How can I watch the event?

Your welcome. Consider subscribing and paying a monthly fee

You were correct about one thing: you are not a scientist. :-)

The two neutron stars of the Superverse came first. Funny thing about a cubic crystal lattice of neutrons is that; 1. neutrons are all exactly the same with the same mass-energy density; 2. a cubic lattice is isometric. i.e. A neutron star is homogenous and isotropic. See fractal geometry is the cosmological principle and self-similar patterns happen irrespective of scale, the law of self-similarity. So in order to understand the birth of an unknown gravitational singularity one must study the birth of known gravitational singularity. Namely, a black hole. As the only man who has even explored this chain of thought I can answer so so so many questions.... usually with a one word answer. Off course I'm probably the only man who would call Roger Penrose an idiot to his face..... just saying as a fractal cosmologist. P.S. Have you seen the shape of the large scale anisotropies? Think Kilonova.

@@stuartmaclean8668 why must there be a "first"? The human notion of discrete objects is meaningful to us, and undeniably useful in terms of navigating our everyday lives. When it comes to describing the whole of the Cosmos, however, such notions are not applicable.

I always thought that the logical explanation was that The Big Bang came first, then the Theory of Inflation is used to explain a Homogeneous Universe on the grandest scales. Nowadays, my understanding is that top scientists think that Inflation came first. It seems that the scientists in this video are not definite, either. My opinion is that The Big Bang appeared as Quantum Fluctuations in an already infinite universe with virtually infinite temperature and energy. This very low entropy was then quickly expanded into a Universe with greater entropy in agreement with the Laws of Thermodynamics.

I think our universe is cyclic and in fact it operates in higher dimensions. I think spacetime is an eternal dimension where an object can exist or pop into existence from higher dimensions. The big bang even started in spacetime but not spacetime from it and all matter comes not from one point but from many points all around space.

@@whiteape2714 Just as we cannot think of spatial objects at all apart from space, or temporal objects apart from time, so we cannot think of any object apart from the possibility of its connexion with other things. If I can think of an object in the context of an atomic fact, I cannot think of it apart from the possibility of this context. The thing is independent, in so far as it can occur in all possible circumstances, but this form of independence is a form of connexion with the atomic fact, a form of dependence. (It is impossible for words to occur in two different ways, alone and in the proposition.) If I know an object, then I also know all the possibilities of its occurrence in atomic facts. (Every such possibility must lie in the nature of the object.) A new possibility cannot subsequently be found. In order to know an object, I must know not its external but all its internal qualities. If all objects are given, then thereby are all possible atomic facts also given. Every thing is, as it were, in a space of possible atomic facts. I can think of this space as empty, but not of the thing without the space. A spatial object must lie in infinite space. (A point in space is a place for an argument.) The Object[ive] is the fixed, the existent. Configuration is the changing, the variable.

Yup. And he didn't even get into the parts about why the conformally stretched beginning of an aeon matches exactly with the conformally squashed end. In the very distant future, after the last black hole has evaporated into radiation, there will be no matter at all in the entire universe. Just photons. Moving at the speed of light. Experiencing t/0 time dilation. Such a universe quite literally has no size. Thus no distance. Thus no time. Just the infinite sea of quantum possibility playing itself out. If big bang + inflation is within that sea of possibility, it isn't just possible, but rather inevitable. One can just barely imagine infinite time passing between these two aeons in exactly zero seconds. If you accept some pretty basic axioms and allow for some mathematical trickery, the conclusion is almost *necessary*. Which is why I like it more than String Theory, Multiverse Theory, etc. This feels more like Einstein. "I have no real *reason* to believe that the speed of light is the same in all reference frames, but it sure does *feel* true and boy does it have some interesting and *testable* consequences."

@@ANunes06 Thank you, I looked it up and heard from the man himself. I don't have any qualifications for saying this, but I feel that it is "cleaner" than string theory. Ockham's razor and all that. I still respect the string theorists because we need all the ideas we can get, but this model is not only simpler, but prettier. (Not that they have to compete, to my knowledge)

@@ANunes06 Do you think that the cyclic universe is not compatible with string theory? I like the string theory approach of black holes. To me it does not make sense for the general relativity singularity in black hole or at the big bang. I like to think about black holes from string theory approaching neutron stars but with higher spin that increases gravity and warps space time and the big bang is a quantum field where particles pop into existence creating a sea of hydrogen elements which bind into one ultrasupermegabig star which later explodes and then we know what next.

