This isn't advanced. It's a very simple introduction. If you want advanced but understandable, try googling Susskind and Cosmology.

Every video makes me question my assumptions of what I understand about reality 😄

That part cracked me up 😂😂

I'm too dumb to understand this..... They lost me with the math.

EVEEERYONE

So... how did inflation flatten the universe?

eat shit

+E.P. James MacAdams Top quality comment right here.

+Srikanth Gurumurthy I believe he meant to say, "I like to eat shit."

E.P. James MacAdams Hahahahahaha, You have a point. I assume shit tastes bad, but I haven't stopped to question that assumption.

+btdtpro scientific inquiry... Although anyone would theoretically be able to repeat the experiment, I doubt many would. Even then, results may not agree.

I believe this is what separates the smart from the genius, in a more general less literal sense of the term

lol same thing happened to me. I going to have to watch that part with my eyes shut or understand what he said through osmosis

Exactly what happened to me

I zone out for the entirety of every single episode. I'm not exaggerating at all--god's honest truth.

it happens to me soooo often, I love to be able to rewatch these videos and find something new all over again :)

Why?

AK636 Don't wanna participate? I guess I'm not talking to you...

***** Wholeheartedly agree...

+Sean Tripp But why? I don't know anything for sure, tell me ;)

AK636 You're welcome...

+nikitha nayaer I don't get how the fuck he got all of his shit right. I mean I literally would be willing to believe anything he told me. If he said the earth is flat I'd say sure if you say so einstein

i think it's because his hard work and effort .He could't even enjoy his family life because of that

Any good scientific theory should predict things that make its originator uncomfortable.

@@alexbatoian5534: Because Einstein used math.

@@deusexaethera Kinda. He was actually terrible at it. His wife worked out most of his math. He was a thought experimenter, and he didn't really get much right if you ask quantum mechanics. But the problem, in my opinion, started with Aristotle. He was wrong about a whole lot of things, like actual infinity, and the forces of chance and luck being quantifiable considerations. If you consider the Big Bang a continuation rather than a beginning, and consider the Universe's composition as being entirely comprised of "sound", or waves of frequency and vibration, it changes almost everything we currently hold true about classical Physics, but gets us closer to understanding why we know absolutely nothing about how quantum mechanics works. I always compare it to being given the paradoxical answer to a logical problem and having to guess at the question.

same, lol

Me too!

I don't doubt his knowledge of cosmology but I wonder if he knows much about bowling. He says nothing about oil patterns or revs 😁 + imagine the light year long alley how long a pba tournament would take!

Wrongness is, like everything else, relative

+Stop throwing fridges at me Not everything is relative lol

I was making a joke about relativity. Don't ruin my moment now

+Eric Vilas insert not even wrong pun here

thats not how science works, dont make it into a religion

I support this!

+Away to Patch~ "Questioning assumptions-try it, it's fun!"

+Away to Patch~ Yes please

Yeah, nice quote material in this one.

"Einstein is right, even when he's wrong."

agreed

Mr Aquiles I would definitely help get the scientific communication community from Brazil, such as podcasts and channels, to start a funding campaign if necessary.

+Lucas Balaminut It's not just Brazil. I live in Turkey , and this country is also mostly anti-science. Most countries are anti-science.

+Lucas Balaminut Você conhece o podcast do Scicast? Tente contato com esse pessoal, eles são muito feras, e possuem uma boa base de ouvintes.

Thales Teixeira eu não só conheço, como tive meus emails lidos no ar vária vezes, participei da gravação de 2 episódios, da pesquisa de vários outros, e ganhei de presente a caneca e a camiseta hahaha. Can we avoid speaking in Portuguese here? I really don't want to scare the English speakers away from the conversations.

+OMJUWARA Don't forget, homework is due tomorrow.

+PBS Space Time Prof. Matt be like Like and Subscribe for Extra Credit!!

+PBS Space Time Sir, got an important question thats bugging me 4 quite some time.. I thought Universe even today is expanding at exponential rates. So whats the difference between inflatory expansion and regular expansion if universe is expanding at exponential rates??..well what can be more faster than such an expansion?

+TheAfroOfDoom There's a short bio on Matt in the "about" section of the channel which includes: "He's now a professor at the City University of New York and an Associate at the American Museum of Natural History's Hayden Planetarium."

+Sachin Raj The coefficient on the exponent (the efolding time) is very different. Now it is like 20 billion years and back at then it was more like 10^-30 sec

Silver 1 Yes, I'm currently typing through my severed right hand lol..

TimmacTR That's because it is Sci Fi. Illuminati deception.

It is sci-fi.

It is science fiction but it pays well and provides nice toys to play with like the LHC.

Literally blown away?

