Was The Universe Born From Nothing?

🔺 The "Universal Law of Attraction":
all that manifests into 3D matter first requires Thought Energy"
ie: the Bang came 2nd

The Bible isn’t the only religious text. Vedic texts far older than anything Abrahamic explain the creation and destruction of the universe and it’s infinite cycle. No beginning and no end.

But what is nothing? Because even nothing is something

There is nothing that stays, thats the weird reality of this intelligent universe. Everything is in motion wrt another object and there was no registered beginning or end

😊
Most interesting 🤔.
Like the reason why
Why ...the door ? No door a dimension
Electron
Proton
Photon
Neutrino
Thank you 😊
Mostly review but
With better lecture visual than chalkboard. 😊😂

nothing is impossible to percieve becuase nothing can ever have an observer as the observer would cancel the nothing and make it something

Almighty God caused the universe to come unto existence. Its that simple

What is the nature of nothingness? If it has the potential to produce a universe it is not truly nothing-- even when it is still it is brimming with potential action.

Can't the Casimir effect itself explain the origin of the universe?

Why does everyone never talk about Quantum Fields... If necessary it will add to the list

Born lol from nothing lol that doesn't even make sense you said born......... really

One thing that makes the hypothesis that the universe comes from nothingness is an absurdity and also makes me almost angry about physicists who cannot simply tell us: "We don't know how the universe may begin - the real origin of matter is impossible to guess, but we can tell you what the mechanisms governing the development of this matter are" And the fact that the theory about the big bang has only one, but fundamental flaw which is contradicting the only tool which makes the existence of the physics theories possible to get to existence and most importantly possible for proofing and further development, this thing is: 0 ª = 0 also 0^n = 0. A similar thing is a hypothesis about virtual particles: until they'll do not become real they had to stay just a mathematical construct that only existed to make calculations about the quantum world simpler - yes you can borrow the virtual particle for the Planck length of time but you have to give it back so it is no real particle because the result is always zero also they something like the Imaginary numbers because they have no real value they are only helpers to do the computations. Therefore something cannot pop out from nothingness it is an absurdity like claiming that multiplying zero can give anything other than zero - if you for example multiply 0 by however big a number the result is always and only zero same laws governing matter and energy which are indeed manifestation of the same thing. Otherwise, the device called "Perpetuum mobile" is the real thing, also all the most basic laws of physics are fundamentally flawed. If there exists any possibility that something can come out from nothingness would mean that the universe would become nothing else but one infinite black hole. So the fact that you see the whole bunch of objects is the proof that current claims about the big bang as the very beginning of the universe is fundamentally flawed.

Perfect video. I look forward to the next part, explaining what happened before the big bang...

I wonder two things - what percentage of what there is to know, that we know. Knowing that, would be amazing. The other, is what proportion is capable of being know. For the fish in my pond, both answers are close to zero - they could never conceive of an internal combustion engine, facilitating the appearance of food via an Amazon delivery. Despite the incredible progress, we still might well be fish.

When scientists say nothing they don't mean philosophical nothingness, as there might have been underlying physical laws or quantum fluctuations that gave rise to the universe.

La inceput a fost zgomotul (sunetul) bulele in stare gelatinoasa au inceput sa vibreze pana cand au pocnit (sa faca implozii) imprastiind particule ionizate in sarcina, asa a inceput totul (anonimuldigalati)

No. Something can't come from nothing. Any way you would use to describe how that could happen is in itself a something already. You can never work your way backwards far enough and explain all of this. True nothingness is devoid of all, but most importantly change. Without change, nothing is dead forever and the change into something can never occur. That must mean something always existed....

A lot of times theist say "you cant get something from nothing" when it involves creation of our universe. I just ask them to prove that statement.

I think I have a decent understanding of the points you made after the third viewing. Excellent work 👊🏻

Who believes this tosh? 🤣

.nooo..... Only having 1⁄6 grade education but I'm smarter than the top astrophysicists in the world..... There are no transitional fossils.... And the pseudo science of astrophysics distracts men from realizing That DNA cannot evolve I guess they forgot to think about that which ruins all the other theories of where we came from....... Astrophysics is the new Darwin since Darwin failed.. lolololol... Maybe if these primates behind telescopes will start beating on their chest long enough they could finally realize that God did it..

Look in my fridge at prime time tv.

d

d

Хорошие видосы получаются, спасибо!