@@ANunes06 Can I ask you something? Because I saw you write about time. So, what is the time?

@@user-dialectic-scietist1 if you are asking about the time experienced by a universe with no matter, that is the very question. I would answer concisely by saying that time is the non-spacial relationship between given events. The idea is that there are no meaningful events to relate to one another, either in space or in time, at both the very end stage and the very beginning of the universe.

It doesn't. Energy is not conserved.

@@schmetterling4477 it could be, we don't know what space time is made of yet. Space time could work like a rubber band and contract at some point preserving the entire energy.

@@clientesinformacoes6364 Spacetime isn't made of anything. That is the actual reason why it acts the way it does. You need to learn some physics. ;-)

@@schmetterling4477 space time is not visible but it has properties.

@@clientesinformacoes6364 Yes, it is three dimensional and locally isotropic and homogeneous. Because it is empty, all of physics is relative. From that we can derive special relativity. Special relativity then predicts all possible field theories and general relativity (or one of its extensions). The only questions that physics has yet to answer are: Why is spacetime geometric to begin with? Why does the vacuum below 1TeV have SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) symmetry? What are the higher symmetry groups that this low energy symmetry derives from, if any? and finally we have to understand how gravity and local internal symmetries combine. That's it and it's all contained (in a rather complex way) in the fact that the universe is geometric and empty.

The Perspective-Principle, and the Contrast-Principle, makes Feelig into Sensing.

I think actual infinity’s are metaphysically impossible

There is no evidence for ionized plasma "throughout the universe". There is evidence to suggest something like dark energy. You might as well suggest they look into elves making the universe expand.

@@vids595 Suuure… You go ahead and believe that and it’ll all feel better. Ps. No looking, no finding. Ds

What do you mean a "better" conception of Space-time? Are you saying dump space-time altogether and replace it with something else? What is the issue with having three physical dimensions and one time dimension?

@@PetraKann Well, Einstein was a genius, and Relativity is arguably the most significant intellectual achievement in human history. Einstein even believed in God; but for all his "genius" *he simply couldn't bring himself to REALLY speak of God in terms of science* .

@@ericfarina3935 He said the idea of a personal god was absurd.

@@brud1729 I agree. There is only one God, evidenced in terms of science by the existence of the singularity. Einstein viewed the singularity as a mathematical curiosity; he couldn't wrap his brain around it. For this reason his theory remains incomplete.

@@PetraKann the fact that even in a 2D world to know the location of a point you’d need to know the time. Is there space time or is it an illusion. We might not be seeing reality.

Turtles all the way down was always the most logical explanation.

And dark energy is just one more interpretation we should be cautious with.

Please post a link to a description of what you are referring to.

@@vids595 It is called entropy, time is measured by movement and movement turns into heat. Faster atoms , faster quanta, faster chemical bonds, more energy hectic and dense universe ran a faster clock. Faster formations of stars planets and galaxies. Faster supernovas, etc... A photon speeds up in a hotter vacuum and slows down in a colder vacuum.

Agreed, I see this confusion perpetuated all over the place, where they discuss the observable universe as if it were the entire universe.

good article

Both I'd say, the universe is expanding and meanwhile time local to the most rapid expansionary is slowing via GR?

@@JustinHedge I agree. Well said.

If the universe has a certain amount of energy, same energy since BigBang and space expands, then energy is decreasing by volume, the reason why things are speeding up is because matter doesn't expand at the same proportion, then inertia decreases over time. If we do the opposite, use energy to speed up matter, then matter expands (increase mass) while energy by volume remains constant.

No.

If by "void" you mean "nothing"... Please know. So-called "nothing" by definition, does not exist.

@@ericfarina3935 By "voids" I mean the cosmic voids that are surrounded by walls of galactic clusters.

Well you're still dim.

@@vids595 well, im not writing a scientific paper on my thoughts here. just sayin.. possibilities exist to solve problems.

The trick is you need to make your pet idea consistent with *all* available data. The generally accepted view does this while yours does not

@@TheBilly i disagree. the idea behind science has always been interpretation, even with the math. i submit much is misinterpreted. and some, wrong. and that with a good, actual look at tye concept, the result is as i stated; quantum fluctuation caused by the galactic core and our distance from it (also it is fluctuating and gradually decreasing) causes the observation of expansion. to my mind, it is a manipulation of an observer's volume with fixed frequencies of distant sources.

