Have astronomers disproved the Big Bang?

[@matteobetti2233]

"have you tried turning dark energy off and on again?"

[@Quroxify]

"have you tried turning dark energy off and on again?" Love this. We now can blame dark screen energy on MicroStuft. When all else fails reboot. :-)

[@Alex-uy7pc]

Dark energy, dark matter, can anyone remind me why we can't just call it ether?

[@NightRunner417]

I suggest hitting it with a _really_ big wrench.

[@MrTjmk]

Yea; like rebooting your computer. I'm sure that will solve the problem. If not well, never mind.

[@mikebarnes7441]

Unplug from power source, wait 60 seconds, and then plug it back in. We hope these solutions have helped and look forward to hearing your feedback!

[@AtlasReburdened]

As soon as I saw the thumbnail I could hear Issac in my head saying "Every headline which ends in a question mark, poses a question for which the answer is no.".

[@markphc99]

Surely there must be exceptions? Not that any come to mind

[@VoteScientist]

As I'm Off for the day I can't reply. See what I did there?

[@john-or9cf]

Atlas WalkedAway Like the tv weathermen: “will it rain this weekend? More later.” Don’t bother to wait, the answer is no...

[@frankschneider6156]

john Wrong. The answer will of course always be yes, but the real question is not IF but WHERE.

[@john-or9cf]

Frank Schneider LoL! I stand corrected! But if it rains, where I am not, do I really care? Or, does it reeeaally rain somewhere else or is this all a simulation?

[@kennethenston9562]

The most disappointing thing about astrophysics today is that misinformation is almost as common as in politics. "Nobody seriously questions that the universe began 14 billion years ago and has been expanding since" is simply not true. Edwin Hubble insisted to the end of his life that the cause of galactic redshifts had not been determined. Carl Sagan wrote that if galaxies turned out to have large black holes at the center of them, it would be necessary to determine how much of the redshift is caused by the black holes. In 2014 New Scientist magazine published a letter from 33 scientists disputing the Big Bang, and complaining of the suppression of dissent on the topic. How could Don Lincoln not know this?

[@warren286]

One thing I'd really enjoy you discuss is how relativity (time dilation) plays in the early universe due to so much mass in close proximity and its velocity.

[@donquixote812]

Everyone upvote this!

[@TheBinaryUniverse]

Try this idea. The initial singularity did not have infinite density. It was dimensionless, timeless, without mass or matter and without gravity. It was, NOTHING. The only thing required to start things off was the beginning of time. The beginning of the oscillating field of energy we experience as time. With this sudden field of time, there was a sudden inflation of space, since if you increase the time rate then space expands (or inflates). Both Special and General Relativity show that if you reduce the time rate then space "shrinks". In the limit, when time stops, space has shrunk to zero volume. It is logical therefore to conclude that increasing the time rate increases the "size" of space. Matter (particles) did not form until after (or during) the initial inflation. After all, inflation would have carried on without gravity to halt it and the formation of fundamental matter particles did just that. We must also conclude (if this idea is correct) that all particles, all matter, and therefore gravity emerged from the field of energy we experience as time. Everything is made of energy. Time is energy. Everything is made of time. Why do you think time dilates in the presence of energy? Because matter particles use some of it for their internal kinetic energy That's all particles are - trapped energy (from the field of time). Why do you think time slows down for increasing kinetic energy? Because the energy is being used (by the traveller) from the field, for his kinetic energy. When he uses all the energy of the field at the same rate it is being produced, then time stops and you cannot go any faster. You are using every Planck time for progression through space so none are left to move you through time. 'Just a flavour of my book "The Binary Universe" - (A Theory of Time). uppbooks.com/shop/product/the-binary-universe-a-theory-of-time/

[@Splatterbrain7]

Ken Hughes this is interesting.

[@johna6648]

Ken Hughes , what do you say about the idea that time is actually not an independent variable but a reflection of relative interactions among physical entities/energies? I guess I should read your book, eh?

[@burleighsurfography2241]

Ken Hughes Baryon acoustic oscillations show existence of particles early in the inflation process. I think this proves that there was matter first and space time is an emergent property of entropy.

[@Beldraen]

In science, errors aren't a problem: they are where to look for new understanding.

[@Mosern1977]

Well, they do indicate you have an issue with your theory though.

[@frankschneider6156]

Mosern1977 No ... it very likely just means the the current model being used is in some aspects just too simplistic and needs to be enhanced. If you adapt the model the predictions of the theory that's based upon it will change. So you try to enhance the model and see if the resulting predictions better fit the observation. As long as you don't actively modify the model to fit the observation, that's a perfectly valid approach. It's far too early and the evidence far, far too weak, to immediately question the whole theory itself. That's only the case if the issue can't be solved in the long run or gets even worse.

[@Dprkr1]

Not exclusively within science, that's true everywhere.

[@Beldraen]

@@Dprkr1 You and I live in different worlds, unfortunately.

[@juzoli]

Mosern1977 It shows you which way you need to improve your theories. Relativity and quantum physics were both started as unexplained “errors” in the calculations.

[@Grimlock1979]

The universe was installing updates and needed to reboot.

[@wayneyadams]

Only if it is a Microsoft product.

[@sansarsah2966]

lol

[@wayneyadams]

So you are Implying that Bill Gates is God, and angels are really just programmers at Microsoft?

[@sansarsah2966]

@@wayneyadams lol

[@emilivanec]

@@wayneyadams Devil and demons :|

[@Sean_Coyne]

I'd help you guys out, but the number 9 hasn't worked on my calculator since high school.

[@hiltonchapman4844]

@Sean Coyne: Re your "the digit 9 iz broken on me calculator" Youze hadda kalku-later? In skool? Lucky you! I only had calculi ... and I am still working at passing them ... out! HC-JAIPUR (13/08/2019)

[@MeanChefNe]

That musta been it

[@stevebrindle1724]

I am sure that Douglas Adams will have all the answers somewhere in his writings!

[@davidwright8432]

Fortunately I have a solution! Every time you need '9', us the expression '(8+10)/2'. Voila!

[@mikebarnes7441]

Am I missing some meme or joke here? Highly confused

[@amicloud_yt]

I love how in the first 45 seconds of the video you're just like "No. They haven't." Thanks for not having 8 minutes of BS until you actually answer the question in the title. Still gonna watch the rest though of course!