Sorry for the trouble given to you.

I'm way too dumb too understand any of it but it's still super interesting to think about this stuff. And terrifying.

The universe is a major screw job

GPS is ground based. That thing about the satellites clocks needing to be adjusted for time dilation is what we call a lie, or very deceptive. There’s a million things that could be affecting the clock they just needed a gotcha. GPS doesn’t use satellites anyway.

You forgot to add “…or so we assume.” to the end of every paragraph.

There is no such thing as nothing because nothing in of itself is something.

A singularity is something, so the universe was not made from nothing. The Planck Length is something because it can be "measured".

"Something" is "identifiable", so nothing is something because you can describe it, even though it doesn't actually "exist" as we understand the concept of "existence".

Truly Exceptional❕

If im getting this right, nothing is stil something and that something fluctuated to a singularity that made the universe.

The Cosmic Big Bang Theory
Sir Fred Hoyle an astronomer at Cambridge University in the 1980’s said, I fear a sickly paw now overhangs the “Big Bang Theory.” Evolution teaches there was a Big Bang 18-20 billion years ago! [They keep revising their estimates.] All the matter in the universe was supposedly compressed into a very tiny dote probably no bigger than a period on this page. This matter was spinning faster and faster until it eventually exploded- the Big Bang. The matter that forms our universe should be evenly distributed throughout space but it is not, there is nothing uniform about it, we have areas in space where there are clusters of stars and then areas where there are great voids. We have some galaxies which spin clockwise and some which spin anti-clockwise, this is rather hard on the Big Bang theory, because all the matter should be evenly distributed and spinning in the same direction.
The Big Bang is dead!
According to the physical laws governing stellar velocities, stars should be travelling faster the nearer they are to the centre of their galaxies. Observational data proves that all stars in the outer parts of their galaxies are in fact travelling faster than those nearer the centre of their galaxies. This evidence is in direct conflict with the Big Bang theory and the prediction of these stellar velocity laws.
The Sun and our solar system
The sun is supposed to be part of the matter that resulted from the Big Bang 18-20 billion years ago and our planets and moons theoretically evolved from the sun. The sun spins on its own axis slower than the planets that go around it. The planets and moons of our solar system according to cosmic evolutionists were thrown off from the sun by centrifugal force. An experiment with a top will soon show that small particles thrown off it will lose speed much quicker than the top itself. If the Big Bang be scientifically true the sun should be spinning faster than the planets and moons which go around it but this is not the case.
Planets and moons rotate in different directions
How is it that Uranus and Venus rotate on their axis, in the direction opposite to that of the other six planets? If all eight evolved from the sun, it would be inconceivable that this should be so. How is it that eleven out of the thirty two moons of the planets of our solar system revolve in a direction opposite to that of the revolution of the planets around the sun? The eleven are: four out of Jupiter’s twelve; Phoebe, the outermost of Saturn’s nine moons; the five moons of Uranus; and Triton, the inner of Neptune’s two moons. Why is it that, whereas the sun rotates much slower than its planets, each satellite- owning planet [except the earth] rotates faster than its satellites?
All these evidences against The Big-Bang theory are purposely kept out of the public domain for good reasons; by atheists who pull rank in privileged positions of science.
The earth has such heavy elements
How did the earth come to have such a huge amount of heavy elements?
The earth contains iron, nickel, magnesium, gold, copper and silver etc, compared with the sun which is 99% hydrogen and helium? Professor Fred Hoyle said, “Material torn from the sun would not be suitable for the formation of the planets and moons as we know them.”

That which is, that is nothing in particular (actual), is by definition everything in general (potential).

0. Potential = Being
1. Actual = Becoming (actualized)

We are Life at Large, eternally actualizing infinite potential, because only Eternity can fully embrace Infinity.

Peripheral Attention = Wavelike

Focused Attention = Particlelike

1 muon neutrino + 1 electron neutrino = 1 electron. 2 electrons back to back = 1 photon. 1824 electrons = 1 Neutron. 1823 electrons = 1 proton.

Space = Awareness
Time = Experience
Energy = Conversion
Matter = Behaviour
World = Mirror

The one all-encompassing Principle of Nature is pressure mediation:

0. Hermaphroditic di-electric null point/plane of conversion.
1. Masculine electric centripetal convergence (potential).
2. Feminine magnetic centrifugal divergence (actual).
3. Androgynous electromagnetic current (parsing).