@@TheBilly allow me to posit a prediction for the cmb, with 2 stipulations: simple geometry and length contraction. draw a circle, bisect it with 2 narrow, parallel lines (the longer the better), draw a wave of fixed freq. inside the lines. make a grid based on the radius of the circle. now, apply changes to velocity to you circle. apply length contraction to the circle (it will lose volume because of motion). make a new grid based on the new radius. measure the distances from center of new circle to observed freq of your first setup. now, the most distant freq is longer in change from closest. all caused by gravitation (changes in velocity between masses)

No mass is not required to "make energy". If anything it is the other way around but that's not exactly correct either.

I get that its not easy to understand for everyone. No that's not at all what it is. It is a proposed explanation for repeatable observation. It is highly doubtful that the math is fundamentally wrong, and no one cares if it is, only uncovering the truth.

@@vids595 - He is correct in the sense that nobody knows what they are. Dark energy may well be something gravitational outside of our light cone interacting with all of the matter in the observable Universe. Dark matter is interacting right in front of their faces and they still can’t associate a particle with it, so who knows? They can infer what must be there in order for those things to behave the way they do, but so far that’s it. Mathematical errors matter because that changes everything. If the math is wrong both inferences could be moot points

Understanding he difference between the universe and the observable universe might help you.

@@vids595 else

string of gibberish.

Space isn’t getting thinner, it’s getting bigger

@@DoseofScienceDoS Space is not actually a thing. The material in it is getting thinner. It sure as heel ain't getting thicker.

@@RickDelmonico well space is a thing it’s the fabric of space time. But your thought is almost the same as from a sci-fi book where each dimension you move down the faster time goes

@@killermmouse8874 You are not paying attention. At finer scales the energy goes up. Prove me wrong. I've heard this over and over from major physicists. The denser (more matter) a region of space is the slower clocks tick. In empty space, clocks tick faster. This is a pressure gradient of spacetime. Einstein's relativity.

@@killermmouse8874 Does Time Cause Gravity? PBS Space Time UKposts Channel

0 and 1 are dual

@@_fox_face yea 0 and 1 are dual... but you can't do much math with 0 that affects a change... and then it quickly degenerates into a mere philosophical inquiry.

@@bluesque9687 u and I seem to wonder about the same sort of things. It's all duality. I try to think about how to extract all of reality from very basic dualities, like 0 and 1

Sorry, I didn't mean extract. I meant something more like recover

To recover or to understand or represent anything in 0s and 1s is the whole computer science all over again. I think in terms of more like 1 and -1. A sort of opposites.

What does that mean and why would you? Have you taken a college physics class?

The observable universe is expanding based on observation, we do not know if it is expanding "into" any other space/times or simply expanding. Not every aspect of the universe should you expect to make intuitive sense to an animal that evolved to operate on the surface of Earth.

@@vids595 That's comforting, Aaron, then the far fetched idea of an expanding universe is put into the right frame of animal science. You probably know that the so-called redshift has been misunderstood for light from objects that should be moving away - but don't?

@@vids595 Our ability to observe to greater distances is certainly expanding, and it would seem that distances between objects that we can observe are expanding, but the universe is everywhere and we don't have knowledge to speak of everywhere.

You need to get help with that. ;-)

So you have education in advanced math.physics? No faith is required or asked of you by the way.

I do hate pessimists who have problems by the trolley load but no solutions and only criticism for attempted solutions. A slug could not explain concorde but concorde has more chance explaining itself to a slug. Since humanity evolved intelligence from slugs to create concorde, it has to be more likely. Whether you all it causation or correlation is a moot point

@@tristandrew5903 My view is not pessimistic at all. Quite the contrary actually. Effective optimism requires some level of pragmatism. Dogma is corrosive to every belief system. Skepticism is not pessimistic, it's being open minded enough to both entertain new ideas, but remain teachable and prepared to change direction. But good luck explaining anything to a slug.

"Being an intelligent layman" ok buddy.

Interesting, can you post a link expanding on this? I see no support of the claim.

And one stoner in 856 AD while high, started telling stories about giant lizards 30 ft high. That doesn't make him a paleontologist and it sure as hell doesn't make Lao Tzu a cosmologist.

