A universe from nothing... (for space/science nerds)

Capitalizt

Capitalizt

CAGiversary!
Feedback
11 (100%)
fascinating speech for the science geeks here.. just thought I'd share..;)

It really starts at the 8 minute mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo&fmt=18


What blew my mind was hearing that if if all visible matter and energy were removed from existence, it would leave the universe essentially unchanged.

The universe =

30% dark matter
+ 70% dark energy

Earth, and everything we see in telescopes is < 1%. :hot:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OMG! He used an XKCD comic as an example! XKCD RULES!

EDIT: I really like his summary of the universe. It's big. Rare things happen all the time. Including life. And that doesn't mean it's special.

If you really think about it, the definition says a lot in just a few words.

Honestly, this is one of the coolest videos I've ever seen. I'd be lying to you if I told you that I didn't think about declaring a major in cosmology or physics. Simply unbelievable. Everything he said made so much sense. It was like attending a calc 1 lecture. If you didn't watch the whole video, I highly suggest it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I watched the whole thing, and really enjoyed it. I don't claim to understand much of it, or science in general, but I've always found cosmology fascinating, and his talk was very interesting. Definitely watch it if you have time.
 
Unnecessarily anti-religious, but extremely interesting and entertaining.


....
Until the 40 minute-ish mark. Then he goes specifically into explaining how creationist/intelligent design is wrong which belittles everything he said before then by engaging in that argument.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='crystalklear64']Unnecessarily anti-religious, but extremely interesting and entertaining.


....
Until the 40 minute-ish mark. Then he goes specifically into explaining how creationist/intelligent design is wrong which belittles everything he said before then by engaging in that argument.[/QUOTE]

It was a richard dawkins/atheist alliance talk, there are going to be jokes about religion, he also had jokes about America and its education system, I guess it's also unnecessarily anti-American.

And I don't see how anything about intelligent design would belittle anything before it. Everything he was saying is counter to intelligent design, either you connect the dots or he does, but again it was an AAI talk.
 
I feel the professional thing to do would have been to let people come to those conclusions themselves, but I did not realize it was a Atheist talk thing. Not that that makes it any better, just easier to see why.
 
[quote name='crystalklear64']I feel the professional thing to do would have been to let people come to those conclusions themselves, but I did not realize it was a Atheist talk thing. Not that that makes it any better, just easier to see why.[/QUOTE]

"Come to the conclusion yourself" is really only appropriate if the the conclusion is ambiguous (or maybe if someone is willfully lying and only want to insinuate a conclusion as to keep themselves legally safe).

He should say what it is and what he thinks it means. Since it was an AAI talk there are more jokes and what-not that wouldn't be appropriate in every venue, but I don't think anybody should hide their scientific conclusions for the sake of someone's sensibilities.
 
loved this video. the thing about lambda the universe expanding and accelerating galaxies quicker than the speed of light so that the view of the universe could of been completely different. At one point it could look like you are the only galaxy floating about in empty space...sic

awesome lecture and speaker. thanks for sharing a great find!

edit - didn't know general relativity allowed objects to move quicker than the speed of light.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='crystalklear64']Unnecessarily anti-religious, but extremely interesting and entertaining.


....
Until the 40 minute-ish mark. Then he goes specifically into explaining how creationist/intelligent design is wrong which belittles everything he said before then by engaging in that argument.[/QUOTE]

Um, creationist/intelligent design theory is wrong. Noted scientists are exactly the people who are supposed to point this out, I would have had no problem with him doing so in any forum.
 
[quote name='bvharris']Um, creationist/intelligent design theory is wrong. Noted scientists are exactly the people who are supposed to point this out, I would have had no problem with him doing so in any forum.[/QUOTE]
"So we can conclude that the universe is undeniably flat. Also, I caught my dirty jew banker screwing my wife yesterday, so I beat some sense into the fuckwit."

