have never opened a book about medicine and the anatomy?? And in being spiritual and religious, I would say that I am thinking way more freely than anyone who does NOT have God in their life! Because with Him the possibilities are ENDLESS...proven to me so many times in my life....He's made the impossible possible in more ways than I can count! and that my friend is way more AWESOME than any tactile matter that can be explained away by physics!!!

    By the way...I urge you to study the string theory....11 dimensions....that's what we're living in ....that is God's amazing and beautiful creation!!

    So for you people out there who think religion limits one to certain ways of thinking...NO WAY! It opens the door to worlds and realities that seem impossible! Have you ever tried prayer? Try it and you will see miracles happening before your eyes!!

  90. @clay - To sell more copies

  91. why do they always have sound associated with explosions of supernova and such in space when there are no molecules (or nearly no molecules) in a vacuum to allow propagation of sound waves.

    1. Any disciplined variable applied correctly to any phenomenon is revealing. Colour, sound, numbers

  92. @dr. critic - As long as you do not let belief interfere with science I have no problem with people believing anything the want.

    @MrMajestik - Dont try to explain why people do things... 90% of your argument is based on what you believe and not fact. You say "Support your point with some evidence" where is your evidence.

    Your history is as poor as your grasp on science. If you actually read history you would know that "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" was published with the blessing of the pope.

    MrMajestik, you are the reason real science is getting a bad name.

  93. @ Morther
    - Please, come on....seriously.

    @ Researcher
    - You took the words right out of my mouth! Thanks!

    The documentary is great and I think scientist Neil Tyson summed it up best on how we connect with everything in the universe and vice versa.

    For those who are religious....please free yourself of what you have been taught and just think, think freely of the "stuff" above your heads and the endless possibilities. Its awesome!

  94. Can I get an Amen?

  95. if you grabbed every theologian from every religion they could never come to an agreement on god.
    Even all the theologians from the same religion could never agree on god.
    there are thousands of religions (4 big ones, billion members+) and all of them require "supernatural" powers to be possible.
    there is only 1 science and all scientists are forced into agreement by the data.
    nothing supernatural has ever been verified, ever. if it happens it's natural you just might not quite understand it yet.

    1. yeah, of course, they cover entirely different levels of reality.

  96. In response to 23... We really need to have yahoo messenger conversation about this...much too complex to email back and forth. Oh let me make it very clear it is not just Christ/God philosophy that irritates me it is all major world are just as irritated and angered when someone is tell you that Islam or Mormonism is the right and only one true world view...not all that fascinating to think about it just is, people are egocentric and ethnocentric and when others groups try to shove propaganda if often results (cause-effect) irritation, impatience, and maybe anger. But would love to chat eric_bayview [at] yahoo [dot] com

  97. No, there doesn't have to be a "reason" for things to happen, there can be an explanation, but your use of the word "reason" implies mystical purpose. I think things happen... That is like saying 1+1=2 for a "reason" it just is and there is a universe of "just is" wants to put a reason on things because it makes it easier for his finite mind to process but we know the we cannot begin to understand anything...and really have not begun to understand much of anything until the scientific age and Darwin...before then it was all magic and usually comically foolish... heard of origin of word malaria. How about the world is flat? Often completely wrong...heard of Copernicus, Galileo, etc ? They had a revolutionary idea and church didn't like it...religion does not like new ideas. I disagree cause/effect does not immediately mean creator that is quite a jump to conclusion. I see the rhythm, beauty, and cycle of life and death...even more beautiful if you realize it wasn't created it happened and we are the lucky ones that get to see it, study it, and think about it. Just like my life ...worth so much more because there is no do over, eternal life, and when it is over it is over...really makes one appreciate every day of life, time with the kids and family, and concern for the future of the planet and peoplekind. Fini

    Your right, there is a reason but in the philosophical area - your worldview gives it reason. In the scientific reason, it is...and science explains how it happens but not the mystical purpose you try to place on "it."

    1. [quote]..and really have not begun to understand much of anything until the scientific age and Darwin...before then it was all magic and usually comically foolish.[/quote] Mr. Majestik, you've actually come out and stated the Great Modern Error. Rarely is it blatantly expressed, but rather in connotations of contempt for all times and place and peoples of this earth other than us, now, the pinnacle of human excellence. Well, that's your opinion, and most participants in Big Brother would agree, yes or no?

  98. and to be honest...we can never fully understand God because he is bigger than the universe.....have you ever tried to imagine the infinity of the universe?? it hurts the stop trying to logiticize (not sure if a word) is illogical because frankly our brains cannot handle that immense capacity of knowledge and understanding that is God...that's what's so damn beautiful about it

  99. Also, if you just look at the beauty of nature...Fibonacci numbers (example) the "science" of life..there is a pattern...there is a reason for everything...everything has a cause/effect....meaning there is a creator....the ultimate creator...if you look and do not see the beauty, the rhythm of life, the beat of life......then I wish you could...because THAT is God

  100. First off it would be impossible to convince someone such as yourself (an active non-believer) as to what God is (in any way; scientific, etc)because God is meek, humble, and he is all about love and acceptance. Your aggressive "prove it to me attitude" is the opposite of what God stands for so I will not try to debate with you. However...if you really want to know, (and are just not trying to instigate controversy and antagonism, but truly from your heart would like to know) I suggest reading the Bible (because I'm sure you haven't actually read it) and practice what is in there. After you have practiced it then you can see for yourself (and prove to yourself) whether you believe in Him or not and if he exists.But something in me thinks you will refuse to do this. So until will be impossible for you to even BEGIN to understand the mindset it takes to be a believer. Which is probably the problem.