[@amicloud_yt]

@Bertrand de Born Ok, so I am going to watch those two videos to see what you are talking about. But before I do that I gotta ask.... You realize you sound like a complete nutter, right?

[@burleighsurfography2241]

amicloud don't bother wasting your time. The links are just to another nutter

[@inkoalawetrust]

+Bertrand de Born I find it amusing how you mention Epstein only because he is very relevant now because if he didn't get arrested and then died you wouldn't even know who he is. Anyways i'd rather trust what every scientific instituion in the world says and has proven than what a bunch of scientifically illiterate paranoid schizophrenics on youtube comments and videos rumble about.

[@burleighsurfography2241]

Zbigniew Modrzejewski It does require a better theory to disprove it, which there are none so far. Regardless when the evidence is practically insurmountable kzbin.info/www/bejne/l4G2pZ1oj9qLq8k

[@amicloud_yt]

@Zbigniew Modrzejewski Uhh, actually it is experimentally falsifiable. We have thousands of experiments verifying the theory, and not one that actually disapproves it. But I don't suppose you care

[@johnpublic168]

astronomers never proved the big bang

[@jamesvan2201]

A Jesuit catholic priest invented the big bang theory.

[@hamentaschen]

10:32 THANK YOU Dr. Lincoln for being Physicist, and not an English major!

[@flyingskyward2153]

Just been scrolling through the comments, yikes! Something about physics seems to act as a magnet to the crazies.

[@michaelsommers2356]

If you want to see real loonies, try the sci.physics.relativity newsgroup.

[@Ricocossa1]

Yup. xD Most of them aren't even worth an answer.

[@robertwoods1380]

Actually there are some intelligent reply’s like we don’t know. And that is the hardest concept for physicists, quantum physicists, doctors and politicians to understand or admit. Just ask 10 lawyers their educated opinion. Now let me throw some tar in your gears. Ask the religious brainiacs their opinion. Not me I’m outta here........

[@LordArioh]

Galaxies moving away from Earth? I bet they do. Other worlds know what we are and try to stay away.

[@naser1109]

😅😂

[@78Richardab]

🖕

[@AdamAlbilya1]

They guessed it's the only way to not get a knock on the door one day by Jehovah Witnesses.

[@SrmthfgRockLee]

@@AdamAlbilya1 ahahahahhaahahhaahahhhahAHAHAHhahahHAHAHAHAH u dont know how much u made my day. sharing with friends..jehovah :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDddddd ive chated..talked to those damn they funny

[@michaelrichardson9458]

LordArioh yes and is probably also the answer to the Fermi paradox, the aliens are out there they are just avoiding us.

[@mikenorval6331]

It's not clickbait if you were going to watch the video anyway.

[@SteveFrenchWoodNStuff]

Viewer intention has no bearing on whether a title is click bait-y or not.

[@robsmith1a]

I would have watched it but at a later time, clickbait by my definition

[@aidanr444]

Dr Don's videos are great quality and are not pushing ads at anyone, ergo no matter what the title is, this is no clickbait!

[@deluxeassortment]

What a way to go viral though! I couldn't click fast enough.

[@spudhead169]

@Eric Burkheimer Exactly. The title is certainly not clickbait. Some of these idiots will call ANY video title clickbait just for the attention.

[@NothingMaster]

You forgot the last and the most important fact: Betty White was the Original Singularity, the Primordial Cause, and the ‘Branes’ behind The Big Bang.

[@prepperjonpnw6482]

Branes?

[@EtzEchad]

Dark Matter, and Dark Energy especially are misnamed. They should use a much older name for them: Magic. They exist only to save the theory. If the history of science shows anything, it is much more likely that the theory is fundamentally wrong rather than there are mysterious forces out there that have no effect other than to make the equations come out right. This is very similar to the epicycles that they introduced to save the earth-centered universe theory when observations didn't match the theory.

[@JimGrantz]

Well said!

[@shawnclark732]

Yup. It’s amazing scientists can believe in things that are akin to spirituality and magic...and they don’t seem to even notice.

[@tadferd4340]

You clearly don't understand the subject. Dark matter and energy are just placeholders. There is observed effect where we can't detect the cause. It's clear that there is something that has the effect of matter and something that has the effect of energy. This has been rigorously studied and scrutinized.

[@hunk2140]

but..but holographic universe theory has answers to dark matter and energy..

[@anelicemelo5331]

Tadferd you’re right. There is observed effects, but there are other theories that have been dealing with them... Some even more plausible than the standard model. For example, if relativity is true and matter and energy are related, and if the universe moves up in a 5th dimension, so all dark matter can be inertial mass of the ordinary matter plus gravity of the energy that expands the space, also CMB can be the vibration of space/time while it goes upwards...

[@dyvel]

I disagree. The big bang theory aired its last episode months ago. Officially dead.

[@hiltonchapman4844]

Tor Hunemark: "The BB Theory is off'cly DEAD!" You're cruel, you know that? HC-JAIPUR (13/08/2019) 😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😂

[@anandsuralkar2947]

Lol

[@OEFarredondo]

Jesus loves you

[@jedrudolph3128]

Thank fuck for that.

[@ffggddss]

@@hiltonchapman4844 Cruel? Not really, when you're talking about an expired sitcom. Fred

[@MrBendybruce]

So, Dark Energy switched off, then switched back on again. Sounds legit.

[@hiltonchapman4844]

@@blackandcold No, not if you juxtapose the Schrödinger's Pyoussy width with the Wood-Planx Constant in a third of an octave above Z#. Unless, of course, you de-rationalize the Tomz-Harry-Dick postulate to a minor fifth. HC-JAIPUR (13/08/2019)

[@Darryl_Frost]

So 'dark energy', that energy that works completely differently to 'normal' energy, (it's stronger the further you are away!!) doing anything (switching on/off) also sounds just as 'legit'!... Never detected, just like dark matter. Or as I prefer to call it 'magic fairy dust"'. Cosmology is in such a bad place right now (for the past 100 years). It's a shame.. But it all makes sense if you just accept that the big bang simply did not happen...

[@arsemyth8920]

So, 95% of the universe is theoretical. Isn’t it time we switched to a model that isn’t propped up by so much dark (invented) stuff?

[@VampireRat77]

@@arsemyth8920 sure. What do you suggest?

[@williamgreene4834]

@@hiltonchapman4844 Well that's just genius I tell you what.

[@666BIGBLOCK]

What I learned here is that we don’t KNOW a damn thing for sure.

