Same... I'm this kind of friend, but my friends can't understand wth I'm talking about.

Ditto, although I do have fun messing with people by making up some pseudo-bs that sounds smart and they just nod along and don't bother trying to comprehend.

@@OnceAJay same here. I appreciate those that still stay with me even though they're not interested in space & time 🥲

@@OnceAJay Same

Let's talk about it then :))

that's Dunning-Krugger effect. The more you know ... the more you know about what you don't know .

It was Socrates. Stop associating all smart quotes with Einstein.

"Woohoo!!" - Dianna, epic fuzzy cap, et al

Know what you gotta know

Yeah, just like Goethe‘s Faust 😆

Read my comment.😊 What happened before... It's cyclic, it follows a pattern, Universe following Universe, following Universe, following Universe...

@@terencegibbins3894 we just don't have enough information. There are some ideas on how cyclical universe's could work but we don't have the evidence to say if they are on the right track.

Yeah I laughed at that 🤣

@@101Mant Well if it isn't cyclic in nature, there had to be some instigator.. Two branes colliding is one theory I've seen for that, but the other I've seen is "God" and honestly, I really want to move as far away from that idea as possible.

​@@clocked0 Why would you want to run from that idea? There is a long line of scientists from history to the present who agree that faith and science are not incompatible. Dr. Francis Collins heads one of the greatest scientific achievements of modern times, the Human Genome Project. In his book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Dr. Collins explains how science led him to God.

Or making more Bakers. 😄

@Unedited Life Of Daniel I wonder with quantum magnetic engines (which I would think could take more power than contained in the antiverse to move us out of the universe, should we attempt to go visit there), that we couldn't arrive for a long enough period of time (10-¹⁸ sec) to even know we've been there -- if "there" can actually exist in an ever-changing quantium space-time? 🤔Other than that, Bon Voyage. 🛸

@Unedited Life Of Daniel Time travel may be possible in the quantum realm. A team of physicists at the Universities of Bristol, Vienna, the Balearic Islands and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information (IQOQI-Vienna) has shown how quantum systems can simultaneously evolve along two opposite time arrows - both forward and backward in time. The study, published in the latest issue of Communications Physics, necessitates a rethink of how the flow of time is understood and represented in contexts where quantum laws play a crucial role.

@Unedited Life Of Daniel I have a feeling we will continue to pollute well into the future. But we also have the ability to adapt causing a mutation of the human species turing into something looking like the Borg. Who knows... maybe one day plastic will become a savory dish served at the finest restaurants. 😧

@Unedited Life Of Daniel After the past 3 years, I feel the speed part has escaped into the next realm: E=M² ;-)

Thanks for clearing my mind

You'll enjoy PBS Space Time

No, certain phenomena, equations, etc won't work in a shrinking universe.

@@smurfyday But the universe expanding assumes linear time, is there evidence that time is actually linear beyond our perception of time? Some physicists say time isn't even real, that everything just happens at the same time. From this perspective wouldn't it be accurate to say the universe is both expanding and shrinking simultaneously?

@@daniel4647 You can say that but that doesn't make it true. It's true only if the math works out in all the physics equations. If a certain assumption breaks the equations, i.e. gives wrong results aka. predictions, then it's wrong.

@@smurfyday if the speed of light is gradually slowing down instead of constant, then the equations work.

Wow. Just discovered this channel. She and you folks in the comments are making an old man think too much. Lol

Overthink your conceptions and those given here. Don't think this is the end of the day. Recognise that this broadcast is also conceptually limited.

One of the main reasons 'big bang' is pushed so ferociously is that it has been endorsed by the vatican.. "In fact, it seems that present-day science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to that primordial 'Fiat lux' (Let there be light) uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the particles of the chemical elements split and formed into millions of galaxies ... Hence, creation took place in time, therefore, there is a Creator, God exists!" (Pope Pius XII, 1951) 300 years before this, 'the church' had Giordano Bruno publicly murdered for saying that space is infinite.. You 'do the math'.. NO! Please don't! This is why the erroneous ideas of 'infinity' are used in mathematics, specifically to confuse people into a misunderstanding of what infinitude actually means.. If space is infinite, 'god' cannot be..

she didn't really say there was no big bang. She just said it didn't start out a singularity.

@IrrelevantNuk1635 Tell me why I was literally thinking about this too. The figure 8 is a really good representation of infinity, but I couldn’t quite put into words why it was a better figure representation than a circle. I think you might have put it best.