    And to answer your question the Bible has many evidence of scientific facts that exist today...

    But I know people like you...wanting to perpetuate the non-existent of Christ/God...

    It's funny to me that people have such an issue with the belief that there is something more to the world than us...that there is a higher being...if you don't believe then why are you so ANGRY at those that do? It's really quite fascinating if you think about it...if I didn't like something I would not be angry at those that did. That's their choice...I will guarantee when you are on your death bed you will be thinking of God....guarantee....and then you won't be so angry.....but scared

  101. just remembered that String Theory is older than it's more than 20 years old...Einstein almost put all of the pieces together before he died....just wanted to correct my mistake

  102. Dr. Critic
    If you understand and believe in Scientific method and process how does God get thrown in there? Support your point with some evidence other than ancient books that have many horrible examples of a caring and loving god.

  103. I am a Christian and fully believe in evolution of the universe and all living beings. To understand Science is to understand God, his mind and the way he creates. (actually that's what Einstein believed and as well as Stephen B Hawking). Everything and I mean everything has a law. We've yet to discover them all...the most recent (or not so recent..been around for about 20 years...Einstein wanted to solve it before he died and almost got there) called the String Theory..the theory of everything, explains that we have 11 dimensions....some of the dimensions ran into each other and created the big bang...Anyway, my point that God is the creator of the universe and all its beautiful mysteries. If everything has a law...what makes us so special that we should not live by a law?? Examples of laws in the universe, Fibonacci numbers in nature, E=Mc2, etc....

  104. "typical atheist hogwash"?

    Oh, for the love of soup...

    1. atheist hogwash does exist you know. and there's a typical style of it. It's quite infantile, like much religious hogwash

    2. God, I better watch this damn video now having inserted 30 more comments into the commentary here. I'll just roll up a smoke and git ma hands offa the keyboard (we're all americans now lol) Hope it keeps me from a lifetime of unscientific ignorance! Mr Maj tho it's a lot to ask of a video

  105. Great documentary. Yes, nothing terribly new in here for those of us who have watched many astronomy documentaries, but still very entertaining. I'd highly suggest anyone lacking knowledge watch it as it's quite comprehensive about what we know and how we know it.

    Oh I do kind of take that back about nothing new - I had never known about the final RIP, though that was a very tiny portion of the very end.d

  106. Oh yes and kudos to the History channel for finally showing a film not about asteroids, volcanoes, of crab fishing.

  107. The same science and math used to build your computer was used to come up with the theory of the big bang. Electrons flowing across a circuit board, micro transistors, resisters, CRTs (little dated but a good example), 802.11. Even things like your microwave oven. When Intel decides to build a new chip how the chip works is all based on theory. The same laws that govern how a microprocessor will work are essentially the same laws used to predict what the universe was like a long time ago.

    What happened before the big bang... Any answer is mostly speculation(at least i haven't read any papers that have a good hold on the subject) and so isn't part of a good scientific explanation of our universe. Once there is a fair about of date form observation, experimentation, and is backed by the math there will be a consensus on what happened before the big bing. Maybe?!? "overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out."

    Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out.

    1. [quote]What happened before the big bang... Any answer is mostly speculation(at least i haven't read any papers that have a good hold on the subject)[/quote]
      THAT is cute! mostly speculation? please, do you have no sense of the absurd? even god's got a sense of humour, c'mon kids, it's ok, the universe can be a googillion parsecs across or 2, it's big. Relatively. and old. Relatively. And before the Big (relatively) Bang, was the Pointless Point. Trust me.

  108. God bless History Channel!

  109. Ya, an invisible man, who is all powerful, all knowing, but yet still needs more MONEY, pass the money basket, oh but he loves us.

  110. @ Morther 'Typical Athiest Hogwash' ? That'a hillarious, I haven't even watched the doc yet, the term 'typical athiest hogwash' cracks me about 'typical bible bullshit' filled with approximations, assumptions and fairy tales. Read the 'INTRODUCTION" of your 'KING JAMES BIBLE" it will tell you that the information inside this 'bible' is estimated, written hundreds of years after the supposed 'Jesus' was crowned the first Zombie. Peace, Roman Catholic I am.

    1. yes Rip, christians dont have a monopoly on hogwash, majority modern opinions on almost anything give 'em a run for their money. Check out the economic experts, if you dont feel comfy with atheist hogwash

  111. God: That's the first intelligent comment you've left on any of these threads so far. I'm usually a bit disappointed with your comments, actually. But, I would like to request, however, that you would at least capitalize "Bible" as people expect more from an almighty being such as yourself, or at least correct grammar in reference to your holy work. Thanks!

