Скачать с ютуб Creationists don't understand the Big Bang (More Golden Crocoduck nominees) в хорошем качестве

Creationists don't understand the Big Bang (More Golden Crocoduck nominees)

CORRECTIONS: 1) Thanks to those who pointed out that Father O'Reilly is referencing the 10 Commandments according to Catholic doctrine. Catholic Commandments are numbered differently to Protestant ones, and both are different to the Jewish Commandments. 2) I said: Referring to a black hole, I said: "Even light can't overcome gravity and escape." I should have said: "Even light gets trapped by the intense warping of space caused by gravity." CORRECTION/CLARIFICATION: A number of people have criticised my representation of singularity, as if it were a real thing rather than a mathematical concept. Others say the idea of singularity has gone out of favor among cosmologists. As I said in the video, I'm not trying to give a full-on physics lecture here, just rebutting the creationist idea that the universe came from 'nothing' or that there were 'particles' inside singularity that 'exploded.' I rebutted both ideas by explaining that the universe did not come from 'nothing', it came from 'something' -- singularity. No, that does not mean singularity is a 'solid object' as someone thought I was saying. It just means it was not nothing. Even a mathematical concept where the laws of physics break down is still 'something.' I also explained that there were no particles in the center of singularity because singularity had no center. It was an infinitely dense point with no space and no time. I do appreciate that the concept of singularity is flawed, because although this is what the mathematics shows (in theory) researchers still don't have the physics to explain it. But although it's out of favor, I have visited numerous university websites, and they still use the singularity model. I also read several physics discussion sites, which all agree that the idea of singularity needs to be refined; but they can't agree how. The best comment I saw was from Paul Matt Sutter, an astrophysicist with Ohio State University, who said: "A singularity is a place of infinite density, and that's not really a thing." Who was Anne? She was the mother of Mary (you know, as in The Virgin Mary.) The 'immaculate conception' was not the conception of Jesus but the conception of Mary. i.e. born 'without sin.' Please don't blame me, I didn't make it up. But if I was a Christian, I would wonder why we can't all be born that way. Too much trouble? Physics students are bound to say 'You forgot to mention..." because I've only given the basics here, this isn't a physics course. The information is accurate (except for any corrections you'll see below), but I have kept it simple. So yes, there was deuterium -- a neutron and a proton -- after the Big Bang. And protons on their own, which are hydrogen ions. A lot of the early atoms wouldn't have had electrons. Also, I gave a very scant explanation on why light can't escape a black hole. This is also a huge area of physics that I won't go into. Gravity warps space, and light follows space. If space is warped tightly, as in a black hole, light follows this curvature. Another way of looking at it, from the Newtonian point of view, is that a black hole is so dense that the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. I suggest that undergraduates shouldn't use this video to revise for physics exams, it's a basic guide in order to understand why creationists got it wrong. There are plenty of good websites explaining these things at undergraduate level.