[@bradevans5566]

Welcome to science. That said, there are things we know pretty well, to the point that we just assume they will work (like brakes) and if they don't work enough times, then the science needs to be revisited.

[@tardvandecluntproductions1278]

Life would be pretty boring if we understood EVERYTHING

[@john-paulsilke893]

But we do know God cheats are wrestling because it says so in the bible. Genesis 32:22-32 Kinda sucks knowing all the answers huh? It’s definitely better to have questions rather then crazy answers written by Bronze Age sheep farmers.

[@john-paulsilke893]

@Brad Watson and from the NIV 22:21-39 Balaam’s Donkey could talk. This book is full of some serious Harry Potter stuff plus a ton of boring genealogies.

[@gregdamario5808]

Why assume dark energy was the force that changed? What if it was gravity? If one force can fluctuate, why not some others, or all of them.

[@Cryptonymicus]

The answer is probably, "Go get a doctorate and let us know when you answer your own question."

[@vtg100]

No need for weak gravity we got soft concrete.. putty putty putty

[@clairpahlavi]

Radioactive decay rates are variable depending on day or night, the phase of the moon, and seasonally. Is gravity a real force? Probably not.

[@chrisbarlow2131]

@@clairpahlavi Honestly, I've heard it all now. "Is gravity a real force? Probably not".

[@fromagefrizzbizz9377]

@@clairpahlavi "Radioactive decay rates are variable depending on day or night, the phase of the moon, and seasonally. " Makes sense. Wait.... What???!!!! That, I'm afraid, is dead wrong.

[@michaelwinter742]

Car guy 1: I think the car is Cherry Red. Car guy 2: I’m pretty sure it’s Atomic Red - they didn’t make these cars in Cherry Red the year it came out. Newspaper Headline: Car guys disprove car exists!

[@franknvoter7658]

"News" reports circulate about public outrage surrounding "paintgate", the car should be allowed to identify as cherry red if it feels cherry red.

[@dirtybirds4202000]

Thats pretty much science. lol

[@markburch6253]

Newspaper headline: anti car Amish religious whackjobs use new car data to prove that cars are a hoax foisted upon humanity by Satan.

[@onorg1]

science: we dont have answers mystic: we dont have questions, only answers

[@jackasorn7397]

I thought Dr. Lincoln gonna say that the discrepancy is due to some event, the scientists named "The Dark Event". We know nothing about it, but we are sure it happened!

[@AlexandraBryngelsson]

Yes, this is unfortunately the state of a lot of science right now. If there is something in reality that is not conforming to a theory, it's not the theory that's wrong, we just invent a new concept to fix the howls in it, sad.

[@jackasorn7397]

@Zbigniew Modrzejewskilike multiverse? Dark matter could be just gravitational pull from parallel universes! Dark energy too!

[@Quroxify]

Exactly.

[@maxfornoville1072]

@@AlexandraBryngelsson That's how scientifical theories work, they are mathematical models that correctly describe phenomenas we already observed and can correctly predict phenomenas we will observe in the future.

[@jimmyjohnjoejr]

@@AlexandraBryngelsson this is the whole idea behind the big bang

[@nebulasy8]

Hello Dr. Don Lincoln, Could you do a video about the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment?

[@dx7tnt]

What if the Hubble constant isn't a constant?

[@simongross3122]

It might not be a constant, but it's still a Hubble

[@ioannisimansola7115]

All my life I hated universal constants exactly because we cannot prove they are constants or varying with space and time as well

[@simongross3122]

@@ioannisimansola7115 Well, constant is a matter of perspective :)

[@ragingskeptic9753]

The value of the HC has been changed several times over the years to account for inconsistencies in Big Bang hypotheses.

[@SaithMasu12]

@@ioannisimansola7115 and that is exatctly the reason why everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt. There is no proof that things worked like a clockwork. Even law of nature crystalized out of everything and it doesent mean its a constant. It is true now for our time and our understanding, but might not have been in the past or in the future. Classic Science mostly does not dig into this matter too much, because it would nullify any advancement on their part. Modern Science is a little bit more open to this option.

[@tubastud06]

"...a Megaparsec is just 3.3........million light years." Fantastic delivery, sir.

[@zlac]

3.3 is so arbitrary, it almost sounds like 2 million imperial light years converted to metric or something... :-D

[@Shenron557]

@@zlac Yeah it sounds arbitrary. But the unit parsec is derived on solid ground. It is the distance at which one Astronomical Unit (avg. distance b/w the earth and sun) subtends an angle of one arcsecond (1/3600 of a degree). Both are cool units, although personally I like lightyears more.

[@jonathanguthrie9368]

@@zlac Blame the semimajor axis of the earth's orbit. That's what the parsec is based on.

[@Valdagast]

Then of course there's the Barn-Megaparsec, which works out to about 2/3 of a teaspoon.

[@tetsujin_144]

@Rajesh Thomas: Light years are a bit easier to understand, but parsecs are rooted in the method we're using to measure these distances. As such it's kind of a little closer to the truth of what we've observed: Because we can't directly measure the distance to these objects: rather we can measure observable parallax effects as we orbit the sun, and then use that to calculate the distance. Both units are very geocentric in nature, one based on the orbital radius of the Earth, one based on the orbital period of the Earth - but it is the former quantity, the orbital radius of the Earth, which is meaningful to the measurement, and if we had somehow gotten that quantity wrong, our idea of how far a parsec is (expressed in terms of other units) would change, but an object measured at 19 parsecs away would still be 19 parsecs away.

[@mrjagriff]

You need a quantum theory , they always come in handy when you don’t know something in physics

[@thangaveloovarathan711]

In a world where too many are too cocksure of their answers, a bit of honest humility of "We don't know" is very refreshing. Uncertainty in the frontier of science is natural. Thanks to Fermilab!

[@gazmartinpadiham.lancs.3435]

How can you disprove something that hasnt been proven. Unless a theory is a proven fact.

[@Pooreyorick]

I would suggest that one can disprove *only* things that have never been proven. For example, some people claim that the Earth is a disc and not a sphere. They have never properly proven it to be a disc, yet it seems there are many ways of disproving their claim. Conversely, if I actually *prove* the Earth to be a sphere, no one can disprove it - they would be wrong.

[@markburch6253]

David is exactly correct. You can only disprove a theory that hasn't been proven. Once it's proven you can only show that the experiment used to prove it was faulty and in reality it was never proven.