  112. I am God Do not believe this but believe in me and invisible man who sees all. I am everywhere i made u all and made everything. Read the bible.

  113. at looks like a big sneeze to me...jk

  114. One more thought...I get 'em all the time :D
    I live in a part of the country where I can see the milky way int the night sky...I just look at the Universe I just cannot see God out there! Now I am asking questions, why is god good? Why and where does his "spirit" his essence reside? Why do I not need God to give me a purpose and meaning to my life and 90% of people on this planet do? Why do I ask such an answerable questions? I think I am going start that book on string theory and quantum mechanics now! :D

    1. sleep out there every night until your mind stops. it's ok, you will not die or become less intelligent. Spirit by the way is not a substance occupying space, that's matter you're thinking of. As for God, it's a pretty dodgy term, in the sense that it's a generic, god, It's non-specific, it's a symptom of something in christianity. It's not a name, and it's almost without meaning. But that's no excuse for dismissing the human race's universal and ancient interest in the invisible. Or to say that my dream is just chemical A spilling into neuron B. But you probably believe in Chance. I do sometimes.

  115. J.Ray...I love that quote too...I am not claiming to know much of anything, but I do know that religious dogma has been evolving and changing over time. I think people are over thinking when they expect an answer for "WHY" at the end or beginning of every event. Some things just are...there is not why...but if you have to answer that most people come up with magical "father" creator in the quickly files in the gaps of knowledge and questioning. The logic of an intelligent, kind, justice giving, all powerful god who came from nowhere seems much more unbelievable than the event we label the Big Bang. Ironic how religious folk scoff at the idea of such an unbelievable event that started the formation of the universe as we know it, but they without further thought accept a deity, with all kinds of magical powers, all knowing, and full of emotion...I mean do you ever ask how would that all happen...without another creator or event before then? DUH... I am placing my money on science and understanding rather than trying to understand a theology that believed in demons, spirits, and would have never had a clue about the atom, germs, or even mental illness. Spiritually, I am with you ...we are one with everything, esp. on a good hit of acid...but what does that mean for how we live our life and treat our fellow humans and planet? I hear ya...I am recovering BAC and I remember when I believed it was much simpler but not as interesting. The fact is that without the old man looking down on us and caring about us, the reality of the universe is much more lonely and I think that is why the creation story has so much power over logic.

    1. You know I find it equally bemusing to see science-ists believing in an event so long ago that it is actually non-conceivable by any sentient being, consisting of existence emerging from non-existence spontaneously, and laughing their heads off at people who like to think of the beginning as a sound, (was the word) I think both religionists and science-ists forget that ALL descriptions of THE fundamental event are necessarily metaphors.

  116. He who knows he knows,knows nothing.He who knows he knows nothing,really knows.It amazes me how people are far right or left on this subject.The big bang makes sense,but what went bang and why?Where did it all start from?It's also obvious that we are evolving still.From a monkey?OK but where and why again?Couldn't there be a creator even if all this is true?I also think that the definition of GOD is unknown.Does it really have to be the old man in the sky?Couldn't it be something far from our ability to conceive it.I myself find it hard to believe that this life is all random and has no meaning to it.We are all a piece of the big picture....We are one with everything.

    1. hey I cant even grouch about that post. love it. hullo j.ray and goodnight. I have exhausted my brain with serial posting, happy to make yours the last read. cheers

  117. No doubt,, the world's most intelligent minds are mere observers, with the capabilities from years of schooling, to translate our surroundings so the rest of us can educate ourselves. No make believe stories, I can assure you if the evidence pointed to a theist based beginning (hogwash), they'd be the first to let you know!

  118. Nothing new...still amazing history of cosmological science or unless all you think is the creation of the universe is clearly and logically explained by a few sentences in an book from antiquity. The ideas, concepts, and mathematics behind the understanding is certainly beyond my mortal understanding but it clearly makes more sense then "God speaking it into existence" ... give me a break. I would love to accept that magic story, it would hurt my brain much less. It is so easy to demonize non-believers since your worldview is so logical and well-thought some history and science buddy!

  119. Athiest hogwash? Ha Ha Ha.. That's funny!

    Hypocracy at its best!!

    Ever heard the name 'Science' and 'Scientists'? What makes the world work? Who gets you medicine when ur sick? Who lets you communicate with your near and dear ones? With whose contribution did you have the capability to come to this wonderful website and type "Typical Atheist Hogwash". I could go on. . . . Most people actually they know what science is and what scientists do. But actually *THEY DON'T*!

    Who? Your Priest? Your Pope? Your god?

    If you cannot believe in science stop using everything you owe to science and scientists *NOW*! Go back your gospels, holy books and church!

    Grow up Man! Come on!! I really hope you were joking!

  120. Typical atheist hogwash.

  121. Nothing new!.. but watch it anyways. :)