Take your meds.

Gravitationally bound systems are not expanding unless the universe were to accelerate rapidly in the future.

I have a theory that studying and practicing theoretical physics for too long causes insanity, their minds go off the rails such that they eventually believe whatever crazy things they can imagine.

@@NondescriptMammal ...but an intelligence higher than theirs.

It's not fractal, it is simply a particular hyperbolic transform applied to a circular tessellation.

Nature is all that exists and all that occurs naturally. It doesn't need a creator because it is naturally occurring. Gods and other fictional characters and stories are a figment of the human imagination, which is a naturally occurring part of human nature. The nature of all life forms differ among species but all are part of nature, produced by nature, naturally occurring.

He has been discredited

Damn do you always have to make teams and pick sides? Can’t we just observe, watch and enjoy? 😂 I wish you luck and happiness my friend and after all I love you.

@@L2ggs but... at least he is honest.

@@L2ggs Every physcist Ive seen debate him in any way is a fool and not real Physicst (theyre "shut up and calculate"s). Old, bad, physics, that they cannot let go of because it would mean their entire adult life was focused of false science. Ego. Pride. LIES. That is why fhey wont die.

And it’s SIR roger penrose

If we are in a simulation, there would be no way to ever know. It's impossible. It's a waste of time to contemplate. We have no access to outside the simulation just the same as if we built a simulation those simulations could never have access to our reality. If we are constructs, there is no way to test or know this.

yeah and maybe it was programmed by a guy named Jesus Godson

If all you have is a simulation, then you are a man with a dull mind. ;-)

@@thotslayer9914 Intuition is an aspect of existence that we carry within us.. It can be denied and suppressed, but not controlled..

What is infinite?

@@BenjaminGoose fantasies

No one, in physics, claims that the visible universe is infinite.

@@vids595 because cosmology isn't physics

You need to get help with that. ;-)

SORRY ::: "NOT FROM A SIGLE POINT"

A single point is not everywhere. The universe is everywhere, not everything. Nothing can exist or occur without a place for it to be. A big bang is an occurrence in the universe which may have occurred at one point and affected many other points. We can not know if it affected all points everywhere because we can not observe everywhere.

You need to get help with that. ;-)

Your entropy-correcting geometry hypothesis begs the question, sir.

@@deanodebo A question of why do protons never decay? Treating entropy increase avoidance as an error correction process begs a question of anything else to you? A question on the relevance of closed system engineering physics (thermodynamics) in earth science and cosmology? Feynman suggested quantizing gravity (with monopolar quantized negative energy, it seems) would create runaway feedback, which apparently would destroy the universe with a sort of tornado-like efficiency. He was begging a question. It was a question of why anyone should believe him. As far as "sir" goes, a case of feigned politeness at this point would not look good on you. If you noticed that it points back to a cold gravity focus concept, then good for you and have a nice day in advance.

Nothing *in the universe* can travel faster than the speed of light. The universe itself is not bound by this rule.

Expansion of the universe has no speed exactly, it has a speed per unit distance.

I don't believe those laws apply to the universe itself; they apply to closed systems. We already know energy is not conserved in an expanding universe. Our uncovering of the laws of nature have gone from the medium sized to the very small and the very large because we are roughly medium sized. However, if we could have started at one extreme or the other and worked our way through to the other end, we would have a better understanding and likely realize that some "laws" of the medium spring from something more fundamental and different.

You need to get help with that.

@@schmetterling4477 my advice to you is:- if you have nothing to say, don’t say anything - si on n’a rien à dire, ne dites pas rien

Your cell phone is self organising no manufacturer needed.

@@md.noorulkarim5542 A cell phone is not naturally occurring but nature is. Nature has produced a life form with characteristics that led this life form to produce a cell phone.

@@md.noorulkarim5542 ignorant Muslim

sounds like you need help yourself rather than offering it.

@@vids595 You obviously have no concept of The Grand Unification of the Four Universal Field Forces...so I forgive you. It is the field concealed within hormones that I am specialising in and when you realise that it is already contained within the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, you will want it too.

Well, no dumber than the other comments so carry on I guess.

