Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Oooh! Want.

Edit: Ok, I don't have 7k, but it's just a gyroscope and a no-tip type assembly, right (like a mini one of those multi-axis spin thingies you can strap yourself into)? Should be easy enough to make something workable.

Edit again: The second video thumbnailed at the end is impressive as well.

Your video, The Axis of Awesome - Rage of Thrones, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

Is this Kenny from Axis of Awesome?

Too bad they used the tech in such a lame way. The inherent instability could have been used for a positive outcome rather than them trying desperately to do accurate light reflections. They also didn't do much of anything that couldn't be done by other means. Would love to see what The Chemical Brothers and their visual designer would come up with. More randomness, more use of the axis towards the crowd, things that would be hard to do with less mobile lights.

Fact 1: An estimated (the number may be higher) 1.6 planets per star in our galaxy
http://www.space.com/14200-160-billion-alien-planets-milky-galaxy.html

Fact 2: 100 billion galaxies:
We know there are that many, because we've seen them. The hubble space telescope was pointed at a tiny , random black spot in the sky (where no stars from our own galaxy was blocking the field of view) and found 10000 galaxies in that tiny spot about 1/12millionth of the sky. Extrapolating that out, we get that there are atleast 100 billion galaxies, and each of them contains hundreds of millions of stars.

Fact 3:The moon has its own gravity.
Well duh...

Fact 4: 8 Planets in our solar system.
This is of course very well documented. You can see several of them on any given night. One of them , Venus will infact pass directly in front of the sun in a few days, on the 6th of June! That also happened in 2004, but the next one wont be for another 105 years! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_Venus

Fact 5: There were galaxies in the early universe. These have been seen by the Hubble telescope and other observatories:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_formation_and_evolution

Fact 6:The earths tilted axis causes seasons: http://www.khanacademy.org/science/cosmology-and-astronomy/v/how-earth-s-tilt-causes-seasons

More later..

This must be fake its like a 180° turn around his z axis in one frame... ONE FRAME

>> ^messenger:
Someone who believes in something despite evidence against it is not using sense, reason and intellect. The Bible contradicts itself internally (contradictory lists of the "begats" is the clearest example I can think of), so cannot be accurate. If you believe the Bible is infallible, that isn't a reasonable belief. Some people "believing in a personal god" doesn't equate to "believing in Yahweh", which is your contention, so it doesn't matter if they're true or not. There's nothing unscientific about spirituality, and identifying some aspect of your spiritual experience a personal god. There's plenty unscientific about declaring the Bible to be infallible. Again with not understanding science.


If you're referring to the geneology of Jesus, it is presenting one geneology through David's son Solomon, which is the royal line, and one geneology through David's son Nathan, which is the non royal line. The lineage in Matthew is Josephs line, and the lineage in Luke is Marys line. There is no actual contradiction there, or anywhere else in the bible. What skeptics call contradictions are usually things they simply do not understand.

In any case, it would not be unreasonable to believe the bible, even if there were contradictions. This is simply a fallacious argument.

>> ^messenger:
The absence of circumstantial evidence where you might expect to find it is circumstantial evidence of absence. If the Bible were true, we would should expect, for example, that miracles would continue to occur, because why not? They should be even more commonly documented because of our massively increased population and information technology. But they appear to happen less! This is absence of circumstantial evidence. Amazing discoveries in science aren't evidence for God. God is one theory that explains them, but it doesn't work the other way -- you can't start with an amazing fact, and declare that it suggests all other theories are wrong. No matter what the universe looks like, it will still conform with the theory of God creating it, so amazing discoveries are not evidence -- they're just things we can't explain yet, like retrograde motion was once considered "amazing" and attributed to gods.)


Your contention is false for a few reasons; first, that miracles do not occur, and second, that we should expect to find an abundance of miracles. Not only have I seen miracles occur, I have been a party to them. As far as the number of miracles, we shouldn't expect to know how many miracles occur. God isn't performing for the general public. Even the post-resurrection appearances were only for a limited number of people.

We do have circumstantial evidence for Gods existence, such as the information in DNA and the evidence of fine-tuning. The theory of God has explanatory power, and is a better explanation for these phenomena. We should never ignore a theory which better explains the evidence.