[@EmeraldEyesEsoteric]

I don't know enough about the sciences to really chime in, but many have claimed they can debunk the big bang, often with seemingly good explanations, I think it goes without saying, we would love to see someone such as yourself examine and address these claims. Acadamia after all, tends to be reluctant to address anything that doesn't agree with the mainstream narrative.

[@tadferd4340]

Because academia has no need to address poorly or unsupported claims. They are busy doing actual work. When those who disagree submit papers for peer review with actual supporting evidence, then academia will give a shit. That's how science works. Put up or shut up.

[@mikebellamy]

He's right _"scientists have not disproved the big bang"_ because I did and I am only an engineer! BIG BANG Gravity Problem: 1. Big Bang assumes energy and matter from nothing in a quantum singularity or fluctuation 2. The density is quoted variously as extreme to infinite 3. The total mass of the universe curves space and shapes the universes destiny 4. Black Holes have an escape velocity at their event horizon equal to the speed of light 5. The size of a Black Hole is measured by its mass which gives the diameter of the event horizon 6. The mass of the universe is ~1e80 protons = 6.7e53 Kg 7. The formula for escape velocity = (2GM/r)^0.5 Therefore r = 2GM/v^2 8. Given M = 6.7e53 Kg and v = 3e8 m/sec therefore Dia = 2.r = 52.5 billion light yrs 9. The universe cannot at any time have been smaller than 52.5 billion light yrs in diameter 10. This is called the Schwarzschild's Radius of any mass and is well known 11. Hence the matter in the universe can only have been created *after the expansion of space..* *The Big Bang is falsified as a violation of the law of gravity! Q.E.D.* This is uniquely consistent with the Genesis account of creation of stars on day 4 after the expansion of space. Also _"Let there be light."_ on day 1 explains the uniform CMBR being a burst of photon energy with no mass.

[@mikebellamy]

@@MrFreeze420 I don't because the *naturalists* are running the show! NATURALISM = Materialism = Atheism in disguise 1. Nature is comprised of only that which can be measured 2. What can be measured is made of matter or energy 3. Matter and energy always obey the laws of physics 4. Decoherent matter and energy obey the law of cause and effect 5. Causes may be predicted by measuring their effects 6. Naturalism assumes no miracles all causes are natural 7. Causes which violate laws of physics are miracles 8. The cause of nature cannot be nature ‘circular’ 9. Therefore nature is a miracle contradicting the assumption of naturalism Naturalism is falsified and you've got God! Q.E.D!

[@PhilLaird]

I find it rather interesting that assuming The Big Bang actually happened, that would also mean that it was so incredibly dense at one point that the gravity it had would have been too strong for it to have flown apart.

[@fivish]

A singularity of infinite size. Thats what we are supposed to accept. It BS.

[@mattd9255]

B4 u push dark matter/ energy, u should be 100% sure it exists... just to be scientific. THANKS

[@kc0itf]

NO!!! You will believe in magic or else! Never mind every search for dark matter has come up with nothing! You will assume what we tell you to assume!

[@lelouchlamperouge8286]

If something makes a noise in your basement, and you call that a "Goasdhaslf", it exists. You just don't quite know what that thing is yet. It could have been a rat, pipes adjusting, metal expanding/shrinking. Same with Dark Matter and Dark Energy. We can see their effects, plain as day. We just aren't sure what they are. Dark Matter is called that because it exhibits gravity just like actual matter.

[@ImYourProblem]

so why not call dark matter dark gravity, and dark energy dark anti-gravity, since they don't even know what gravity is yet..?

[@lelouchlamperouge8286]

@@ImYourProblem Because Gravity is exerted through a bend in space-time, which can only happen with objects of mass. So you're wrong to assume we "don't even know what gravity is yet" because we do know.

[@kc0itf]

You seem to know a lot about gravity... all the bending of space-time it does! You have any pictures of non-bent space-time to compare? You know, for control purposes... we wouldn't want to believe without evidence! @@lelouchlamperouge8286

[@hydrolito]

Betty White's first appearance on Television was 3 months after Graduation in 1939 where she and her classmates sang songs from The Merry Widow on an Experimental Los Angeles Channel. She was also on a documentary which took 10 years to complete which aired August 18, 2018 called Betty White First Lady of Television.

[@nebulousy]

Person: "So when did everything begin?" Scientist: "The big bang" Person: "What happened before that?" Scientist: "We don't know" Person: "Why didn't you just say that then?" Scientist: "I don't know"

[@ag-bf3ty]

The question of when everything "began" could be fallacious... since there was never a "time" before time existed. So the universe could have technically "always existed" despite also being finite in time. The big bang could also not be a point of origin, but merely a point of obscurity where our understanding of physics simply becomes insufficient. I think Stephen Hawking made this analogy: "What happened before time began?" is like asking "What's north of the north pole?" It's a question that sounds sensible conceptually in the realm of language, but physically, it just doesn't actually make sense or have any value. It's a faulty question.

[@vedanthsatish2706]

TRUE

[@chronosschiron]

@@ag-bf3ty actually before the big bang you cant tell if time existed or not thus you cant say and literally being inside this universe it is literally highly unlikely you might ever know that question. finding a hint might be all you get.

[@MidnightJerry]

@@ag-bf3ty --- ALL you say is simply a compete crap. To cut the long story short, -- There is no question, that the "Big Bang", in other words, an explosion HAS happened, because it the FACT, that since than, all the billions or trillions of Galaxies keep rushing from the point of the explosion, in ALL directions (yes, also in the opposite to ours) with the speed of the bullet, for several billions of years (according to all astrophysicists), and the mystery of this is, that, against a the reason and physics, this great speed keeps INCREASING, instead of slowing down. But say something about the basics, and try to explain the most important fact about the Universe -- which is, of course, that that mind boggling huge mass of these billions upon billions of stars and planets in each of the billions upon billions of Galaxies came into existence -- out of nothing, when that "nothing" exploded, etc..... In other words -- we still know next to NOTHING, with regard to the Universe, and its origins,and that it will keep expanding into INFINITY, which is also beyond any imagination, and another mystery is, that the mass of the Universe, allegedly, keeps increasing, all those billions of light years after that explosion -- which that was given by serious scientists, such silly childish name - "Big Bang" !! All the basic knowledge of astrophysicists, who like to be filmed, standing in front of the big blackboard, clattered chaotically with all kind of meaningless equations and symbols, to make impression, that they really know something, beyond pure, and usually ridiculous, nonsensical, all kind od speculations, like "black holes" etc, SPECULATIONS! With regard to astrophysicists' and other scientists saying, insisting, and seriously teaching, that all that MASS of all of those countless stars came out of NOTHING, which some 14 billion light years ago exploded, let me quote just couple of sentences from Jeremy Rossi's book - "Misunderstood for 2000 Years" , Chapter XXXIV : --- "The irony is, that they (Astrophysicists) are right. However, there is a little more to it. The good news for the Astrophysicists is that it is true, and they are right. The Universe did come out of nothing! The bad news for them is, that the birth of the Universe out of nothing, MUST be called a Miracle"! Think about it!! Hahahahaha.