The abstract Heaven) called Love can be expressed concretely (Earth) as a smile, hug, etc, thereby uniting Heaven and Earth.

The concept of absolute nothingness and the idea of our universe coming from nothing is something our human brains can't properly comprehend. We can think on it and contemplate it endlessly but never come any closer to true understanding. Its fascinating yet terrifying thinking about the existense we have and how we came to be, maybe it was from nothing at all maybe from a god or something equivalent to a god. Yet then there is the thought of what created god then? How could he have always existed if nothing existed before? I find myself going in circles again and again when thinking about these things, its incredible yet terrifying. Just some thoughts from my mind have a good day everyone :) .

'nothing' isn't something you can have as a starting point, because 'nothing' does not exist. if you have "nothing", it's not nothing because you have something. thus, 'nothing' cannot have any mathematical properties and it definitely cannot have any kind of inner logic or laws of physics which would result in a universe popping into existence. sure, we cannot rule the possibility out that the universe just popped into existence, but 1) the whole way how Krauss and others present the idea is completely nonsensical and contradicting itself, and 2) if the universe just came to be from nowhere, such event - for the reason mentioned - couldn't possibly had followed any kind of logic or laws of physics or mathematics, meaning that proposing such beginning for the universe is throwing the entire concept of physics and mathematics from the window.

on the other hand, if we think Krauss's "nothing" rather as something which the universe began from, then we are facing the nasty reality that we have exactly zero reason to believe or assume such event or pre-existing state to have started the universe. it's entirely a fantasy concept, just as good as the bible or quran are. it is perfectly fine if you want to belive in such beginning, but it is a religious belief nonetheless, not scientific.

"Think of a true nothing, an absolute nothing" littersly my brain half the time💀

I agree with most comments here. This video is one of the best videos about quantum physics. Absolutely stunning.

Quantum information, Quantum entanglement,
Are, fundamental, underlying of Reality.
Quantum Mind emerge.. Collection, Pattern of QuInfo and QuEntang.
Quantum Body emerge.. Std.Model emerge, DNA, Protein synthesis.
Mind and Body entanglement.. Consciousness emerge.
Spacetime emerge.. Mass.. Energy.. Wave fn. Decoherence.
Mathematics Emerge.. Intrinsic in the fabric of the emergence.
Holographic principal..information Conservation, Energy conservation

Nothing is super easy to grasp if youve ever played a videogame and left the skybox. its just an infinite field of pure potentiality. and then the dev creates a box in that nothingness, and thats space. or “existence”

The Hebrew version of Genesis 1:1 tells us that Elohim created the universe from nothing.... The word bara means from nothing....

It’s pretty simple and obvious to me: quantum physics is right, relativity is wrong and the relationship between classical and quantum physics is exactly the same as the relationship between the in-game physics of a video game or simulation and the software running the program itself. We were able to look a little further passed Mario and deep into the pixels. Oh and infinitudes upon other infinitudes to make it seem plausible to have happened with nobody writing the either software.

You got your thermodynamics a bit wrong there. Gravitational collapse doesn’t raise the temperature. No system can do work upon itself to increase its own temperature. Stars as they are taught break thermodynamics and stars become perpetual motion machines.

If there was a true nothing then there would have to be a creator. It would be impossible otherwise, whether thats god, or if we were in a simulation the creator of said simulation.

If you think about it imagine we finally discovered the technology to create advanced self aware and intelligent AI with free thought. Then imagine we decide to create a simulation universe similar to our own as an expiriment. From the perspective of these intelligent being we would have created they would think they cane from nothing. That at some point something just happened and their world began. They would have no way to observe our world so they could never know how they came to be.

And if you think about it humans are a lot like how the artificial intelligence we are moving towards is described. Self correcting, self learning and evolving constantly getting smarter based on decisions.

With the odds technically being as likely if not less that we are even in the "original universe" as there is we are in a simulation, i find this an interesting thought.

I guess we're just too stupid to actually fully understand everything lol

Frederick Fazbearington?

If you can sit in a concert hall
listening to the Brandenburg Concertos
and believe everything around you exists
because of an explosion billions of years ago
trillions of miles away...
you are more religious than the most extreme fundamentalist of any religion...

An additional (and welcome) side-benefit of this excellent channel are the comments. I haven't seen any that seem to be written by idiots or have a self-serving stench.