>> ^messenger:
This where I start picturing you with your hands over your ears going LALALALALALA! Nothing rules out God's agency. Nothing rules out God period. He cannot be ruled out because there's nothing verifiable about his existence whatsoever. Nobody ever makes this claim, ever, ever, ever. It's like you wish we were saying this, but we're not. Really, we're not. BUT, if someone claims that their god has a chariot that moves the sun across the sky, I call bullshit because we have actually seen with our eyes that the Earth is spherical and rotates on its axis, which causes the apparent motion of the sun. If someone says the Earth is only a few thousand years old, I say bullshit and refer you to archaeology and to every branch of science that demonstrates the Earth to be much older.


It is the persistant claim of atheists that science has sufficiently described the Universe and is regulating God to a smaller and smaller corner. It's called the "god of the gaps" and you hear this all the time. You hear it from eminient scientists like Dr Krauss. So I don't wish it is being said, it is being said all the time.

As far as the age of the Earth goes, there are more evidences for a young earth than an old one. Since you don't know much about macro evolution, you probably don't know much about the theory of deep time either. Paleontology and archaelogy are historical sciences. The age of the earth is assumed, and the evidence is interpreted through that assumption. The assumption itself is never challenged.

>> ^messenger:
This is the least scientific thing you have ever said.


Messenger, you seem like a thoughtful person, so step outside of your box for a moment and think about this. The statement that "If God exists, the entire Universe is evidence of His existence" is a scientific statement of absolute fact. If it isn't, explain why not.

>> ^messenger:
You and I agreed before, no solipsism.


I engaged in no solipsism, as you will see, and I also thought we weren't going to be doing cherry picking either. I noticed you avoided these questions:

The question I would put to you is, how would you tell the difference? How would you know you're looking at a Universe God didn't create? What would you expect that to look like?

>> ^messenger:
You realize that you are using logic to prove that logic isn't real? "If-then" statements and implied questions come from logic. If logic doesn't stand on its own, then you can't use it to prove that it doesn't stand on its own. If you want to know where the rules of formal logic come from, you can look it up. If you don't accept them as valid, you've descended into solipsism, at which point I don't even accept that anything exists but my own mind. If you accept the definitions and rules of logic as valid on their face, then we don't require anything to explain where they came from. Logic is definitions, like equality. a=a. How do I know this? It's the definition of equality. If you disagree, then words have no definition, and thus no meaning, and we also agreed that "words have meaning".


I am not using logic to disprove logic, I am using logic to show you that you don't have a foundation for your own rationality. You live your life as if logic is a transcendent and absolute law, the same way as you do right and wrong, but you can't account for it in your worldview. It's a bit like sitting in Gods lap to slap His face. If logic doesn't have the same value independent of human belief, then you have no basis for your own rationality. Words do have meaning, which is why I am pointing out you have some intellectual sinkholes in your worldview that you just accept without thinking about it.

>> ^messenger:
Also, as your argument goes, if you assert that logic is a creation, and that God created logic, this entails that God exists outside of logic. Interesting prediction.


I didn't say God created logic, I said He is a rational being. Since we are made in His image, we are also rational beings.

>> ^messenger:
No, I wouldn't, necessarily. That's one field of science that I know very little about. If you've read a single book about it, you know more than me. That' doesn't mean you understand better than me how science works in general.


It doesn't mean that, no, but it does mean that you spoke authoritatively and condescendingly about something that I actually know more about than you do, jumping to conclusions based on your misunderstanding of what I said, that on a lack of knowledge about the theory itself. I would say this is positive evidence in my favor, and negative evidence against you.

>> ^messenger:
But since you bring it up, the theory of macro evolution may or may not be weak, I don't know, but outdated quotes from Darwin and about Darwin about the impossibility of macro evolution don't convince me any more than outdated quotes from Newton about the impossibility of the Solar System holding together. Do you know what Newton concluded? He concluded it must be God holding it together. Einstein figured out why it really doesn't fly apart, and it wasn't because of God.


