a little special sauce

Won't be the last, either.

A gram in a Las Vegas hotel at 5am, is powerful enough to explain the inflation theory

@@MrPINHEAD123 yup, and pretty much any other theory that you might want to cook up, too.

Haha no doubt

THE ULTIMATE AND CLEAR MATHEMATICAL PROOF OF THE FACT THAT E=MC2 IS F=MA: Ultimately and truly, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. SO, time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. Great !!! "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=MC2 IS F=MA. Consider the man who IS standing on what is the EARTH/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; as E=mc2 IS F=ma. GREAT !!! E=mc2 IS F=ma. The linked AND BALANCED opposite of what is THE SUN is A POINT in the night sky. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Therefore, the linked AND BALANCED opposite of what is THE EARTH is ALSO A POINT in the night sky. Great. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the Earth AND the Sun are linked AND BALANCED opposites; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Great !!!!!! Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. E=MC2 IS F=MA. The EARTH and the SUN thus constitute and comprise what are the MIDDLE AND THE FULL DISTANCE in/of SPACE (IN BALANCE) in full and BALANCED compliance and conformity with the CLEAR and universal fact that E=mc2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Great !!!! It ALL CLEARLY does make perfect sense. (The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky.) INDEED, BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. Now, very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. Great. NOW, OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/WITH what is THE EARTH. Notice the black space of THE EYE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. THE DOME of a person's EYE is ALSO VISIBLE. Now, carefully consider what is the semi-spherical, translucent, QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL, AND BLUE SKY. Great. E=mc2 IS F=ma. It is CLEAR. THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE (AS WATER). GREAT. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience, as E=mc2 IS F=ma; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) GRAVITATIONAL force/energy, as this unifies AND balances gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy; as this balances gravity AND inertia. (This clearly explains BOTH F=ma AND E=mc2, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY !!!) ACCORDINGLY, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. SO, the BALANCE of being AND EXPERIENCE is essential; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. Our EXPERIENCE is NECESSARILY that of what is the FULL DISTANCE in/of SPACE, AS we are BALANCED between what are THE SUN AND c (A POINT); AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. SO, a given PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out equal areas in equal times; AND this is THEN consistent WITH/as F=ma, E=mc2, AND what is perpetual motion; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=mc2 IS F=ma. BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. It ALL CLEARLY does make perfect sense. THINK about what is QUANTUM GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Indeed, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Therefore, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution !!! Objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Gravitational force/ENERGY is proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Stellar clustering ALSO proves ON BALANCE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. Magnificent !!! E=mc2 IS F=ma. Is a two dimensional surface or SPACE visible or invisible ? The answer is that it is BOTH. So, the electron AND photon are structureless. A PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) is a balanced MIDDLE DISTANCE form in relation to E=mc2 AS F=ma. A PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) is a balanced MIDDLE DISTANCE form in relation to the Sun AND c (A POINT). The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. E=MC2 IS F=MA. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. E=MC2 IS F=MA. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. The BALANCE of being AND EXPERIENCE is essential. The INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience. (THOUGHTS ARE INVISIBLE.) It is a very great truth that THE SELF represents, FORMS, and experiences a COMPREHENSIVE approximation of experience in general by combining conscious and unconscious experience. MOREOVER, the ability of THOUGHT to DESCRIBE OR RECONFIGURE sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which THOUGHT IS SIMILAR TO sensory experience. Beautiful. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. E=mc2 IS F=ma. By Frank DiMeglio

This is more of a "daughter universe", like a hydra budding off a new individual.

I agree with the general sense of what you're saying. There's no "gradient" of reality implied by such a process. But it also inevitably raises the question of how the environment in which all this presumably happens gets its own existence with its own properties which enable or constrain the creation of subsequent environments. One thing that's clear from this line of speculation is that it can't originate in strict nothingness, because that would also entail an absence of all properties such as the potential for inflation or some other more abstract sort of emergence. Even the most minimal form of bootstrapping requires a nonempty definition. At the other extreme, we can't strictly rule out an "everything is possible" precondition out of which has happened, in our case, to emit a universe with quite coherent properties. It's still only a line of speculation to consider this, but interesting that it can't be ruled out in principle.

What do you want to say

Simulation, in the OTHER sense of the word. And also, tho we may experience reality, it could be we are in a derivative of the actual reality that we “broke off from”.

Hahahahahhaha

If "God" supposedly created the universe especially for us, why does the universe need to be so vast for one little planet. Religion is just nonsense , the men who wrote the Bible knew as much about the cosmos as a chimpanzee.

They're probably correct in some parallel universe or something

Which is essentially the same thing.