This just gets even worse when you realize that the measurement of the speed of light isnt constant, and can change drastically over long distances, making the measurement absolutely terrible, even though we have no other real 'yardstick' for measuring it.

Simon Rudbech - and therein lies the joke… which apparently went over your head!

I just took it for granted that we knew for ever about the billions of galaxies outside our Milky Way. I didn't realize that this realization only happened within the last 100 years!

@@tkondaks yeah Our society feels so advanced now, but just a couple generations ago, we thought disease was caused by bad spirits. Imagine what we will know a hundred years from now.

@@Hooyahfish bad spirits do cause diseases But don't tempt God by behaving in such as to attract disease

@@cedriceric9730 lmao! That’s hilarious. 🤣

What's your field mate?

@@aymonfoxc1442 I'm a mental health care worker. Lots of new and interesting stuff comes up all the time, but very few people will listen to me talk about it for very long before changing the subject.

@@CinJyxxe I can sympathise. I'm an environmental scientist and an urban planner. Few people want to hear much about the actual science of things like ecology and climate change unless it reinforces their political views and urban planning follows a similar pattern wherein a lot of people are only interested if they have something to gain. Mental health care is certainly an interesting field. I have family and friends who suffer and it's an experience we all have to confront. Could I ask what innovations / approaches are new or evolving in your field that you find exciting?

Yeah, it's a different kind of scenery than you usually see in these "guy talking into a camera" types of videos. It's a nice vibe.

@@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721l Lopplp

Yes, this explains why I want to make some "Raisin Bread" for my new Physics girl.

The editor's question marks his as a scientific mind.

You and everyone are always learning something even when we think we aren't, you still are. That is part of the main function of the conscious mind

Yes that's good working

Perhaps time to try another conceptual conception ;-) But present science did so much good, few try other approaches. We seem to know so much about spacetime quantumfields gravitation but just ignore conciousness or try to explain it ermergent from a material moodball in our scull; a very selective perspective - no wonder the outcome.

Why we need God. We can’t comprehend it by ourselves.

Yeah its tough but nothing is impossible. The fact that we exist is proof of that. Just like the fact that we exist proves that is is "possible" for life to exist in the universe which also proves that it is possible for life to exist in other places than earth but maybe in forms that humans cant understand because all humans know is the laws bound to earth and what has been seen through either an LED screen or sophisticated organized glass.

Think fractally.. as above, so is below.

This is NOT the comment of a “simpleton”.

@@engine2truck6 i was thinking the same

Now hear out my simpleton idea: Everything we see outside our solar system is a 'lie' If our own sun is forever 8 minutes older than we can perceive Then imagine all the observable stars, their planets, their lack of life, etc nothing is how they're supposed to appear.. (they're just history)

My son just told me that God is baking the universe like a loaf 🍞 of bread 🤣

@@net_lag 🤷🏽‍♂️

And the caret signifies "an S missing here"

@@JohnVanPelt exactly, tâche task / maître master / fête festivity / côte coast / château Castle / quête quest, on so one...

Pronunciation of foreign names (or even of English words) is hard to convey via English spelling, as English is very inconsistent in how it maps between letters and sounds. So let's use the international phonetic alphabet instead: The name is pronounced ʒɔʁʒ ləmɛːtʁ in French. (Lemaître was Belgian.) Listen to that pronunciation here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fr-Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre.oga One may pronounce it ləˈmɛtrə in English.

@@JohnVanPelt That's not a caret. That's a circumflex.

@@WDCallahan sorry, I should have put “caret” in quotes, since it was the term used in the video. I almost added “circonflexe” but decided not to muddy the point of my comment.

SAME! This is the best outcome.

@@physicsgirl great statement we will never know

More questions is what science is all about. When there are no more questions science is dead. It will be a sad day for all scientists when the last question is answered. So, great response "Excelent!". Scientists make it look like they are looking for the theory of everything. But they aren't. Because when they find it, they're out of jobs. So, if you want a conspiracy: Scientists are conspiring to not do what they say. They don't want THE answer. They only want part of it. And they are careful they won't get all the parts.

If the the space is expanding how.come the distance between the sun and earth and other planet and even andromeda galaxies distance from milky way never changed.If indeed the space actually streatch out it should happened in all part of the universe and.not for those. faraway object or galaxies that were obseved by hubble that seem to be. speeding away from us.

@@grande6075 actually Andromeda and the Milky Way are moving closer on a collision course at around 1.3 lightseconds per hour. So gravity can overcome that expansion of spacetime locally.