@@eclipse369. Or to you lol

hi its been 6 years how are you doing

hi its been 6 years how are you doing

THE GOVERNMENTS LYING ALL THE PICTURES OF ROUND UNIVERSE ARE FAKE #Flatlargescalecosmologicalstructrues

HAHAHA YOU THINK THE GOVERNMENT IS REAL #WatchoutfortheSUPERgovernment

LMAO you guys are fucking stupid xD

+Tobias Ruck I don't buy it. earth is round, but the solar system and galaxy are flat? But dark matter is round but the universe is flat? They're making it up! Timecube!

Phlat

+Skytivity what sort of class could even teach you 5% of this?

+Prabh Chahal Public school education...

bakuya99 Im a highschool sophomore im double stacking sciences (AP Physics 1 and Space Science) and literally space science has taught me nothing except for that space can kill you

Skytivity That's why i said public school education. I mean this type of science should have been taught to you and me actually. Hell i never learned anything really useful in science class in school. I had to learn evolution and this type of science on my own.

+Skytivity That's very sad. But the fact that you are here with the rest of us says a great deal about you and your scientific curiosity. In the end, we are all responsible for educating ourselves. Congratulations! You have a great life to look forward to.

+‫پرنو پی‬‎ that was rude

+Deaf Keith hey Deaf, nice to meet you, essentially, if you know of the big bang theory and the expansion stuff, i can crudely explain what this video says. the universe, as we know it when it was a singularity (so far) was practically flat, we looked at the CMB and using trigonometry have deduced (so far) that the universe is 0.4% flat and can't be curved like a sphere. we know this because trigonometry on a flat surface when you draw a triangle with straight lines, the angles add up to 180, but when on a sphere, it's more than 180 showing there's extra space being used when opposed to a flat paper, it even adds up to less when using a hyperbolic plane ( 2:00 mark ) so using these observations and applying them to our universe tells us the difference between a triangle on a paper is a 0.4% positive amount more than it should be if it were flat. the bowling you saw was a basic analogy. saying the universe rolled a slow slow slow bowling ball down the centre of a lane at the speed of light for 1 light year and it only deviated by 0.4% there's a lot more info, but that is the basics with my rudimentary use of language. i'm sure youtube will add CC at some point.

+Deaf Keith if the universe didn't start out flat, or had any kind of "not flatness" that would have been amplified during inflation..... our observations tell us..... flat! until we can observe and prove otherwise!

+Deaf Keith Keith, this thing HAS captions. Just click on cc in the toolbar of the video player.

+Deaf Keith I think it usually takes a few days for them to add the captions. But they do add them. :) lml/

+Dafug i sometimes

+Dafug yes

+Fake Man hi

hi

+Dafug I feel stupid, because it's so hard to understand.

+yieldtochristian -- I find myself watching or re-watching some of the prior videos to build a foundation so I can understand some of the new videos.

hi its been 6 years how are you doing

@@EpicfinchAnimations I'm understand by the channel. It got a little too over my head tbh

@@MichaelGondry ok good luck on what ever you doing

Yes, they want us to find it out on our own.

+Kryzia Mae Aranda That's not how you make educated citizens.

+Neceros Sure it is. Instilling people with the wish to find out for themselves is _exactly_ how to generate educated citizens. Problem is, the education system does a piss poor job of that, with most schools teaching rote memorization without coherent purpose. I didn't discover the joy of science until I was in my 20s, and when I did I was left wondering: "why didn't any of my school teachers turn me on to this?"

Ryan MacFarlane ME TOO. I couldn't find a job after college, so I stayed home and decided to read books + google is a real help. I never loved learning until then. It seems that my hate for teachers translated over to the 'education' I paid for.

Kryzia Mae Aranda Could you imagine where the world would be if a majority of western schools taught people to love learning? What would the world be like if kids _wanted_ to go to school because schools were places which fired their imaginations?

hi its been 6 years how are you doing

That's a good wisdom.

+Tom Reeves yes

+Tom Reeves It is indeed possible; the video mentions this beginning at 5:47.

Thats why he includes the caveat "it's WITHIN 0.4% of perfect flatness". Meaning that as long as the universe is big enough to curve less then 0.4% over the course of 13 billion light years, then you are correct it could still be curved. Just so you know, that comes out to a minimum size of 25 TRILLION light years.

Now prove it mathematically

The US wouldn't have even landed on the moon if it weren't for the competition with Russia during the Cold War.

+TheJaredtheJaredlong Where are you we?! I really don't get what you're asking.