They aren't outdated quotes, they are predictions that were made about what we should expect to find if the theory is true. Darwin made a great discovery, that changes can occur within a species. From there, he made an unjustified extrapolation that all species had a common ancestor. He expected to find evidence for this theory in the fossil record, but what he found was evidence against his theory. He blamed this on the relative poverty of the fossil record. 120 years later, we know it isn't the poverty of the fossil record; there simply is no fossil evidence to confirm macro evolution.

Do you know what a gluon is? It is a theoretical sub-atomic particle that binds quarks together. It has never been observed; it is simply a fudge factor, and without it, atoms would fly apart. Scripture says God is upholding them.

>> ^messenger:
Likewise, the problem of the lack of fossil records has been resolved since Darwin's time. The fossil evidence of intermediary links isn't a problem with the fossil evidence: it's a problem with Darwin's model. Darwin believed all evolution happened gradually, as he had observed. But there's no reason to believe it must all be slow. If one species had some tiny mutation that happened to give it a massive advantage over other species, its descendants would naturally spread into all sorts of new niches and tons of evolution would take place, both for it and other animals in its environment. Again, these changes were very rapid, so rapid, that they may not have left fossil evidence. Sometimes they did and other times they didn't, or we haven't found it yet. Check this video out: It's mostly a rebuttal to the "God is not a blind watchmaker" argument for Intelligent Design, but you can skip to 1:33 and still understand the premise. If you watch until 8:42, you'll see the reason why we wouldn't expect to find fossils of intermediary links, and why this isn't an argument against macro evolution anymore.


You're talking about the theory of punctuated equillibrium, or the modern "hopeful monster" theory. This is one of my favorite quotes:

In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has been favorable. We are especially pleased that several paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence a conclusion that had been previously been simply embarrassing; 'all these years of work and I haven't found any evolution.'

Gould & Eldredge
Paleobiology v.3 p.136


It's the theory to explain why there is no evidence for evolution. How convenient. Do you realize that this makes macro evolution unfalsifiable? It also makes macro evolution a metaphysical theory, like abiogenesis, which you must take on faith. The video you referenced is not an accurate demonstration of macro evolution, either, since nothing is being added to the genome. A reconfiguration of the same genetic material is not traversing above the species level and is therefore micro evolution.

Since you're never read a book on macro evolution, try this one and challenge yourself:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0890510628/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=

It's the entire contention that someone who believes in God is not using their sense, reason and intellect that is prideful. Did you know that 40 percent of biologists, physicists and mathematicians believe in a personal God? Some extremely intelligent people believe in a Creator, and they can back up their beliefs with logical evidence. You see theists through a grossly distorted lens created by your own prejudice, and it blinds you.

Someone who believes in something despite evidence against it is not using sense, reason and intellect. The Bible contradicts itself internally (contradictory lists of the "begats" is the clearest example I can think of), so cannot be accurate. If you believe the Bible is infallible, that isn't a reasonable belief. Some people "believing in a personal god" doesn't equate to "believing in Yahweh", which is your contention, so it doesn't matter if they're true or not. There's nothing unscientific about spirituality, and identifying some aspect of your spiritual experience a personal god. There's plenty unscientific about declaring the Bible to be infallible. Again with not understanding science.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Although I think there is evidence, such as fine tuning and information in DNA.

The absence of circumstantial evidence where you might expect to find it is circumstantial evidence of absence. If the Bible were true, we would should expect, for example, that miracles would continue to occur, because why not? They should be even more commonly documented because of our massively increased population and information technology. But they appear to happen less! This is absence of circumstantial evidence. Amazing discoveries in science aren't evidence for God. God is one theory that explains them, but it doesn't work the other way -- you can't start with an amazing fact, and declare that it suggests all other theories are wrong. No matter what the universe looks like, it will still conform with the theory of God creating it, so amazing discoveries are not evidence -- they're just things we can't explain yet, like retrograde motion was once considered "amazing" and attributed to gods.)

You think because you describe a mechanism, how something works in a mechanical sense, somehow it rules out an Agent. God says He upholds the entire Universe; that He is the one that keeps the atoms from flying apart. How does mechanism rule out Gods agency?