Why does this need to be addressed at all? What does creationism have to do with teaching us about the properties of the universe? It is completely unnecessary to bring it up. We could have gotten the same interesting information without ever hearing about "lololol creationists" By even addressing this at all is acknowledging it, which has no place in a scientific talk. He's bringing politics into what could have been a purely educational and otherwise enjoyable lecture.

Its like someone talking about how they took the corniest, sloppiest shit that day, nothing but corn and buttliquid spraying out their asshole, in the middle of a delicious beef stew dinner.

Its unprofessional.


[quote name='SpazX']"Come to the conclusion yourself" is really only appropriate if the the conclusion is ambiguous (or maybe if someone is willfully lying and only want to insinuate a conclusion as to keep themselves legally safe).[/QUOTE]
Woah woah woah, not at all.

Reaching the conclusion is almost always more important than the conclusion itself, ambiguous or not. Forcing conclusions on people is one of the worst things, imo, you can do.
 
There is never a wrong time to debunk Creationism/Intelligent design and there is never a wrong time to make fun of Creationists. With 42% of the population not "believing" in evolution, scientists have to take every chance they get to bring it up. How would you like it if there was an institution actively working against your life achievements, attempting to discount everything you've accomplished by spreading lies?
 
[quote name='crystalklear64']Its unprofessional.[/QUOTE]

He wasn't teaching elementary school or something. It wasn't going to be on the test. If he had studied whatever for years he'd have a conclusion, or some kind of meaning for it all. There's no reason to hide that for the sake of "professionalism" or to keep "politics" out of it. It would be like writing a paper with no discussion or interpretation of the results, just a lot of data and then "come to your own conclusion". It just doesn't make any sense.

EDIT: And the jokes, of course, were because it was an atheist meeting.

[quote name='crystalklear64']
Woah woah woah, not at all.

Reaching the conclusion is almost always more important than the conclusion itself, ambiguous or not. Forcing conclusions on people is one of the worst things, imo, you can do.[/QUOTE]

What does forcing a conclusion even mean? You can disagree with him if you want, but that's his interpretation of the data. If you want to interpret it differently then go right ahead, show your work.

If he was teaching course or something then maybe he would allow the students to reach their own conclusion, but only to test their ability to interpret data. If they came up with something unsupportable then they'd still be wrong - would he then be "forcing" the conclusion when telling them a supportable interpretation?
 
Scientists will never get anywhere with religious folk until they drop the super pretentious asshole attitude, which they seem completely unaware that they possess. Same goes for the 'religion is the cause of all the world's problems' bullshit. Dawkins is the biggest purveyor of this line and, consequently, is the biggest asshole as well.

Cool video though.
 
[quote name='Ugamer_X']Scientists will never get anywhere with religious folk until they drop the super pretentious asshole attitude, which they seem completely unaware that they possess. Same goes for the 'religion is the cause of all the world's problems' bullshit. Dawkins is the biggest purveyor of this line and, consequently, is the biggest asshole as well.

Cool video though.[/QUOTE]

Religion is the cause of many of the world's problems. Condescension or not, more people like Richard Dawkins should have the courage to say so.

It's not an ambiguous question.. Science is right, creationism is wrong. There doesn't need to be room for compromise, nor should there be.
 
[quote name='bvharris']Religion is the cause of many of the world's problems. Condescension or not, more people like Richard Dawkins should have the courage to say so.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, because power and greed have nothing to do with it. Those things wouldn't exist if religion didn't, right?
[quote name='bvharris']
It's not an ambiguous question.. Science is right, creationism is wrong. There doesn't need to be room for compromise, nor should there be.[/QUOTE]
My point has nothing to do with arguing which one is right. It's the know-it-all, ivory tower attitude scientists take when trying to explain how important science is.

If a person has been brought up in a religious family and never had the chance or chose not to explore the field of science, what would be the right approach in reversing their beliefs and enlightening them on the scientific approach? It could be anything, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't involve calling them idiots, sheep, and morons who believe in a fairy tale and then telling them that science is right. "Hey, this guy insulted me for reasons beyond my control, I should listen and agree with everything he has to say." Yeah, not gonna happen.