[@muslaw1]

ashGC The question is not what happened before time began, but what happened before the universe began. That was the question you answered. That question could be answered, theoretically and one day probably will be answered.

[@Mycon]

thanks for the Betty White joke, young man.

[@EHD351]

Those of us with Gray or White hair appreciate that. All Ok.

[@michaelwheeler9364]

I thought this video was going to be something like a response to the arguments of Eric Lerner, a physicist who thinks that recent astronomical observations do indeed disprove the BBT. Disappointing.

[@lorinori3776]

Erik Lerner has a pretty interesting KZbin channel. I would love to see some big bang theorists respond to his videos.

[@AmxCsifier]

How does the accelerating expansion not explain this?

[@datguyoverdere6616]

Isn't there a flaw in calculating the Hubble Constant using the distance between two points of matching temperatures by assuming that the temperatures observed are all results of identical circumstances? (Compared to using the current distance and velocity of individual points)

[@AdamAlbilya1]

What about adding a measurement from slightly later than 4000ABB (After Big Bang) to see if it agrees with the measurement from 4000ABB or perhaps the rate of the expansion does not only depends on distance but also on time? I.e. the acceleration is not constant as a function of time, thus the two current measurements , although different, are correct. Another solution might be that the acceleration function is not the same in each direction due to e.g. varying dark energy clusters. Although it might oppose to the uniformity of space.

[@quixotic7460]

we dont have a map of the universe from "slightly later"

[@NightRunner417]

3:19 - "This reminds of the story of what happened to Hans Glurgersterflurgen, St' Olaf's most *evil* radio astronomer..." "ROSE!! No one wants to hear about Hans Ger... flergerst.. St. Olaf's radio astronomer!"

[@Sircivus]

Dark energy should be renamed as "the force"

[@georgekatkins]

In this video, Dr. Lincoln noted (1:26) that, though Earth is not at the center of the universe, we are at the center of our "visible universe" (Point A) and the surrounding, distant galaxies are moving away from at the same rate of speed. If the actual center of the universe (Point B) where the BB took place, I would assume everything would be expanding away from Point B. AB, so how can galaxies be moving away from us (Point A), equally, in all directions? I'm not a physicist, so can anybody explain this to me?

[@racheline_nya]

"400000 years old sounds pretty old" the universe: nah, that's tiny. i'm 13.7 billion now and my lifespan is over 10^94 years the immortal queen of england: not bad, kid. but i can live for an eternity superspruce with septillions of eternities: _pathetic_

[@pederlindstrom3132]

Dr. Lincoln,, Greetings from northen Sweden and a new subriber, even though I have been watching the channel for a long time. I don't know how or what I have done but my kids, 11 and 14 years old are watching the channel among others. I do like the way you manage to get some humor in to the videos as well. Science rules.. Always.

[@kentwilbourne996]

Could you be related to Pastor Hank Lindstrom, "How Permanent Is Your Salvation?", on KZbin.

[@pederlindstrom3132]

@@kentwilbourne996 not to my knowlage. Stay safe and take care.

[@pigsbishop99]

Points of information -The 'Hubble constant' was first derived by Georges Lemaître before Hubble! Astronomers didn't set out to measure the 'cosmic microwave background' as stated. It was an accidental discovery.

[@cubax599]

Well appreciated channel, thank you. In this vid, I notice how when talking about e.g. 'the universe is expanding' scientists really mean the Observable universe. Don mentions the O word in the beginning but more often than not it gets glossed over. We could be in an expanding bubble, surrounded by shrinking universe :)

[@alphacenturi8038]

If the world had teachers like this man at junior and senior schools we could have had scientists who could have unlocked the secrets of the universe by now. He explains things so clearly and leaves you wanting to learn more. Keep up the good work and be blessed !

[@willem1642]

Yes, science is a lot more interesting when explained by someone who has a good understanding of it

[@garypalmer997]

What he didnt mention is the l discrepancy does change 1 thing about the big bang and is somewhat of a big deal. And that is the age of the universe changes making younger by a couple billion years. Oooops!

[@jimmyshrimbe9361]

I love you guys!!!! Can I come live at Fermilab? I'll pay rent and clean!

[@BillFromTheHill100]

You don't even do that now!😀

[@jimmyshrimbe9361]

@@BillFromTheHill100 what the heck? How do you know THAT?

[@BillFromTheHill100]

@@jimmyshrimbe9361 Just playing... Ha! You thought I knew you eh? It was just funny to say.

[@fiftystate1388]

Just put in the tape. Mom will bring up some pizza bagels in a few minutes.

[@Tenkai917]

Just throw in some non-baryonic matter or some mysterious force acting upon our universe from a higher dimension. Works every time. Edit: That was sort of a tongue-in-cheek comment, but after watching the entire video that's pretty much exactly what it says. ;P

[@destinysphilosophyuploads]

No it only works if there is a pattern whether proven or theoretical. There is a pattern which Dr. Lincoln illustrated even for simple minded people like you. Find the pattern.

[@Tenkai917]

There will always be a pattern if you are looking for one. See also: apophenia.

[@tuele4302]

That's not what the video says at all. Did you really watch the whole thing?

[@hiteshk8758]

I'm sure you heard the mention of the physicist who wrote that book in Sadhguru video. He's being consulted by major institutions including AI researchers and Scientific community

[@hannah34218]

Stephen Malturin lmao I love it. Videos like this are like porn for people fantasizing about the universe. “If we bend the conceptual medium known as “space time” we would discover different laws of physics in each theoretical dimension of each universes!” aaaaand boom! That’s SCIENCE. Never go against or question the religion of Scientism!

[@klauscartesius1275]

These Fermilab videos are great, but there's little or no info on the actual tools / gear and specifically apps used to get / generate the presented results.

