Видео

Hate or like her, but calling Sabine a "youtuber" is wild

What the hell is this voiceover? Like she's reading an erotic child novel.

Good video

How can Kerr talk about a geodesic when the space-time gravity well has become fully perpendicular (from the singularity)? How can Kerr talk about continuing time when time has terminated in a Planck time string (singularity)?

55:00 that would be a kind of evolution of universes situation, where only life permitting universes survive making life eventually inevitable?

“And those children, once in heaven, would be grateful that God had issued such a command… to wipe them out” 14:15 wipe them out?? 😂 the wording !!

4:52 Justin have ever heard of a lucky streak?

Some people call it the laws of physics. Others call it God.

THeSe HuMans Are The HarDLineRs Of The COSMOS??????❤❤❤❤❤❤

A fair debate implies simultaneous confrontation of experts with different or opposite opinions, not multiple and longlasting interventions of the same position.

How in the world can we give Nobel prices for something that takes us nowhere.

Blackholes does not exist why will the Creator of the Universe destroy matter.He made the Universe a perfect recycle bin and if you destroy matter it breaks His law.A star explodes because their is a natural law set that limit the mass a particle can attain before it gets unstable and cause fission.When this stage is reached the star will explode to keep gravity positive.See the writing of Daniel Fry.

While I do believe that in actual fact the universe was fine tuned by an omniperfect agent, I always appreciate the counterarguments and various perspectives of well-respected experts in their fields. Love these videos!

Ohhhh

Good discussion. Always enjoy Alex, such a lucid thinker.

Here is why virtually every attempt to debunk the FTA ends up in failure- Multiverse: No evidence, suffers from the measure problem. Read the paper “Mathematical Issues in Eternal Inflation” by I.S. Kohli for a refutation of Linde’s chaotic inflationary theory. Normalization: This so-called issue is nullified by dimensional (mass energy) constants. Some argue that the FTA fails because the constants can take an infinite value - this claim is false because dimensional constants ARE bounded by the Planck scale. This is only a problem for dimensionless constants such as fine structure constant. Fine tuning implies naturalism because God would make us in a none-fine tuned universe: Remember the syllogism by William Lane Craig on the FTA? Either due to physical necessity, chance or design? If you insist God could make us/life in a none-fine tuned universe than it simply adds “miracle” to the premises. The syllogism becomes that fine tunning is either: physical necessity, chance, design, or miracle. IT IS NOT due to physical necessity, chance, or miracle; it can still be design!

The many universes hypothesis is one of the primary explanations for resolving the problems in quantum mechanics, that has *nothing at all* to do with explaining tuning.

Penrose is the most remarkable person on another level.

Only thing I understood was Penrose explanation of time.

Pain perception seems like it would be the first evolutionary step. Prevention of death in relation to un-necessary harm due to pain. Even humans don't experience pain in deadly circumstances, such as deadly gas inhilation.

I never used the multiverse as a counterargument, it seems weak to me, but i never noticed the fallacy, but the thing is, fine tuning doesnt get us to a god, is more like just a fact, kinda, because by start we don't have other universe to compare to see if life could appear there, but also, to say that fine tuning points to a god because of life, 1. Is a Survivor bias/fallacy, thats really an anthropocentric view, because i mean, we are life, and we feel special (because evolución) and that is something religion gives to people, a special meaning in this careless massive void we live, but i don't care, i'm happy living i'm the coldness of the universe, maybe thats why theists intuitively concludes in a god with the fine tune argument but doesnt work for me and others. Good video, i Will rewatch because you have lot of arguments i really need to think about in detail

The point of the “multiverse hypothesis” is that it changes whether you should expect to be able to explain 2 or 3 constants of nature through observable dynamics. Weinberg argued that if you had a theory where different vacua realize different values of constants AND there is a way of having sample/realize all these vacua, then there maybe no reason that (eg) Newton’s constant divided by Fermi’s constant is 10^-38. Linde along with Farhi and Guth had already given the second in the late 70s and early 80s. Constructions of non-supersymmetric string theory vacua from the early 00s (eg Bousso Polchinski or KKLT) gave the first. The absence of any evidence of dynamics from colliders such as the LHC show (as well as indirect probes) indicate that there isn’t anything going on immediately above the weak scale. This gives evidence that the parameters are “tuned” to some degree. It just means that explaining parameters isn’t an interesting question. Honestly with exception of gauge coupling constant unification, explaining parameters has always been a dry well after the Standard Model was established. (Obv. Gell-Man did great in the 50s and early 60s) We will probably never know if the multiverse is realized because it doesn’t leave any physical effect on the observable universe. Maybe it’s not true and the universe is just fine tuned. Still makes the same effect - there isn’t anything to discover or explain - GN/GF is what it is.