I'm sort of left wondering if physical scientists have any social skills at all.
 
[quote name='SpazX']He wasn't teaching elementary school or something. It wasn't going to be on the test. If he had studied whatever for years he'd have a conclusion, or some kind of meaning for it all. There's no reason to hide that for the sake of "professionalism" or to keep "politics" out of it. It would be like writing a paper with no discussion or interpretation of the results, just a lot of data and then "come to your own conclusion". It just doesn't make any sense.[/QUOTE]
If that is true than that is exactly the problem. All of this amazing and interesting data put to use with the overall conclusion being "lolcreationists." Its so petty. Think of all the other amazing things this data could be used for. But, no, he takes all the interesting material and then ends us with something completely insignificant.

His entire speech then becomes a, "haha i'm right you're wrong nanananananana!" which I suppose is fine too, if I had known the guy or the context of the speech, maybe thats all it was for. But I was expecting so much more after listening all the way up until that point.

[quote name='SpazX']EDIT: And the jokes, of course, were because it was an atheist meeting.[/QUOTE]

And I understand that, thats fine play to your audience, it makes for better lectures. But a joke here and there is not the same as wasting such an interesting speech on something that should never be brought up in the first place.




[quote name='bvharris']Religion is the cause of many of the world's problems. Condescension or not, more people like Richard Dawkins should have the courage to say so.

It's not an ambiguous question.. Science is right, creationism is wrong. There doesn't need to be room for compromise, nor should there be.[/QUOTE]
Stop trying to pick fights where there isn't one. No one is discussing which is right or wrong or true or false, that discussion does not need to take place. You're clearly have issues with religion, so go troll some christian forums or something. Your rhetoric, while perhaps true, is exactly the same as listening to religious rhetoric.
 
[quote name='Ugamer_X']Scientists will never get anywhere with religious folk until they drop the super pretentious asshole attitude, which they seem completely unaware that they possess. Same goes for the 'religion is the cause of all the world's problems' bullshit.
[/QUOTE]

If you were to change that to:
[quote name='Ugamer_X']Religious folk will never get anywhere with scientists until they drop the super pretentious asshole attitude, which they seem completely unaware that they possess. Same goes for the 'atheism is the cause of all the world's problems' bullshit.
[/QUOTE]
it would still be true.
I'm sure for every pretentious atheist, there is at least 1 pretentious theist, if not more.
 
Are you folks really getting upset over a few short lines? Was it when he said "Forget Jesus, the STARS died so that we can be here."

;) I thought that was a great line..all the better because it is completely true and provable. He was discussing supernovas, and the fact is that humanity couldn't exist in the absence of a previous supernova to send carbon and other life-giving elements into space. We know beyond all doubt that the "stuff" of humanity did not exist at the beginning of time..so can you really blame scientists for cracking occasional jokes about the nonsensical beliefs of religion? If you really want to respect the work of science, you've got to discard bronze age fairy tales and stop being offended when they are identified as such. The nature of the universe and biblical creationism are incompatible. There is no reason to sugarcoat it or pretend otherwise. To do so would be to sanction ignorance..to justify some sort of "compromise" between science and the supernatural, when in fact there is no compromise possible.
 
[quote name='ChibiJosh']If you were to change that to:

it would still be true.
I'm sure for every pretentious atheist, there is at least 1 pretentious theist, if not more.[/QUOTE]
You missed the point big time.

So, since the other side is full of assholes, it's okay for scientists to act the same way?

It's about taking the right approach, not matching the religious folk tit-for-tat.
 
I got the point, and I'm not saying it's okay. Just don't act like theists are 100% respectful of other peoples' beliefs because in a lot of ways, they're worse.

And, let's be serious, even if atheists were completely respectful in explaining these things, theists wouldn't all of a sudden admit their wrong.
 