[@jltrem]

5:49- "Nobody seriously questions that the universe began fourteen billion years ago..." Except Ken Ham.

[@Georgia-Vic]

Ken Ham for president!

[@jltrem]

@@Georgia-Vic Just what we need....another idiot in the White House.

[@scotttillinghast9665]

And me

[@jltrem]

@@scotttillinghast9665 Birds of a feather.

[@kadmilossomnium]

it seems like the 'projection' team didnt project far enough into the future. Perhaps instead of getting the expansion rate wrong, they got the age of the universe wrong. Perhaps its actually much older than we currently believe.

[@goacoa]

Did you not hear him say that there is no way scientists got the age of the universe wrong? They are absolutely certain it’s 13.8 billion years.

[@kadmilossomnium]

@@goacoa we have been wrong before. Certainty is a luxury we cannot afford. Especially in cosmology where we know how little we know

[@goacoa]

@@kadmilossomnium We might have been wrong before about things that we didn't have enough data about. Age of the universe is well established through observation, so again - scientists are CERTAIN (within few million years) that it's 13,8 billion years.

[@lonesameer13]

Dark energy disappeared?? Where did it go? What about energy conservation law?? That means physics doesn't apply to earlier universe

[@jonmars9559]

At some point in the not so distant future, someone is going to have to call Occam's Razor on the notion of dark matter and dark energy. After all, which is more likely. 95% of the universe is made up of mysterious invisible stuff that cannot be seen or interacted with and has no place in the standard model in order to make theoretical calculations add up or there is a fundamental error being made in the interpretation of cosmological principle? 95% is just a huge fudge figure. I suspect one day, dark matter and dark energy will sarcastically be referred to as dark ether.

[@frankschneider6156]

Jon Mars This just means that you don't understand what dark matter and dark energy are. They are the names given to the discrepancies between what our current knowledge expects to see and what we actually observe. These observations are repeatable and thus fact. What we observe is not what we expected to observe. The causes (whatever they might turn out to be) have simply been named dark matter resp. dark energy. This doesn't necessarily imply e.g. in the case of dark matter that it is really matter. It could also be, that our current understanding of gravity on intergalactic distances is insufficient (although this MOND approach never got anywhere). But the discrepancies between expectation and observation are real and can't be negated.

[@michaelsommers2356]

That's not how Ockham's razor works.

[@jonmars9559]

@@frankschneider6156 I understand. What you wrote in defense is pretty much what I wrote, just from a different angle. Dark matter and dark energy are proposed to make what is believed to be true, correct. Even with a 95% fudge factor, it's still not quite working. In the nineteenth century, ether was proposed to help explain what could not be explained through observation. What it ultimately did was create a crisis in physics that forced a new way of thinking. Relativity saved the day in the early twentieth century, further explorations of relativity may be part of the solution in the twenty first century as well.

[@allenjenkins7947]

When I went to school, somewhere in the dim, dark past, this was known as Skinner's Constant ( or Flanagan's Finagling Factor). A number which when added to, subtracted from, multiplied by, or divided into the answer you got gives you the answer you should have got. Very useful in physics practical classes.

[@torgenxblazterzoid]

@@frankschneider6156 "This just means that you don't understand what dark matter and dark energy are". And you do? I'll tell you what they are : inferences, assumptions, to make the already existing holy cow stay comfortably in its barn.

[@leomatsusita9791]

Hello, I am a Russian college student who is crazy about science. Your KZbin channel delighted me and awakened even more traction. I like the way you decided to popularize science, but one thing haunts me: I have not found on the Internet a single translation of your videos in other languages. (in my case, in Russian) I know English very well, but many Russians do not but this does not mean that they do not like physics. it’s unfortunate that they cannot see your videos because of the language barrier. I offer my helping hand. I'm going to translate videos like yours by voicing them in Russian. From you, I only need copyright permission to use your content. I have not started anything yet. But I’m going to start soon, hoping for your approval. I mean I will start my own YTchanel with translations.

[@Atimar01]

questions ..... if earth is 12.8 billion light years from the center, at what speed do we travel at this moment away from the center and when and where was our bit of universe made ? also, everything moving away seems kinda odd....

[@Quroxify]

You got it... BB is impossible.. sciencewoke.org

[@markburch6253]

We are at the center of the observable universe. As is every other point in the universe. From any location in the universe it is 46 billion light years to the edge in every direction. Our entire milky way galaxy is currently moving through intergalactic space at the speed of 1.3 million miles per hour towards the location known as the great attractor.

[@MrHerhor67]

Have astronomers disproved the Big Bang? Famous physicist says: "What the frick? No, why would they?"

[@pigsbishop99]

What do you mean? Are you saying that it's absolutely 100% correct and everyone knows it or are you saying that they are so biased they would never turn against it? Or maybe you are saying something entirely different.

[@MrHerhor67]

@@pigsbishop99 Just a meme, man... But still, for now BB is the most probable version.

[@Charlesincharge42]

@@MrHerhor67 No, it is not. Have you had a single thought independent of the propaganda machine? How about you go read the full version of SubQuantum Kinetics ... many libraries have it. Its graduate level physics, so it might take awhile. You just have to stop and lookup things from time to time. It explains observed evidence FAR BETTER than the BB.

[@XaeeD]

@@Charlesincharge42 Quantum Confusion!!

[@3094usmc]

I have never believed in the big bang.

[@m_i_g_5108]

Me neither. Blindly believing is something I do not do . Not because I'm smart, but because I simply don't. I don't *believe* in the big bang. I *know* it happened. There's undeniable proof, but I'm just wasting my virtual breath explaining stuff to a biological robot that doesn't take in data lol Kinda like a toaster A biological toaster

[@3094usmc]

@@m_i_g_5108 Unless you speak as you type, I dont *believe* you are wasting your "breath." The correct term would be time and whatever brain cells you might have.

[@eldritchinterface7481]

I don't believe in triangles. I don't need to because they exist without question. The continuous expansion that telescopes see in every possible direction makes it impossible for the big bang to have NOT happened, it's a reality of physics.

[@remisbrazauskas8428]

There is the Truth and there is science

[@3094usmc]

@@eldritchinterface7481 "A reality of Physics" hahaha... Sorry I don't mean to be rude but there is a reason it's called "The Big Bang THEORY."

[@MDCmedecindecampagne]

One could also advance the theory that your premise is wrong...