Now, this.. is interesting. Hope this format, and video, blows up. It would spark a really important conversation. Link this to all of them! U all are going to farm views while providing good info and content. After this I can confidently say that I finally see Time as an axis, exactly as Space... even before this I thaught to have a really good grasp on it but now it's for sure better, thanks!

Thats just in the USA. From the same article. "These patterns are heavily influenced by politics. Evangelical Protestants largely identify with the GOP, and Republicans are less likely than the overall public to say the Earth’s warming is mostly caused by human activity. Evangelicals and Republicans also are less inclined than the general public to see climate change as a serious problem, as well as to say various negative consequences are likely to occur in the coming decades because of global warming. Meanwhile, atheists and adults who identify with other, non-Christian religions are mostly Democrats, who tend to be much more alarmed about climate change and supportive of government actions to combat it."

Scienceman tong say life planit erth pop out de fire de Big banger. Now seding climate change heet desroying erth. We laffing athest tong contradictored

21st century god of the gaps

@3:30 "... Multiburps... nothing to worry 'bout." --- this is the *_actual_* big fraud. It is perfectly fine to have some sort of "cosmic darwinist" hypothesis, but it's not science unless there's an explanation for the existence of the evolutionary dynamics. And there is none in currently known quantum physics/cosmology‡. Note, biological Darwinism is not a physical theory in itself, it is a framework, it depends upon a substrate (spacetime, matter, chemistry, stars, planets, all the rest). ‡ Some people used to argue that inflaton fields can supply a bubble nucleation multiburp scenario, but this has all but been thoroughly ruled out now by the CMBR data (it'll be absolutely ruled out within errors by the next data release probably), which shows there are no tensor polarization modes other than trivial guassian, and that's incompatible with all plausible inflationary bubble hypotheses. There are no primordial long-wave gravity waves in evidence. This kills the entire theory of the inflaton and also bubble universe nucleation theories.

Religion is a Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy story for grown ups that didn't grow up!

NONSENSE - fix the measure theory and respect the sampling theorems… undergraduate EEs understand but physicists learn their mathematics in the physics departments so they are dumb and loose over 30% of the required mathematical background every generation of physicists. Space-Times is a discrete lattice based on Planck’s Constant… measure theory holds the answers… like using para-statistics for our very tiny transistors who are not following Fermi-Dirac Statistics, 1977, Denton, TX. Measure Theory is the last and best richest place to find what we are looking for!

Is it not true that cults exists because skepticism does not provide the answers to the meaning of life?

N'importe quoi sans rg mariée à la quantique tous ces pseudo théorèmes n'ont aucun sens physique. Penrose prix Nobel de physique c'est un grand n'importe quoi !

Religion f*ck's up everything! Religion is a detriment to society!

Already *disproven* Mass does not warp space as light will pass massive object without deflection. The previous work by Einstein & other (Eddington) is wrong as they just observed refraction. Eddington 1919: Suns Plasma you can see glowing Plasma right next star being observe deflected in the original 1919 plates. Same with Einstein rings as the lensing galaxy is full of gas & Plasma causing refraction. For any lensing galaxy the effect is always limited to one or two electromagnetic bands (Microwave, IR, Visible, etc), never across all EM Bands which indicates refraction. Third No lensing effect observed around Sagittarius A, even though can see stars whipping around it. As far as Mercury procession, Sun is not a solid mass, the poles & equator spin at different rates, causing Mercury's procession as it interacts with the Sun different rotational rates. If Mass\gravity does not bent light, the there is no such thing as space time & curvature of space. As far as Quantum Gravity: gravity originates from the strong nuclear interaction. Its just difficult to link because gravity is very weak force & strong force isn't linear (Reid Potential). Buried in the Reid Potential is gravity. There are only 2 real fundamental forces: Strong Interaction, & electromagnetism (EM). The weak interaction is just EM occurring inside the nucleus of a atom. A neutron is essentially an electron & proton pair enclosed in the radius of a neutron. When a Neutron decays, it splits into an electron & proton. For multiple protons to exist in a nucleus they need to share at least one neutron. The Strong interaction & gravity are the same force, just manifesting into two observable forms.

They seem negatively corrolated. Consumerism is the incompatible with religious asceticism.

Can anyone cite something Frank gets right? Anyone..... anyone.....?