[quote name='crystalklear64']If that is true than that is exactly the problem. All of this amazing and interesting data put to use with the overall conclusion being "lolcreationists." Its so petty. Think of all the other amazing things this data could be used for. But, no, he takes all the interesting material and then ends us with something completely insignificant.

His entire speech then becomes a, "haha i'm right you're wrong nanananananana!" which I suppose is fine too, if I had known the guy or the context of the speech, maybe thats all it was for. But I was expecting so much more after listening all the way up until that point.[/QUOTE]

I don't see that as his overall conclusion. Some part of the point was to show that empirical data is opposed to whatever religion's creation stories or intelligent design, but there was a lot more to it than that, and very little of the lecture was anti-religion or about "lolcreationists". Being an atheist meeting he threw in some jokes and the relevance to religious doctrine, but his talk had very little to do with that specifically.

And certainly he shouldn't ignore that his conclusions aren't compatible with religious teachings because it's "politics" or whatever. This is real, and religious beliefs are real. It's not insignificant. Scientists shouldn't be arrogant, but they also shouldn't act like their findings have no meaning, that it's just sanitary data that has no effect on anything.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']Are you folks really getting upset over a few short lines? Was it when he said "Forget Jesus, the STARS died so that we can be here." [/QUOTE]
Listen at around the 47 minute mark and onwards.

Little jokes like that are fine, and I'd say even appropriate given his audience. Its when he starts wrapping up the lecture that the problems occur.


----
Let me finish this by saying that I still feel the lecture was worth listening to, I simply feel it would have been stronger without an atheist agenda behind it, or at least so obvious an agenda. Maybe agenda is too strong a word, but hopefully you understand my meaning.

Let me further temper that statement (though I shouldn't have to) saying that I myself am atheist, and am not arguing that atheism is wrong or that complaints against religion are not valid or anything of that nature, I am simply saying that I think we could have gotten the same information and the lecture would have been stronger AND have broader appeal without even having to mention anything about religion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So, let's recap-

religion, claiming the origin of the universe is known on authority through ancient scripture, is not arrogant, whereas science, by continuous rigorous hypothesizing, experimentation and testing, reevaluating, and re-hypothesizing, says the world is understood through an evidence-based paradigm, makes scientists arrogant.
 
[quote name='rabbitt']So, let's recap-

religion, claiming the origin of the universe is known on authority through ancient scripture, is not arrogant, whereas science, by continuous rigorous hypothesizing, experimentation and testing, reevaluating, and re-hypothesizing, says the world is understood through an evidence-based paradigm, makes scientists arrogant.[/QUOTE]
learn2readkthxbye
 
It's hard to talk to people who have a perverted view of the scientific world.

Have you read any books by Richard Dawkins?
 
[quote name='Ugamer_X']Scientists will never get anywhere with religious folk until they drop the super pretentious asshole attitude, which they seem completely unaware that they possess. Same goes for the 'religion is the cause of all the world's problems' bullshit. Dawkins is the biggest purveyor of this line and, consequently, is the biggest asshole as well.

Cool video though.[/QUOTE]Oh yeah, and folks like Bill O'Reilly are kittens. Dawkins is 10x more respectable than a jackass like that.
 
[quote name='rabbitt']It's hard to talk to people who have a perverted view of the scientific world.

Have you read any books by Richard Dawkins?[/QUOTE]
My point has nothing to do with arguing which one is right. It's the know-it-all, ivory tower attitude scientists take when trying to explain how important science is.
Click to expand...
I am not a creationist. I believe in evolution. I believe that everything that guy said (in the video) is the most likely answer for how the universe was created.

Now reread the thread and stop trying to make it an argument about science being right and religion being wrong.

Jeebus.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Oh yeah, and folks like Bill O'Reilly are kittens. Dawkins is 10x more respectable than a jackass like that.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm a huge fan of Bill O'Reilly. :roll:

Please pull more random names/subjects out of your ass and we can pretend that I brought them up.
 