[@WWeronko]

The title of the video is somewhat disingenuous. By asking what is grossly obvious is a slight of hand to an attack on anyone that questions the validity of its many premises. I didn’t know of anyone properly trained that questions if the Big Bang (BB) occurred. I know many people that have real issues with many of seldom debated fundamentals. The BBT is silent on core aspects of the phenomena and highly speculative on others. The BBT says nothing on what happened before the BB occurred. Why would all the matter in the universe seemingly in an incredibly massive singularity suddenly explode? Why would the formed universe result in such a wonderfully balanced anthropic system? Answering why the universe has structure the highly speculative period of “inflation” is being accepted as scientific gospel. There is no credible reason inflation should have occurred expect science needs it. In other words it was just made up to solve some problems with the BBT without any Quantum theory or field theory to back it up. Dark Matter and especially Dark Energy are just terms with no meaning. The effects of much more of the universe then we can see is observed. Hence, there must be something there we cannot see. We don’t know anything more than that except to label it “Dark”. The universe’s expansion is increasing. Why? Science hasn’t a clue. However giving it a name, Dark Energy, implies that there are credible theories what it is. There are not. The evidence that all the matter in the universe was in one place 13.82 billion years ago is compelling. Other than that, we don’t know much more than we did 50 years ago.

[@tadferd4340]

Well BBT never intended to answer what happened before the inflation. It's like how evolution does not address the origin of life. It's disingenuous to expect so. And yes, Dark Matter and Dark Energy are effectively placeholders. Science does not claim to know everything.

[@WWeronko]

@@tadferd4340 The BB occurred; next there was inflation and the universe formed with structure. Physicists don't explain why the BB occurred or what happened prior because they have no idea. If there was even a speculative concept of what transpired and why I am sure it would be incorporated in the BBT. Why the universe is harmoniously anthropic is has been loosely addressed. First mentioned in Dublin in 1952, Erwin Schrödinger speculated that there is perhaps an infinite number of "universes" existing in the multiverse each with their own physical properties. Further discussed in String theory. ST predicts a large number of possible universes often called the "multiverse" or "anthropic landscape" . Leonard Susskind has argued that the existence of a large number of universes puts the anthropic nature of our universe on firm ground:. Universes such as ours whose properties are such as to allow observers to exist are observed. A much larger number of universes lacking such properties go unnoticed. It is all highly speculative and perhaps beyond the human brain to comprehend.

[@michaelblacktree]

Well played, Dr Lincoln. I read the title and was like "WHAAAHHH???"

[@thewaytruthandlife]

5:50 YES we do seriously question that the universe began 14 some billion years ago. since secular age of the univers is set to about 14 billion yrs ago the most distant galaxies SHOULD look very young..... But they dont !!! why do they NOT look young ???? but they look as adult galaxies or even in their latest life spans.... that is one example of why we seriously question the age of the universe and the big bang. We do indeed NOT question the universes expansion..... that is an observable fact.

[@TheKlabim]

Give it up for Dr. Don 'The Shirt' Lincoln!

[@sniffy6999999]

Fermilab and David Butler have done more to increase my 'limited' knowledge of science than most others.Great teachers.

[@jamescollier3]

"Get real it's only 10%" Muon Spin: hold my beer

[@galactock]

The BB theory cant stand up to physical observation, try again.

[@galactock]

I have many disagreements. Ya really think gravity is a significant force compared to magnetism?

[@davemclellan4019]

Love this one just like all the others! I'm a classical musician, but really get a big charge out of relativity, quantum mechanics, and cosmology. I'm really enjoying your videos.

[@mykulpierce]

How do you measure this very low 2.7kelvin temps and remove other sources of the same frequency?

[@akobenadinkrahene2153]

2019 and it would seem that this guy never heard of Halton Arp's work that was done in 1966 on redshift! This is how long they can BS you into believing anything they say. Halton Arp Disproved redshift which is used (incorrectly) to determine the rate of the expansion of the universe. They are still attempting to dispute it (I can't believe my lying eyes) but, can not gives any grounds to do so. They don't have peer review, they have control of peer review. However, Arp's work is peer-reviewed. I suggest if you believe in the expanding universe you might want to look at his work (Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies) and judge for yourself.

[@Skylancer727]

You do realize that peer-reviewed does not mean it is correct nor that other data backs it's claim. You do realize that just last year a file passed peer-review blaming a stub on the base of the skull on phone radiation even though the data was collected mostly from people over the age of 40 who had died and they referred to the stub as a "horn". Peer-review is not a perfect system and considering tests today continue to show the existence of redshift even at the distances only slightly beyond our local galaxies of Andromeda and Triangulum, it seems incredibly unlikely to be false. Papers in the past have tried to push the claim that we are miss valuing the data such that star light is absorbed by interstellar gasses, re-released and then red shifted but forgetting to mention specific experiments that already explained how they removed this data already and still found red shift. This claim is also mocked more as this claim is actually backwards as light when absorbed and when hit by more light releases higher level radiation not lower which would mean the universe is likely more red shifted than we actually see it. This can be especially understood since we see newtron stars make large amounts of gamma radiation and antimatter such as in this discovery. kzbin.info/www/bejne/d2exmGqjob5pjdU

[@Ggdivhjkjl]

@7:00 They don't look like they're doing much work.

[@garypalmer997]

I find it interesting that depending on what science show you watch that talks about the "cosmology crisis" have different interpretation of it. He says big Bang hasn't been disproven while others say the age of the universe may indeed be older then we think.

[@shawnchong5196]

You are the best physics lecturer I have ever heard in life and on youtube. You are awesome! Along with Agadmator (Chess)

[@dtwshimla]

Well, I think that instead of finding answers, we are creating our own. We need to think if we can have a simpler explanation, from within our understanding. What if we are just imagining things? What if universe works on much simpler bases than we think?

[@pigsbishop99]

You are talking more sense than most here.

[@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace]

for sure it does: space uses hexagonals to fit in matter like bees do. never layers over leyers

[@markburch6253]

Yes... Brilliant. Simpler answers for more complex questions. How have you survived traffic?

[@dinghanxue704]

@@markburch6253 haha right.

[@keithjenkins6232]

This is a great video in explaining expansion after the Bang, but was the sideways TARDIS intentional at 9:00 minutes? :) Thank you for addressing BBT and its validity!

[@hansspa3892]

Wow,for a moment I thought we all never happened...pfff.

[@constpegasus]

Beautiful episode. It went by fast.