Nal: I think not the same. A physical universe created in another physical universe is not equal to a simulated, computer software system.

@@adamtek909 how you know that this universe and his physical laws is a sumilatoin in a computer it is the same if you thing about it

@@chakir348 maybe this is a computer generated universe, but in this video there's nothing about it

I agree with you, misleading title but still interesting.

I like his theory better than the pure simulation theory. It's more elegant and seems to fit better within what we already know about the laws of physics.

where did you see it?

Neyo Utha by accident I became fascinated with a mechanical effect I observed when I was very young. The mechanical effect takes a sheet of material And I compress it from the end to make it buckle. You might know that this is Euler’s column theory that engineers used to calculate the thickness needed for a column to prevent it from buckling. In field theory the sheet of material would represent a two dimensional field. In engineering a lot of times the area under the curve represents energy. This area increases very rapidly over a short period of time. My process is a variation of Euler’s contain column theory/work. In my model if the containment of the of the curve is not achieved very early then affect does not work. This is the initial condition of my mechanical model. From that point I compress the Buckle. As I compress the buckle and waves start to be produced. this models the quantum mechanics‘s wave function known as particle in a box our quantum particle and I infinite potential well. Please see my video of this mechanical effect. Are use it to build structures and also springs with unique characteristics.

He's not.

That's ego talking, man thinks everything needs to have a beginning. I truly believe it has always been, no beginning or end. Fractals,same above as below. .

All chickens hatch from eggs but not all eggs are derived from chickens. Evolution from the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) eventually branched into egg-laying species which are ancestors to chickens. Before LUCA there was likely chemical evolution. Before chemical evolution, there was inflation of the universe. Before inflation there were quantum fields, which for all we know always existed. Must there be a beginning? No, because otherwise you have to concede that there was once nothing from which existence spawned. Existence must always have been. Religion is superfluous (and I would argue, therefore false).

tombapilot04 Or maybe we are just replacing God with quantum fields in the model? Maybe "quantum fields" are just a single attribute of God in our/your limited understanding. Maybe its the inevitable deduced answer to the equation thats missing more data. Religion is mans physical manifestion of expressing a higher power. Its not suppose to be a scientific proof. Perhaps our inability to understand how quantum theory and general relativity mesh is because we fail to incorporate what binds them. Maybe it is to some degree something of a spiritual notion.....Just a thought. So, I agree, " 'Existence' has always been." And I believe that existence is GOD. And in that idea, religion IS superfluous. But spirituality has always, and in my opinion, will always find its way into mans basic needs. A reminder that God created us with a hole that only He can properly fill.

jamie Russell _"Or maybe we are just replacing God with quantum fields in the model?"_ Well, we can demonstrate that quantum fields exist, but we can't demonstrate any aspect of gods. Seems to me you are just equating "god" with "quantum fields" here and probably do so dishonestly because you have something completely different in mind, such as the Abrahamic superstitions. _"Maybe "quantum fields" are just a single attribute of God in our/your limited understanding."_ And maybe gravity is caused by gravity fairies pulling things together. the time to believe this is when there's evidence. _"Maybe its the inevitable deduced answer to the equation thats missing more data."_ Maybe, but rational decision makers form their beliefs based on what they know, not on what they don't know. It's logically possible that you getting out of bed in the morning will set off a bomb you don't know about, but this is not a reason for you to not get out of bed. _"Religion is mans physical manifestion of expressing a higher power. Its not suppose to be a scientific proof."_ The problem is that it's a useless word. It doesn't allow you to predict a thing about reality. And to try to separate it away from science is just laughable. That directly implies that this "god" of yours never manifests in the physical world and consequently you have zero reason to believe it exists. _"Perhaps our inability to understand how quantum theory and general relativity mesh is because we fail to incorporate what binds them."_ Well, that's not a question of "perhaps". Obviously they are related somehow, otherwise the universe would not exist, but "Something unknown exists" is not a license for you to start making shit up and calling it "god". That approach has a failure rate of 100% in human history. Whether gods have been invoked to explain the movement of the sun and the moon, lightning, tides, natural disasters etc - it doesn't matter - whenever we have gotten an actual understanding of something, it has turned out to not be a divine explanation. _"Maybe it is to some degree something of a spiritual notion.....Just a thought."_ And maybe not. Our previous experience with what kind of explanations bear out in reality suggests that a "spiritual" approach is almost certainly going to be futile. _"So, I agree, " 'Existence' has always been." And I believe that existence is GOD."_ I believe that we should try to create a language that has as little useless equivocation as possible. If "existence is God", then I have a label for it already - "existence" - that can't be conflated with all kinds of laughable bronze age myths. I find my terminology strictly superior to yours. _"And in that idea, religion IS superfluous. But spirituality has always, and in my opinion, will always find its way into mans basic needs."_ I don't even know what "spirituality" means and I certainly have no need of it. Mostly, I think it reduces to the behavior of exceptionally gullible people who will believe anything from astrology to crystal healing etc. _"A reminder that God created us with a hole that only He can properly fill."_ Again, I have no clue what you're talking about, but this sort of sounds like Christian indoctrination speaking, like you're somehow not a complete person if you're not part of their cult. However, this mentality is manufactured by indoctrinating people with the idea that they are malfunctioning creatures to begin with. If you don't harm people psychologically this way, they won't have this idea that they depend on invisible creatures to be full persons and will just go on making the best of their lives. Given how religious belief has a negative correlation with almost all objective measures of societal health, I think this is a good argument for why one should not engage in such indoctrination.