@TILEN FABE not sure

@TILEN FABE Yeah, I’ve heard this before and it was pretty impactful. Crazy thought about how many assumptions we make within assumptions to get us to the best understanding we can try to have

@TILEN FABE There's definitely more than one clue. If you want to explore it in further detail, PBS Spacetime goes into the nitty gritty of it.

One of the main reasons 'big bang' is pushed so ferociously is that it has been endorsed by the vatican.. "In fact, it seems that present-day science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to that primordial 'Fiat lux' (Let there be light) uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the particles of the chemical elements split and formed into millions of galaxies ... Hence, creation took place in time, therefore, there is a Creator, God exists!" (Pope Pius XII, 1951) 300 years before this, 'the church' had Giordano Bruno publicly murdered for saying that space is infinite.. You 'do the math'.. NO! Please don't! This is why the erroneous ideas of 'infinity' are used in mathematics, specifically to confuse people into a misunderstanding of what infinitude actually means.. If space is infinite, 'god' cannot be..

exactly, why can't everything be compressed into something the size of a baseball or even the size of earth. Why does it have to be so small we can't even see it. I never saw what made the theory say why it was that way either.

Me too actually. An infinitely sense point that expanded should contain infinite energy or zero volume but greater than one mass

And that is not the case

Not excactly. A singularity means that everything came together to a single point. What she meant is that going back in time, the universe was infinitely smaller, but never into a single point. Although I'm not sure how this idea doesn't collide with the maths behind the planck lenth.

@@jordyv.703 Infinitely closer is the exact definition of singularity, not the zero size.

@@jordyv.703 Singularity just means a point where some function (or a mathematical description of nature) "blows up" (e.g. it goes to infinity, like when there's a divide by zero), or is otherwise not "well-behaved" (this is context-dependent). In other words, it's conditions under which the theory kinda stops working or making sense. So a non-single point big bang is also a singularity (it's just a different interpretation of what the math means); the video was wrong to cross the term (note, though, that Dianna never said anything about there not being a singularity at the birth of the universe, she just said that it's a misconception to think about it as of a single point - that is, the "cosmic egg" idea shouldn't be taken too literally).

@@filipmilovanovic8942 so what was it if not a single point?

Keep in mind that (both theoretically and practically) some infinities are larger than other infinities. It's also not too terribly wrong to conceptualize the pre-expansion universe as infinitely more dense than the current universe, rather than infinitely smaller.

Hmmm. Excellent! The Meter is a "master" unit of measurement. Resonance!

A finite universe is actually quite easy to grasp if it’s topologically closed. A sphere has a finite surface area, but it also doesn’t have an edge, it doesn’t just end. It can also expand, like inflating a balloon. That’s more along the lines of what current models of a finite expanding universe are like. It does leave the question of what it’s expanding into, but that question basically remains with an infinite universe as well, _how_ is it expanding, the fuzziness of infinity just makes it easier to accept.

are you aware that infinities are a philosophical non-sense?

@@zazugee I think your statement is absurd!

@@zazugee Infinities are nonsense, period. Even in philosophy the term "infinity" or "endless" means that something is wrong...

Very powerful thought, thank you for sharing. Would it really be so surprising that the philosophy of a finite being sees infinity as impossible?

@@willlucas2491 Finite being? Being is what is, and all that is is finite. I mean "being" as in objective reality, not something that is theoretical and can't be defined with proper analytical definition. So, a finite being is an oxymoron of a sort.

It wouldn't surprise me if the universe expands back to where it began. Something like an MC Escher stairwell.

Do you think that the Big Bang proves the existence of a Creator or not?

It is reverse evolving into the Solid State Entity

@@mohamedanan7726 I don't know if it proves it... what I do know is, it doesn't disprove it. Both Science and the Bible say that in the beginning there was a formless void and darkness*... and the missing factor for the BB to take place, could have very well been God. *Or formless darkness, which would also describe a shapeless void with no form, substance, edge, beginning or end.

Science says that before the Big Bang there was nothing or what can be understood as a void... a void without form, edge, beginning or end. That to me describes the emptiness which the Universe is expanding into. To me the difference between interstellar or intergalactic space and the initial void is that the Void was absolutely empty, and beyond the Universe it still is completely empty, while the spacial Universe has atoms of atmospheric gases and possibly of other elements, plus the energy which Science calls Zero Point Energy. That tells me the Universe can eternally expand into the emptiness of the void.

Gotta remember talking to folks through a camera lens and as a teacher requires a fair bit of acting. Not to say her performance isn't convincing. It is. But it is still a performance. No matter what the payoff may be.