Disclaimer: the kinds of points you learned about in geometry do not exist. There is objectively no such thing as a discrete finite point, but the perception of the point limited to a given space is what allows us determinative focus. Every probability wave in the Universe converges on a point-that is what we call "present". There is only one present at any given time. The probability waves that are internalized by the point form the object-this is how reality is realized. In this way the object becomes the effect resulting from the infinite Universe, and because the Universe is infinite, so too the object is infinite even though not all probabilities are internalized. This is what distinguishes probability from reality. The probabilities which are not internalized are rejected-that which is not internalized is externalized. In this way the object becomes the cause resulting in the infinite Universe, and because the object is infinite, so too the Universe is infinite even though not all probabilities are externalized.

I will hear no more of this "we don't know" nonsense. There is Only One Truth: The Universe is Infinite. For your information, I got that line from Stargate SG-1 Season 9, Episode 1. And I'm pretty damn sure the Ancients knew what they were talking about!

@@ericfarina3935 Dark Matter, Dark Energy make up 95/96% of everything in the Universe. What are they? Be the first Eric! Stargate 🫣

@@IvanMectin "Dark Energy" is a misunderstood effect of observation in the infinite Universe. As we proceed from an infinite precession of physics, the Universe *appears* to expand. This is evidence of an *Objective Frame of Reference* , which can be described as an "Eternal Spectrum". There are wavelengths that would seem "inconceivably small" to us, and frequencies that seem "inconceivably vast" to us. The Universe did not "emerge". *one could say, it has always been expanding, and it will expand forevermore. No matter what your perspective, all knowing observers will agree, that the Universe "appears" to "originate" and "expand" from a so-called "singular point of infinite density"* . This is what scientists call "Dark Energy" or "the Thermodynamic arrow of time" (they haven't realized yet that these are one and the same).

@@IvanMectin "Dark Matter" is an umbrella term, for a literally infinite variety of phenomenon. I'll give you the short explanation: Whatever happens on scales so "small" or "vast" that we can not readily perceive and/or quantify it, still affects us directly in every moment. This is what scientists call "Dark Matter".

what's the equation for that one?

“Man created God in his own image.” - Ludwig Feuerbach

Who created god?

@@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos, CMB radiation showed that the early universe was very huge. And the name called Big Bang was helpful for creationists to prevent people from thinking about energy collisions that could happen in an existing universe. If energy beams collided and made matter and antimatter during the Big Bang, then it is safe to say that it was a Big Bounce. Astronomers and scientists should try to change that name (Big Bang) if they are really truthful. The interpretation about the growth of space called ‘increasing vacuum energy’ is simply like a misleading interpretation because it can be some extra space that comes faster into the observable universe uniformly. Likely, there was a lot of extra space outside the observable universe. Energy is not something that exists, and energy is an output. So the name vacuum energy is an irrelevant answer because it only mentions the output, ignoring the growth of space (virtual particles). The space (virtual particles) inside galaxies shows that space doesn't make extra space from nothing. Probably, the earliest state of the emerging universe and near the edge of the expanding universe made a state of point source energy fields that could collide later becoming matter and antimatter. Perhaps, high-speed beams of energy must collide with each other to make matter and antimatter including the virtual particles in space. Probably, the virtual particles would conserve their change without a positive energy. And observations show that a lot of energies require a lot of space to begin with scientifically, and the massless energy beams use space to exist and collide with each other. The wavelength of high-energy particles is relatively small, but it doesn't make their electromagnetic waves small. So comparing the capacity of energy in high-energy particles relative to its wavelength with the wavelength of energy in the early universe to tell that the early universe emerged from a very tiny high-energy (singularity) that didn't use a lot of space because it had an almost infinitely small wavelength is not a good analogy. Also, the space between galaxies doesn't show a growth with Dark Energy. So Dark Energy is not likely a product of existing space. According to Abhidhamma, “a rain of energized water (like water sticks, water robs, etc) fills the world (island universe) gradually, and stays stably-filled for a long time until cosmic air (virtual particles) comes into the filled world (island universe), causing to start the expansion. And then, the world (island universe) stays stably-expanded until the contraction.” Virtual particles in space (like air) can come into low dense areas of space (between galaxies) from outside of the island universe until those virtual particles can go there with a maximum speed (upto the speed of light) to distribute virtual particles uniformly between galaxies. It is the most possible explanation.

@@mrmustard1633 God = Creator of the heavens & Earth. Happy now?