+TheJaredtheJaredlong The answer is really simple, actually. In terms of comprehending that there is more universe outside the observable universe...well, it's kinda like trying to view things over the horizon of the earth. You don't know if there even *is* anything there, because you can't see it, but you can reasonably assume there is, because there are things right up to that point. Unfortunately, unlike the Earth, we can't just gain altitude to see more -- or, at least, we don't know how to move in the fourth spatial dimension to do so (if we view the surface of the earth as a flat (2D) plane, we observe the universe as a 3D sphere....and would need an additional spatial dimension to 'gain altitude' as it were and see more. This assumes that this fourth spatial dimension is relational to our 3D space as the 3rd dimension is to our 2D plane). And as for the "Where are you we" part, my best guess is you are asking 'where in the universe are we'. We can *see* the observable universe, but we can't see beyond the horizon point. We have absolutely, positively no idea where in the 'total' universe we are (and, as of yet, no possible way to find out), nor do we know how big it actually is (again, as of yet, no way to actually find out). Following from that, we know we are in the center of our own observable universe (moving to another galaxy would shift the center of the observable universe to that new location). We know that we are in part of what we presume is a larger universe. And that's about the best we can do. Knowing all of that, what do we exist in? The universe. We exist on one planet that is a tiny speck when compared to our galaxy is just a tiny mote of dust. Our galaxy that, when compared to the size of the amount of the universe we can actually see, is just a speck of dust itself. And beyond that, we have no idea what portion of the 'total' universe is taken up by the observable universe that we see. If all of that makes you feel small, good. Because all of us are. Take heart, though, because you and me (and everyone around us) is actually made up of the same matter that went into creating the entirety of, at least, the observable universe. We are made of the universe, and are as much a part of the universe as is every star in the sky and every planet around every one of those stars. Also, if you read everything in this post up until this point, congratulations. You're worthy of the matter that makes you up. May the universe be with you. :D Edited because....why is it that no matter what you do, there's always at least one comma in the wrong place?

+TheJaredtheJaredlong "Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." -- Douglas Adams

+TheJaredtheJaredlong the universe is just more of the same stuff as the observable universe, with the exception, that light of those parts hasn't reached us yet (and due to expansion probably never will), so that we can't observe it. It's pretty much like watching the water if you are in a boat on the ocean. You can just see a small part of the ocean, but the rest is (on average) more or less exactly the same, just a lot more of it which you just can't see, because it's so big..

Small mistakes

+Taylor Lucius Yep, and now my screen won't stop zooming in. =|

+Ciroluiro It seems like more to the point, everywhere in the universe was everywhere else also at the big bang. Everything in the Universe was all one big point which radically expanded.

+Ciroluiro Consider a tiny piece of an inflating space -- so small that, for the moment, it *is* causally connected. Now let it slow down to normal Hubble expansion; as it slows down, it's still inflating, so it becomes causally disconnected.

+Ciroluiro Big Bang and inflation didnt expand space, they created space.

***** When was that moment if it was always expanding? Even if they are close, if the expansion is faster than light, the photons wouldn't be able to get anywhere.

thunda Interesting. But isn't expanding space basically creating space?

you're*

*Peter Dinklage, as proper nouns should be capitalized, and ellipses have 3 periods, not 5

How did those 2 replies get any likes

@@snotfeetmossteeth1141 We are on a smart person channel 🤓

you are right, also another problem is that this accepted science is using inventive science as a tool to use theories to prove other theories as factual ? what happened to scientific method ? I don't trust any scientific claims that refuse to follow scientific method

+Robert Yeahright The ops question is completely valid (and I'm kinda curious too). Your response to it is complete rubish.

Your question is a very good one. There are more details to consider but the following answer works for the classical case. Recall that from the point of view of a stationary observer outside the black hole material never enters the event horizon. This includes charged material which when spinning results in a magnetic field.

+Astronomianova I did not consider that, but that is a really interesting point! After thinking about it for a bit, I did come up with a question about it though: From our point of view, all the matter freezes as it approaches the event horizon, so if that is where a BH magnetic field comes from then if you sent in a large amount of charge onto just one side of a BH, that should give us an unbalanced magnetic field on one side of the BH, shouldn't it? Since we see the magnetic material all freeze on the one side of the event horizon, we'd see the magnetic field originate from that side instead of the center, which can be a significant distance. However, if the magnetic field did actually come from the singularity itself then we'd still see the magnetic field centered on the BH as normal. So which one would we actually measure from the outside?

Some charged (or uncharged) matter falling into a black hole would appear flattened as it approached the horizon and in fact would quickly become a layer just above the horizon. So the charge would be evenly distributed on the horizon--as if it were a conductor. This is again from the point of view of a stationary observer. I am not sure about the details for a charged spinning black hole but this is what occurs for a classical description of a Schwarzschild black hole. Also note that even if the charge were not evenly distributed or before it becomes so, the magnetic field would not emanate from the charge but would be closed loops above and around the swirling charge.

+Santy Arcusa it would be a superblackhole actually, but don't question science dogma u heretic.

+Thomas Pedersen The basic idea would be to look for 'repeats', bits of space that turn out to be copies of other bits. You might also try the 'triangle' approach mentioned in the video, as long as the universe was not too large you should see some divergence.

hi its been 6 years how are you doing