@@piehound What's your reason for pointing that out? Everyone 'performs' when they speak into a camera or even pose for a photo. Most people aren't great - or at least aren't totally comfortable - doing it. And most people are only able to offer up a version of themselves as the 'performance' (which is why there are so few truly great actors). Why do you think we gotta remember it's acting as we enjoy the information she is communicating? What difference does it make?

Q1. The first question was answered in the video. No idea, and it's possible we'll never know, because by definition that is outside our observable universe. Q2. Definitely not in atoms or even solar systems, maybe even galaxies. There's too much gravity to hold onto the space, as it were, for it to fly apart. Otherwise, we would observe the effects in our local area. And atoms and molecules would break apart and we cease to exist. Q3: A better analogy, but still wrong, for universe expansion is the SURFACE of a balloon. Our 3D space lacks at least one dimension--time--and possibly many more. So all this universe is the skin of a balloon. As the balloon gets bigger, points move apart. Space is created, universe expands. But none of the points on the balloon is the center, it just looks that way for a creature myopically trapped on the surface, like you and me. Again, that analogy's still wrong. Curvature changes as the balloon expands, but our universe hasn't observably changed curvature.

Do you think that the Big Bang proves the existence of a Creator or not?

That was something I've always wondered about. If everything is expanding and moving away from each other how can a Galaxy be heading for us? Do you have a way of explaining it to me?

@@your_average_joe5781 asks: "If everything is expanding and moving away from each other how can a Galaxy be heading for us? Do you have a way of explaining it to me?" ....... The way astronomers have explained it, nearly everything in the universe has a Doppler red-shift, which means that those observed objects are heading AWAY from us. Hence, if everything is moving away, the universe must be expanding. However, the Andromeda galaxy is blue-shifted, which means it is headed TOWARD us, which means that it will collide with the Milky Way some millions of years from now. Nothin' to worry about. I believe in science, but as a believer in scientific method, I question much of what science teaches. Science corrects itself; religion does not.

@@wittwittwer1043 The part of why Andromeda is gravitationally attracted to our Milky Way has been answered by science without gods of or other magics. The part that the Universe at distances larger than Andromeda to is is expanding has been answered too although it's not quite as intuitive as an explosion within a defined space. The part that the expansion rate of speed accelerates with the distances is not understood. We are talking about billions of light years away, not our back yard Andromeda. Still, no evidence of gods, we just don't know. Lack of knowledge. No need to replace lack of knowledge with gods and magic. We don't know is just fine.

@@fotticelli wrote in part: The part of why Andromeda is gravitationally attracted to our Milky Way has been answered by science without gods of or other magics. ....... I reread my original post, and didn't see any mention of religion or magic. I'm what conservative "christians" like to scorn as a "secular humanist," a designation that I embrace. However, one quote I often use is this: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -Arthur C Clarke

@@wittwittwer1043 unless I somehow missed it you never answered Your-Average-Joe's question.

So if we reverse the known motions of all the known universe, so now everything is moving together, and the farthest objects are moving faster, ( space is shrinking, the greater the space distance, the more rapid the collapse) then would not all the matter collapse to a single point? The problem with these eternal verities is the problem with infinity. Infinity is NOT a number, (any number times any number, is yet infinitely far from infinity) and science depends on numbers and relativity, or measurement. Mathematics is the language of science, and that REQUIRES measurement, and numbers and relativity locked into the time continuum of cause and effect.The arrow of time runs in one direction, and effect is proceeded by cause. There cannot be true absolutes, as science, by definitions never sees the whole, but always part of the whole. Math is the language of science, and that depends on numbers, which are self identified as relative, never absolutes.. Even the mathematical symbol of infinity is used only as a symbol of certain relative processes continuing indefinitely until interrupted, such as certain electrical feed-backs, etc... Yet science is powerless before absolutes, "capable of observing the laws of an existing and functioning cosmos, but powerless to detect the absolute, the law framer: and infinite beyond numbers creator. Yet logic DEMANDS an absolute. The existence of any THING, demands an absolute. It is NOT science to say, "everything, or "anything" came from nothing" and it is not science to say "everything, or anything always was". (Really those are two identical assertions, both in denial of ALL science) It is more logical to say everything came from an infinite all powerful first cause, that is beyond the law of cause and affect that science depends on. And regressing the "Big Bang" indeed gets to infinite energy solutions, infinite information-knowledge beyond science solutions.

Meanwhile..If its always just been there. That does not give an answear towards what was before, nor to what it is going to become.