This where I start picturing you with your hands over your ears going LALALALALALA! Nothing rules out God's agency. Nothing rules out God period. He cannot be ruled out because there's nothing verifiable about his existence whatsoever. Nobody ever makes this claim, ever, ever, ever. It's like you wish we were saying this, but we're not. Really, we're not. BUT, if someone claims that their god has a chariot that moves the sun across the sky, I call bullshit because we have actually seen with our eyes that the Earth is spherical and rotates on its axis, which causes the apparent motion of the sun. If someone says the Earth is only a few thousand years old, I say bullshit and refer you to archaeology and to every branch of science that demonstrates the Earth to be much older.

...if God created the Universe, do you realize that the entire Universe is evidence of Gods existence?

This is the least scientific thing you have ever said.

What about the laws of logic? Where do they come from? If they're only in our brains, subject to constant flux, then what is rationality? It isn't anything you can trust if what you believe is true. Therefore all of your arguments fall apart. You have nothing in your worldview that can explain it, yet I can explain it.

You and I agreed before, no solipsism. You realize that you are using logic to prove that logic isn't real? "If-then" statements and implied questions come from logic. If logic doesn't stand on its own, then you can't use it to prove that it doesn't stand on its own. If you want to know where the rules of formal logic come from, you can look it up. If you don't accept them as valid, you've descended into solipsism, at which point I don't even accept that anything exists but my own mind. If you accept the definitions and rules of logic as valid on their face, then we don't require anything to explain where they came from. Logic is definitions, like equality. a=a. How do I know this? It's the definition of equality. If you disagree, then words have no definition, and thus no meaning, and we also agreed that "words have meaning".

Also, as your argument goes, if you assert that logic is a creation, and that God created logic, this entails that God exists outside of logic. Interesting prediction.

>> ^rottenseed:

That wikipedia entry was way too simple in that it doesn't explain boo but the equations. I think it boils down to conservation of (angular) momentum when an object has angular momentum along (3) axes. So far I can't give but a rudimentary explanation. A more simple system that would convey the fundamentals would if you were to hold a spinning bike wheel while sitting in an office chair (that can spin). As you rotate your arms (holding the axis of bicycle tire spin) the angular momentum lost will be gained in the seat you're sitting on (making you spin). Here, watch this doofus and see for yourself...

I don't know if it's more complicated in theory, or just in added dimensions
>>


^dannym3141:
It's a shame that hyperphysics doesn't have anything on this cos they're usually a good balance of words and maths (i find the wikipedia entry disappointingly mathematical; i expect a bit of background and discussion) as this is something i discovered as a kid playing with the sky remote.
I used to hold the controller at the base with a thumb and a finger or two, then try to flip it end over end one full flip and catch it in the palm of my hand. I found it really hard, but i eventually worked out that it was because i was imparting some sort of force to it as my wrist twisted because if i added more twist it would do a complete spin on both axes and land nicely, and when i tried less twist it would only do half a turn on that axis.
So then i started to hold it across, with one thumb and a finger (bit like a barre grip for a guitarist) straight across it width ways and gently flip it, and bet people they couldn't do it every time but i could



You don't lose angular momentum by rotating the wheel. When you hold the bicycle wheel vertically, the angular momentum vector of the system in the axis of you and your seat is 0, as the angular momentum of the wheel is not in that same axis.

When you turn the wheel horizontal, the angular momentum vector is pointing either up or down depending on which way you turn it. So the chair spins in such a way that it sets up an opposing angular momentum vector (ie. by spinning opposite way to the wheel) to make the net ang' mom' 0 in that axis.

I think it is likely to have something to do with the moment of inertia of the object about the 3 different axes, and probably the axis around which it is unstable has the smallest value of angular momentum (don't wish to prove that for the object in the video lol). I would call on the example of my tv remote. I've just tried spinning it around two axes - end over end, and helicoptor wise. The third axis is width ways, and you don't even need maths to intuit that i require less force to spin it width ways; more of the mass is centred towards the axis, and angular momentum is dependant upon mass and the distance of the mass from the axis of rotation.