[@peaceonearth8693]

I see what you did there. ;-)

[@stellabell5463]

Is it because you are measuring 2 different points in time that the discrepancy shows up as accelerating expansion?

[@chrisp6458]

I did the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs.

[@joeshmoe7967]

What is a kessel run?

[@poruatokin]

@@joeshmoe7967 It's a Star Wars reference and just goes to show what an ignorant idiot George Lucas is.

[@illsaveus]

I like this guy. He’s like a loose thread in my sweater.

[@mikehipps1015]

So we hold him as you walk away(as you walk away)?

[@الحياةوالعدم]

Please create a collider destroying the elementary particle Such as quarks, electrons and gluons We want this new collider to be stronger than the CERN collider But the new collider must be hundreds of times smaller than that of the CERN The question is can you build a small collider at the same time stronger than the CERN collider Please send the question to physicists and engineers A smaller collider must be smaller than a CERN collider Hundreds of times smaller than CERN Collider but dozens of times stronger than CERN Collider! This invention in order to create a new collider in the fastest time We hope these engineers and physicists will find new plans In order to build a new collider at the same time, dozens of times stronger than the CERN collider We want to discover the components of quarks and gallons by destroying quarks and gallons This is in order to detect quantum gravitational particles So we can explain the initial events before the Big Bang that created this universe About 13 billion and 800 million years ago Please send these suggestions to experts and engineers

[@herrschmidt5477]

love his sometimes kinda awkward presenting / jokes. Proves that he's a really smart guy :p

[@BroNumsi]

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving and revolving...

[@xequals-pc1wl]

No you aren't. The planet is stationary, flat and at the centre of the universe.

[@rdgale2000]

Could the difference between the two measurement be something to do with measuring around a curve vs. a 'straight' line?

[@jwrosenbury]

This problem sounds like job security to me. And don't forget the missing scalar field which allegedly led to inflation. Lots of work to be done.

[@danielo_o1020]

You are a great man. You are one of the reasons i want to be a nuclear physicist. Hope to see you one day as a collegue!

[@kingboagart899]

If your physics are anything like your spelling we are in for some positively shitty theories. Stick to pre-algebra.

[@Quroxify]

@@kingboagart899 Nucular? :-)

[@kingboagart899]

@@Quroxify colleague

[@Quroxify]

@@kingboagart899 thanks

[@dougjones3057]

Some thoughts that come to mind, What is CMB reflecting off of? If I shined a flashlight into outerspace, I would never see it again unless it reflected off of something. Also isn't it odd that inflation occurs faster than the speed of light? I could have swore some smart guy said that's impossible. And the whole rewinding the universe where all the matter meets at one point (which we conveniently have no idea where that is) isn't that like taking a snapshot of the tide going out and saying the ocean was empty and all of the water came from LA?

[@realitycheck3363]

Sorry, you only get one question per video. Pick one, and all will be revealed.

[@dougjones3057]

@@realitycheck3363 good point,.... ok, only one, Where does the Sun go at night

[@realitycheck3363]

@@dougjones3057 Ah, you decided to go for an easy one. Cool. After the sun sets each night, I clean it up a bit, and put it to bed. I'm also the one that has to wake it up in the morning, and see it gets to work on time. You're welcome.

[@Frank-pm5yk]

I am sure there will be something dark to explain it

[@simongross3122]

Clearly we need a dark telescope

[@DonMarzzoni]

No. I just saved you 11 minutes of your life. You're welcome.

[@haroldbridges515]

Guy's hands should be epoxied behind him.

[@harrymills2770]

You get your daily dose of Beta O'Rourke YOUR way. I'll get mine in MY way.

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

Maybe he is _Italian...😊_

[@thenerdywalker516]

Something about this guy reminds me of a white Neil deGrasse Tyson

[@Wodz30]

That is racist

[@joeshmoe7967]

@@Wodz30 ah, no...definitely not

[@poruatokin]

It's because he is a) enthusiastic about his topic, and b) very good at explaining it in an interesting way.

[@poruatokin]

@@Wodz30 That is the most ridiculous thing I have read on the internet today.

[@traksmiff138]

Horrible comparison.

[@SumanRoy-cg6cj]

what is the name of the intro song ?

[@deanwinchest3906]

"👐Have astronomers disproved the big bang🙌" "👐Every time I finish a sentence I must mechanically put my fingers back together🙌" "👐I'm not even sure what I'm saying any longer but I know I feel pretty cool🙌" "👐Smithers!🙌" "👐 Release the hounds~🙌" "👐Can we do another video🙌" "👐I'm really getting good at this🙌" "👐Guys?🙌" "👐??🙌" "👐🙌👐🙌👐🙌👐🙌👐🙌👐🙌👐Guys???🙌"

[@SteveFrenchWoodNStuff]

And often multiple times during a single sentence.

[@deanwinchest3906]

@@SteveFrenchWoodNStuff 👐Cool channel🙌 😊 👐I've built homes for about 15 years now, wood working is very therapeutic🙌😁😁😁

[@theGoogol]

3:11 - What's up with their arms? ;) (once seen, can't be unseen)

[@bmw.pi314]

Googol Well spotted!

[@bryancull7010]

hehe.... took a double take on that... just one arm from the guy on the right to the guy on the left's shoulder.

[@Poey12]

The Betty White joke was the most fascinating part by far

[@mikekatz7980]

Mind blowing

[@Beobout6]

Amazing how a huge fiery explosion could make people and beautiful intricate flower petals.

[@bloodsin28]

Don, 100% good video. Well done.

[@Trias805]

0% discrepancy here

[@wastedkafir9134]

so my question is - Where in the universe the bang happened? Is it within our visible range? Or where is the center for both visible or not visible universe?

[@jayakarjosephjohnson5662]

I have a question, is the fundamental matter is Particle in nature?

[@IndianArma]

Jayakar Joseph Johnson depends on who you ask, the fundamental nature of reality is definitely some form of resonant energy, wether it assumes a particle form (due to energy mass equivalence) or if distinguishing between energy and matter is even relevant (wave-particle duality of an infinite electromagnetic wave, I.e. light), or if small energy fluctuations/imbalances at the quantum level are actually the fundamental building blocks of everything else or and most arguably, a promising candidate for a unifying theory that would suggest the fundamental nature of all matter is a string of energy vibrating in extremely warped small dimensions.

[@jettmthebluedragon]

If the Big Bang happened then ware is the center 😐?

[@nmarbletoe8210]

here and there