@@davidanderson9074 after all that rambling I'll make it easy for you. Numbers are infinite too. 😁

@@dheasley2 ...at the same time, infinitely far from infinity, as infinity is not a number,

@@davidanderson9074 you can always add 1 more number. It doesn't stop. Just because you can't conceive of such a number doesn't mean numbers aren't infinite. They can keep going forever and span the distance of the infinite universe.

Do you think that the Big Bang proves the existence of a Creator or not?

10:05: WHAT CREDIBLE SCI-KZfaqR just proclaims 'We will never know'? WTF?

@@mohamedanan7726 no.

@@TRDiscordian The universe is just a creature, not eternal like God

@@mohamedanan7726 There is the pantheism argument. It says that only God can be infinite. If we claim that the universe is infinite, then God and the universe are in fact, one.

In relativity time doesn't require change-- it's just a dimension. You could have a spacetime in which nothing changed. It so happens that everything in the universe has a very steep entropy gradient (because the BB has such low entropy) which underlies the behaviour of a lot of things, including ourselves, and that's what causes everything to change all the time, and us with it, giving rise to the experience of time. There are some speculative ideas that turn this around (Verlinde Entropic Gravity). Ofc nobody knows the answer but it is worth thinking about time from the standpoint of relativity and why that means it makes sense to think of it as an actual dimension, not just as some kind of abstraction of the idea of things changing.

@@benc8386 you dont understand relitivety....in relativity time DOES change. it changes according to the observer, and the closer you get to the speed of light....the slower time goes...relativity explicitly dictates that time is relative

time is VERY SIMPLE - time is...... moving particles - and moving particles are....... TEMPERATURE - basically at REAL ZERO Kelvin time STOPS

I guess that depends on your view of time and whether there was quantum foam and fluctuations going on then, like some of them say goes on in empty space now. But since there would be no entropy cause everything is uniform except for random jitters, time wouldn't have a direction.

@@chefmarcg I didn't mean that time is *absolute* (like in a Newton-Cartan spacetime). You are correct that in relativity people's clocks will go at different rates and that simultaneity is relative. My point is none of that requires any matter to be doing anything.

That's nothing new. The cyclic universe hypothesis was long considered a probable scenario, but very unlikely given recent discoveries like the ever increasing rate of expansion of the current universe, most likely being fueled by negative gravity of space itself. As it expands more of this "dark energy" is generated, since dark energy is fixed proportional to the amount of space. The question really is whether we end with heat death or a Big Rip.

Do you think that the Big Bang proves the existence of a Creator or not?

@@mohamedanan7726 No idea.

It's not a proof, it's just a suggestion. Something to think about 👍

…well, passionate about SciFi, anyhow. The Big Bang isn’t science. Scientific theories can be falsified. The BB has been falsified multiple times, but it’s proponents keep propping it up with even more fanciful leaps of the imagination which defy all logic and reason (but nonetheless make a good story). It long ago crossed over into the realm of pseudoscience, and its proponents are zealots. Side note: It appears that Doppler shift isn’t the only thing which causes redshift. Halton Arp demonstrated as much, with his catalog of pairs of highly redshifted quasars connected to far less redshifted parent galaxies. He found hundreds of such examples. So we can’t say that the universe is expanding, simply because we see redshift everywhere. Another nail in the coffin of the Big Bang.

@@MagicHawkeye So how do you think the universe came to be? Genuine question?

Pathetic

@Seven Inches of Throbbing Pink Jesus Science is faith through observation and experiments. Religion is faith without evidence. Very subjective through personal emotional experiences, era and location. Over the millenniums, science have has led mankind from living in caves to modern cities with all the luxuries and quality of that our ancestors would think are magical. Over the millenniums, religion has led mankind to the same threats, wars, miseries and promises that never come to fruition. Your comfort from your home to spouse religious nonsense to a mass audience is because of science, not your religion or anyone else religions. Yes denial of facts is a powerful force.

@Seven Inches of Throbbing Pink Jesus Science doesn't have "faith" in what it doesn't knw, science admits it doesn't know. Religion claim to know it all and claims to have the answer to everything. Just "believe" in a almighty mythical being, in the west, it usually means a Jewish fantasy god and all things will work out like magic. Science facts change with more knowledge, religion dogma stays the same just like the same as with their bronze age beliefs regardless of new facts. Before science, it was the philosophers job to find out why things are the way they are. They were all wrong and we no longer ask philosophers for why things work the way they do. Religion has become the philosophy of modern times, seeking an answer and "purpose" of why we are here and they are wrong just like philosophers were.