I agree, it's not far off saying God did it, just based on more logic and evidence. Whoever created us must have begun themselves somehow so it becomes circular like religion. That's the flaw of the movie Prometheus, where did the Engineer's come from?

so many professors, so little results

Wow, I just realised that he looks like He-Man. 😂

Yep. Can't have nothing without a something.

Shh.

Can we create our own atoms? Maybe we could just borrow and innovate something

Conrad Garcia underated comments

hahahahaha lmfao

@@dhritimansen3307 Oh, but that's not Guth!!! HC-JAIPUR

He looks a bit like Stephen King and has a similar laugh.

HAHAHA.. that's precious xD

REALLY zac??? You're copying and pasting the very same shite yet again? I'm now getting convinced you are indeed a troll/poe. Though I must admit it gets increasingly difficult to tell the difference between that and the truly deluded/brainwashed.

+Kim Runic It could be a simulation of what and how we used to be..

+mysterymediacorp ok - like the Nick Bostrum idea you mean? That would still mean the 'real' us would have to have existed at one point and the problem with that is you'd have to account for what existence consisted of at that point. By definition it could not be what it consists of now, because what it is now, is a simulation. Ergo, what it is now is not _actually_ a simulation.

Kim Runic We'll probably never know for sure either way, but why couldn't 'now' be a simulation of what was? It would seem that if we're not in a simulation, then that means at some point in the future.mankind's advancements in virtual reality came to a halt for some reason.

+Kim Runic Apparently it's about special sauce :)

mysterymediacorp "why couldn't 'now' be a simulation of what was?" Because you're left with the question of 'what was' consisted of. Also this not being a simulation would not necessarily mean that development in VR was halted. After all if this is a simulation but mans advancements in VR were halted, how come we're here at all? It just means that this is not in fact a simulation. That doesn't stop it from being an illusion though - or rather not what we have hitherto taken it to be.

MBT .....Tom Campbell .....worth examination

Look up Zeno of Elea in Wiki. Bertrand Russel was impressed by him!

This is a flat universe. The sum total of everything is nothing. No conservation is broken.

Huh? What does that have to do with anything I said? If we create a Universe in our Universe, then obviously we used energy to do it, from our Universe. If it disappears after that, then its energy disappears with it.

The total energy of the universe is zero. The creation of a universe does not violate any conservation laws.

@@Raptorel a better question is, if we created a universe In our universe , could we travel to it? Guth said that it would form a kind of “neck” for a fraction of a second . What if we applied negative matter (if it exists) to the “neck”? Would it stabilise it and make it wider so we can go through the “wormhole neck” and travel to the other universe?

***** No, it's a spacetime separated from ours, the concept is highly theoretical and can be described in many ways and take many shapes (described by different metrics). Here are two papers about this kind of universe: arxiv.org/pdf/1406.0922v1.pdf and arxiv.org/pdf/1003.3204v3.pdf .

amadexi many thanks. I read the abstracts and introductions of both. Too many words and symbols I don't understand unfortunately. Nevermind. I did however pick up on the fact that universes can have very different dimensional arrangements and geometries that suggested to me that these universes would be discontinuous from each other aside from their spacetime separation.

Why would it be more likely to be able to think of this stuff in any other universe? What standard of comparison are you using?

Any universe where self-reflective intelligence(s) is/are possible would, in principle, seem to be a universe where these questions could be asked.

Wouldn't true nothingness be the most stable state of all? Doesn't instability presume the existence of "something" that can become unstable, thereby negating nothingness?

if something can arise from nothing (which it must, if you believe the universe started as nothingness and now is not nothingness), and there’s no available time dimension to move through until that event occurs, then it seems to follow that something must immediately arise from nothing