I didn't say you did bring him up, but Dawkins has been a guest on O'Reilly's show before. Let's be honest, people like O'Reilly are heroes to the religious right. You say folks like Dawkins are pretentious or disrespectful, yet on that particular occasion Dawkins was the respectful one while O'Reilly yelled at him. My point is that it isn't only atheists that have bad attitudes. Maybe both sides need to change their attitudes, but it certainly isn't one sided.

And btw, this isn't the OTT, you can be respectful of people in here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='JolietJake']I didn't say you did bring him up, but Dawkins has been a guest on O'Reilly's show before. Let's be honest, people like O'Reilly are heroes to the religious right. You say folks like Dawkins are pretentious or disrespectful, yet on that particular occasion Dawkins was the respectful one while O'Reilly yelled at him. My point is that it isn't only atheists that have bad attitudes. Maybe both sides need to change their attitudes, but it certainly isn't one sided.

And btw, this isn't the OTT, you can be respectful of people in here.[/QUOTE]
I've never seen the clip between the two because I've ignored everything Bill O'Reilly for the past few years. He is a gigantic moron.

Now, if you had read the thread, you would've noticed that I already addressed the 'religious people being assholes/ignorant/pretentious' point. I don't disagree with that; the names of some of the folks escapes me, but I've seen my fair share of religious nutjobs on TV that piss me off. It doesn't excuse talking down every person who is religious though. And it won't do the scientific community any favors in changing people's perceptions. I can understand how it can be frustrating for scientists when people don't understand or won't listen, but you also shouldn't expect the world when entering the realm of US cable television.

And don't make assumptions about my opinion of you just because I post in the OTT.
 
By the way this thread has blown up, I expected him to really thrash religion. I watched the whole thing, and 99% of that lecture was about space/math/physics; he just happened to throw a quip or two in there about how humans aren't special. Turns out he and many other scientists believe religion is wrong because of the things they've discovered about the universe. Stop the presses!!

I think it would be interesting if this thread got back on topic. I watched the whole video and liked it a lot. I picked up a few bits of information that I didn't know before, and it seems like this guy knows a lot about bleeding edge physics.
 
Well then we agree on most things. Sorry if i assumed otherwise, i saw your post criticizing the video and responded to that. Just felt the need to make my point that both sides most like could be more respectful to one another.

For the record, i respect a person's right to believe whatever the hell they want, no matter how crazy i may think it is. If something does strike me as completely ridiculous however, i find it difficult to respect the idea itself.

As for the rest, well the bit about pulling it out of my ass seemed a little harsher than need be.

Btw, that video i was referring to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECE77Imki9M

Actually quite entertaining, Dawkins has that dry sense of humor.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Well then we agree on most things. Sorry if i assumed otherwise, i saw your post criticizing the video and responded to that. Just felt the need to make my point that both sides most like could be more respectful to one another.

For the record, i respect a person's right to believe whatever the hell they want, no matter how crazy i may think it is. If something does strike me as completely ridiculous however, i find it difficult to respect the idea itself.

As for the rest, well the bit about pulling it out of my ass seemed a little harsher than need be.

Btw, that video i was referring to:

(video)

Actually quite entertaining, Dawkins has that dry sense of humor.[/QUOTE]
Oh man, I unfortunately see how I almost sounded like Bill there when he mentioned that atheists 'talk down' to religious people. But his point is much different than mine and I disagreed with him wholeheartedly in that interview. Also, that was definitely the most respectful I've ever seen Dawkins.
 
Sorry to go off-topic, but with the O'Reilly/Dawkins clip, I think Dawkins is 100% right when he says that religion has no place in a science class. If a school wants to teach religion, go ahead. But don't confuse students by putting theories based on beliefs into classes with theories based on strong evidence. It's a science class, not a religion class. Things like creationism have no part in it.
 
The end was the best part, somewhere 5X:XX, where we learn in the future we won't even be close enough to any galaxies to see them lol, we're fucked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top