“Absolutely no idea” -> this is not true. Scientists have many ideas to explain this. Not proven ideas, but saying they have absolutely nothing is an insultz

From 10^(-36) to 10^(-32) is a minimum duration to explain the flatness of the universe that we see. The duration could have been much longer, vastly long even, and it might still be ongoing far away from us (called eternal inflation). In the eternal case there is no "after the [cold] Big Bang" that kicked off the inflationary epoch. Or there may have been a stable near eternity of nothingness that suddenly nucleated a bubble setting off the inflationary epoch. We only know with high certainty that there must have been a 'hot big bang' that ended the inflationary epoch.

@@juzoli I don't know if it's an insult, but it's definitely hyperbolic. It would be more accurate to say we don't know, potentially can't know, if it even happened or what caused it. It's a smexy idea because a number of good conjectures that resolve a number of vexing issues with our understanding of the universe just fall out of it.

@@samgordon9756 Again, scientists ALREADY have many great ideas about this, and working on how to prove that at least one of them is correct.

I've always figured that the universe is expanding because it's trying to achieve equilibrium. In other words, all the matter in the universe is trying to evenly space itself out. I think this inflationary epoch seems to align with this idea if you consider things like pressure or electrons repelling each other. The higher the pressure in an area the faster it will travel to an area of lower pressure. And with the electron idea: The closer an electron is to another electron the stronger the repelling forces between the electron are. If this, or something similar is happening with all matter in the universe then it would make sense that when it was all close together it would expand faster, then slow down as the distance between each other increases.

it could be infinite and also expand. Mathematical example: natural numbers are infinite. They are: 1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ,5.... and so on, infinitely. Now imagine you 'expand' them. add one number in between each: 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, ... it's still infinite, but now "bigger"

Great at teaching young minds what stupidity is

@@MrYoshirx7 I think you miss the entire point of not only this video, but her channel altogether... But that’s quite alright. Each to their own.

@@MikeOxlong- 🤣🤣🤣🤣I think U miss the point on intellect, doesn't seem U have any if ur defending someone who's intentionally dumbing down society to line her pockets. Ur a joke to mate hope on

@@MrYoshirx7 you’re broken beyond all hope... sorry, you can’t be helped. It is a pity.

@@MikeOxlong- 🐑🐑🐑🐑 sheep statements 101 🤣🤣🤣🤣

And got more exciting when her friend ended up with more questions. :-D

Good question!

That's a really astute deduction. That is true. here's too much gravity in local areas around mass for space to expand. It's in the intergalactic areas that space is dominated by dark energy, which seems to be an intrinsic feature of space. So the more space there is, the more dark energy, the more negative gravity, the more stuff flies apart.

I also wonder the same minus the firecracker part.

@@RosequartzDivination G’day, Rosequartz. As someone who has roamed in the outdoors since I was 3, and have been fascinated with science almost as long, and having a creative imagination - it’s not a big jump at all. It seems that a lot of others should be asking similar questions. Courtesy of Half Vast Flying

We live on Earth's surface just like there is microflora and fauna on our skin and inside our bodies. So if its endless towards small, it's endlessnes scales up exponentially.

@@RosequartzDivination BINGO! Courtesy of Half Vast Flying

These are the same questions I ask myself.

* Simple, not simplistic. 🙂

Plus she is very easy on the eye. She is like a dream......a really smart and funny woman that is knock out gorgeous as well. I could listen to her talk about anything. The fact that she talks about something that really excites me really excites me lol.

Yeh, Dianna is cuddly in an angular sort of way. I also feel like she hasn't aged much since 2013, or whenever she started this channel.

Yes, I love these!!!

The location may exist but you just can't access it one reason is that there may be other dimensions. Right?

You must be a database guy. To me as a C programmer NULL is 0, and for all practical purposes the opposite of an uninitialized value.

@@eljanrimsa5843 Then you must be a C programmer and not a C++ programmer. In C++ we have something called "instantiating". It makes new objects appear out of nowhere. It's like the Criss Angel of programming.

@@markfabre7682 But we don't use the symbol NULL for "uninstantiated". NULL in C/C++ is just another name for the value 0.

@@eljanrimsa5843 While I agree that NULL is a machine specific constant of zero, it would be poor form to use it in a C++ program, especially in a base zero array element. Of course, an array pointer is an offset within an array and not an absolute memory address. Now my head hurts.

That makes me wonder about the simulation theory.