The History of the Universe in 8 minutes:

[nitpick] Well one of the first things he mentions is that the Universe began about 13.7 billion years ago, yet the number he writes down is 13.798

I'm no mathematician, but wouldn't it have been more appropriate for him to say 13.8 billion years ago? [/nitpick]

But all-in-all, that was an awesome and inspiring video.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What was inspiring?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Don't worry, it's beyond your comprehension.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

At the 2:20 second mark, Neil talks about the imbalance between matter, and anti matter particles with a slight increase in matter particles....hence why we are here today.
But even if the imbalance had been reversed, ie slightly more anti matter particles than matter particles, I suggest we would still be here.
Difference being we would be calling what we now know as anti matter particles, ordinary matter particles, and what we now know as matter particles, anti matter particles.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Silly

 

Yes, I noted that also...still from memory it was only revised up to 13.83 billion years only relatively recently? Maybe the 13.798 billion years is a further revised figure?

 

It appears the later revision I mentioned was correct......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
Age of the universe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about scientific estimates of the age of the universe. For religious and other non-scientific estimates, see Dating creation.
Part of a series on
Physical cosmology

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

• e

In physical cosmology, the age of the universe is the time elapsed since theBig Bang. The current measurement of the age of the universe is13.798±0.037 billion years ((13.798±0.037)×109 years) within the Lambda-CDM concordance model.[1] The uncertainty of 37 million years has been obtained by the agreement of a number of scientific research projects, such as microwave background radiation measurements by the Planck satellite, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and other probes. Measurements of the cosmic background radiation give the cooling time of the universe since the Big Bang,[2] and measurements of theexpansion rate of the universe can be used to calculate its approximate age by extrapolating backwards in time.

 

What does it matter?

 

Nothing to you because you obviously don't care about science, you're just here to troll.

 

The incredible thing Daecon, is that they are able to pin it down with such accuracy.
In the mid sixties when my interest in cosmology surfaced, the quoted age of the Universe was anywhere between 10 and 20 billion years old....then the figure was revised to 14 billion years...then 13.83, now the current 13.789.
Pretty heady stuff I suggest.

 

Whats " heady stuff " about it?

 

In relation to that subject, I did find this reputable reference that gives a description aligning with De-Grasse Tyson's description also........

http://www-public.slac.stanford.edu/babar/antimatter.aspx
Matter and Antimatter
For each particle of matter there exists an equivalent particle with opposite quantum characteristics, called an antiparticle. The first antiparticle - the antielectron or positron - was predicted theoretically in 1928 and observed for the first time in 1932.

Particle and antiparticle pairs are created by large accumulations of energy. This is a manifestation of Einstein's famous equivalence between mass and energy, E=mc2. This equation says that given enough energy (which in the case of BABAR is supplied by the particle accelerator PEP-II) and the right conditions, this energy can turn into mass in the form of a particle-antiparticle pair.

Conversely, when a particle meets an antiparticle, they annihilate into an intense blast of energy. At the time of the big bang, the high energy density of the universe must have created equal amounts of particles and antiparticles. But today we don't encounter many antiparticles in everyday life. The question, therefore, is "What has happened to the antiparticles?"

In The question really is "Why is there matter in the universe, while there is no antimatter?" As the universe expanded quickly and cooled, the energy density became too low for the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs, and annihilation should have destroyed all the particles and the antiparticles. But a small fraction (less than one in a billion) of the particles survived and went on to create the matter that is all around us - our bodies, the earth, and the stars we see are all made of matter.

In order to study this question, particle physicists rephrase it in a more scientific way: "what are the differences between matter and antimatter, are they large enough to measure experimentally, and what do they tell us about what happened in the early universe?"

BABAR and Belle have made precise measurements of matter-antimatter differences (called "CP violation"), revolutionizing what had previously been a little-understood aspect of the physical world. Still, the level of CP violation observed in today's experiments is about a billion times two weak to have created the overabundance of matter over antimatter in the universe. This tells us that there are new sources of CP violation that we have not yet been able to determine. BABAR and other experiments are continuing to explore this question with improved precision and sensitivity to new physics.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Another reference here as to possibly why the imbalance did occur.
http://theoriginal1701.hubpages.com/hub/Why-Is-There-More-Matter-Than-Antimatter

 

Mod Hat ― Matters of Appearance

Let us, please, focus on the matter at hand, and neither creating nor identifying the appearance of trolling.

 

As the view panned downscale to the Planck length world of string theory, I was struck by how ignorant it was to do this in full knowledge of uncertainty principle limits to absolute knowledge on that scale and simply ignore or discard it as though it wasn't even a barrier to our complete understanding of every detail of what is happening in the sub-quantum domain. The chart indicating the unification of forces into inflation's super force looked very deterministic, and this is one of the theory's principle flaws. What force is it that makes this graph so rock solid while all of the other forces are changing?

Like his mentor Sagan, Tyson should probably stick to cosmology where wild speculation like this apparently has no such hard limits. Perhaps there are limits there too, and some cosmological counterpart of Heisenberg hasn't figured out what the limits should be yet.

Multiverses weren't mentioned in this video, to Tyson's credit. Maybe there's a turf war with Brian Greene or something. Multiverses really aren't necessary to our understanding of this one.

The problem with string theory is that you can use it to predict anything you want. In that respect, it's the particle physics counterpart of the Big Bang in cosmology.

I had a greater admiration of Neil Tyson before watching this.

Some here seem to believe this video might play better with chemical stimulation. That idea is more disgusting than anything Tyson said. I think there is a forum for discussion of that here, but strangely no one ever seems to avail themselves of it, and I can certainly understand why. No uncertainty at all there.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Neil must be gnashing his teeth and ready to cut his throat and crying in his beer/wine at such notable loss of support....NOT!

 

Does anyone ever get your nod of approval?
It appears the rejections you have had with regards to mainstream science and academia, has really taken its toll on you.
Being a nobody is not fun.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

When you go to Neil's lecture ; ask him this pad; How was the moon captured by the Earth? Even Iassic Asimov thought it shouldn't be possible. Earth just doesn't have the mass.

 

Perhaps you may have a reputable reference to support such a claim?
Or did you get that claim from here.......
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/luna/esp_luna_16.htm

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Where it also says that Asimov claimed......
"Moon Diameter: How does one explain the "coincidence" that the moon is just the right distance, coupled with just the right diameter, to completely cover the sun during an eclipse? Again, Isaac Asimov responds,

"There is no astronomical reason why the moon and the sun should fit so well. It is the sheerest of coincidences, and only the Earth among all the planets is blessed in this fashion."
I certainly do not believe that Asimov would be that naive as to not know the real answer to the above and obviously the site being a religious one would explain the falsity of the claims and the outright lies that such sites are so often infested with.

Of course as you are probably unaware, the most accepted theory at this time is that the Moon was created as a result of a planetary size body collision with Earth.
http://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/nas...ann-describes-how-the-earths-moon-was-formed/

 

Why on Earth do you think that?

The fact that the Moon ALREADY orbits Earth proves that you're wrong before you even start.

 

daecon

How was it possible in the first place is the puzzle.