Ta Phil. Religion certainly can be a barrier to people's acceping the facts about climate change. It's not just Christianity. Ive been told by several Muslims that i know, all of them good caring people, that god wont allow us to destroy his creation. I usually respond by pointing out that , for much of what they consider to be his creation , that has simply not been the case. We have already done so. Whether that be Tasmanian wolfs, Dodos, rainforests worldwide or, in human terms, Jewish people in the concentration camps or Palestinians in Gaza today , God , if there is one , has not chosen to intervene. There are, of course, many believers, of all faiths, who are standing up and taking action on behalf of the environment. To them ,i say Thanks. But religion in general does seem to offer too many people a " get out clause " from taking the climate threat seriously. That is indeed worrying , as , lets be honest, they make up most of the worlds population.Without their support and participation in finding and implementing solutions , the efforts of the rest of us are doomed to failure.

According to the graphs, 'atheist' is a religious group that accepts scientific 'fact' more easily. Thank 'God' science is never wrong.

This is gonna be true for many fundamentalists (Christian and other) and is a good, valid criticism of them (and there should be many others!). But it's not nearly so true for reformed groups; for example, I'd bet those in the Church of England are probably just as on-point with climate change as atheists and agnostics, if not more so. In other words, the issue as always is bad religious dogma, not belief in a god per se, even the Abrahamic one.

The only thing religion is useful for is to curse this God-awful looking plot 😄

This is basically: Religion is a proxy for having an irrational strategy to select claims you deem predictive. I would suspect the same goes for non-religious beliefs like the belief in homoeopathy.

Mr. Kerr, this time, made a fine mess of assumptions.

haha...climate change, riiiight (i'm an atheist and climate change isn't science) EDIT: it is purely political. if it's not political why aren't we just building nuclear reactors everywhere instead of wasting ridiculous amounts of money and materials (worse to produce than fossil fuels) on horribly inefficient wind and solar (renewables...hah!...don't make me laugh) which need to be replaced every 20 years (if not sooner in a bad hail/wind storm).

The data proves something else to me. It proves that "Climate Change" is the religion of the atheists and agnostics. As a matter of fact "Climate Change" cannot be empirically perceived by anybody. The alleged data has not persistently been collected over a significant duration of time. It is modelled by computers, not actually measured. This means "Climate Change" requires faith. You can neither see it, nor do we have empirical data to prove it. And since it is based on faith, it is very similar to religion. You need to believe in it to perceive it as a threat. Since atheists and agnostics don't have a traditional religion, they have come up with a replacement of religion, that fulfills all their spiritual needs. "Climate Change" requires asceticism and rejection of consumerism. It postulates that human actions are sinful. It predicts that we live in the end times. It has charismatic prophets predicting that the end is near, e.g. Greta Thunberg or Al Gore who are certainly not qualified as scientists. It is a cult. And you are part of it.

Probably not. Isn’t climate change denial the result of anti-intellectualism? Seems like correlating this doubt to religious belief is an antireligious prejudice. Btw, I absolutely loved every video that you made with physicists, keep up the great work.

If Santa (I mean "God" of course) is gonna save us all (or some of us at least), there's nothing to worry about, right? Whatever happens, good or bad, it's always "God's will". Nothing to worry about: pray and do nothing at all. That's the religious mentality, at least the theist one. Said that, a healthy spirituality can still provide many boons, but it'll probably work better with something like Pantheism (which is Atheism by another name and possibly a slightly different attitude).

The conceptual foundation of the scientific method (of the demonstrative method) originates in the Hellenistic age. It is surprising that this is not yet very well understood, but it would be enough just to note that it is the same 'founders' of Science, in the sixteenth century (Copernicus), as in the seventeenth (Newton himself in the Scholi, etc.), who wrote this (sometimes a little confusingly), that the origins of their theses were found in... the library (...).

Would have been convenient to link the Pew poll in the description . That it is a study on the US alone I think somewhat undermines a generalization about religion , as you point out we already know that US christian views tend to be at odds with science where it conflicts with scripture. In a Demon Haunted World (1995) Carl Sagan bemoans his nations science education, nothing really new said in this 2022 Poll.

I'm happy I get to live in a time during Polar Bears and Emperor Penguins.

Not your best video. I’m a raging atheist Jew who is so grateful that I live in one of the last Christian countries in the world. Faith is linked to strong communities much more than carbon emissions.

i always bear in mind that religists say god can kill whoever he feels like cos he created us, life under religion is cheap and disposable, none of them recognise that god as much a dictator as stalin, the only difference being you could escape stalin. bottom line though, god isn't there, no one is riding in on a white horse lopping off the noggins of the infidel.