So if it's got less angular momentum, it will not only require less force to make it rotate (remember i have to use my trick to reduce force imparted on either side of the controller as i toss it), but it also has less resistance (any?) to being spun in that axis whilst already spinning in another.

My theory at least. I have a feeling it's close as that seems to tie in with the maths too. Could just be something that only makes sense mathematically. It's not like anyone's ever explained why fermions can't coexist in the same quantum state to me in anything but maths either.

That wikipedia entry was way too simple in that it doesn't explain boo but the equations. I think it boils down to conservation of (angular) momentum when an object has angular momentum along (3) axes. So far I can't give but a rudimentary explanation. A more simple system that would convey the fundamentals would if you were to hold a spinning bike wheel while sitting in an office chair (that can spin). As you rotate your arms (holding the axis of bicycle tire spin) the angular momentum lost will be gained in the seat you're sitting on (making you spin). Here, watch this doofus and see for yourself...



I don't know if it's more complicated in theory, or just in added dimensions
>>




^dannym3141:

It's a shame that hyperphysics doesn't have anything on this cos they're usually a good balance of words and maths (i find the wikipedia entry disappointingly mathematical; i expect a bit of background and discussion) as this is something i discovered as a kid playing with the sky remote.
I used to hold the controller at the base with a thumb and a finger or two, then try to flip it end over end one full flip and catch it in the palm of my hand. I found it really hard, but i eventually worked out that it was because i was imparting some sort of force to it as my wrist twisted because if i added more twist it would do a complete spin on both axes and land nicely, and when i tried less twist it would only do half a turn on that axis.
So then i started to hold it across, with one thumb and a finger (bit like a barre grip for a guitarist) straight across it width ways and gently flip it, and bet people they couldn't do it every time but i could

It's a shame that hyperphysics doesn't have anything on this cos they're usually a good balance of words and maths (i find the wikipedia entry disappointingly mathematical; i expect a bit of background and discussion) as this is something i discovered as a kid playing with the sky remote.

I used to hold the controller at the base with a thumb and a finger or two, then try to flip it end over end one full flip and catch it in the palm of my hand. I found it really hard, but i eventually worked out that it was because i was imparting some sort of force to it as my wrist twisted because if i added more twist it would do a complete spin on both axes and land nicely, and when i tried less twist it would only do half a turn on that axis.

So then i started to hold it across, with one thumb and a finger (bit like a barre grip for a guitarist) straight across it width ways and gently flip it, and bet people they couldn't do it every time but i could

That's weird. I guess I didn't notice that about the chart (woops). I think you are correct in that measuring average deviations is a better / more responsible way of using this information for the global warming debate. As you indicate, it still have holes in being presented as a definitive. The Earth is big and old and it has a lot of moving parts. >> ^messenger:

Not sure you understand that chart. It's actually two statistics about Texas which happen to correlate. The x-axis is rainfall, and the 2011 dot indicates that last summer was a wee bit drier than the driest ever -- significant. But the temperature is double the previous largest deviation from the average (previous largest deviation was 2.5 degrees; 2011 was 5 degrees) -- incredible. Now, this is interesting, but nowhere near conclusive on its own -- freak weather things happen all the time, but it is huge, and it is for a very large area -- all of Texas -- not just some statistically anomalous hole that was purposefully chosen to quotemine. Cenk's overall point here with the other freak weather states is that there is a massive increase in really freak weather incidents. I'm still not convinced, and would want some information on what the average number of heat records usually is in a given period. It could be that thousands of places reporting all-time weather highs is normal.>> ^Thumper:
I meant around 3:45. Where he has the chart up with 2011 being a big red dot. And Yes, I think the chart data isn't indicative of anything other than our local weather history. The Earth's temperature has always fluctuated. We as an element on the Earth do not have the impact global warming suggests. At most we should be concerned with the pollution for our health reasons, not because we're throwing the Earth's climate out of whack. >> ^messenger:
Not at 4:45 he doesn't. And I don't understand what you're saying anyway. Are you saying this gigantic temperature spike that annihilates previous records is normal if regarded in the right context?>> ^Thumper:
at 4:45 he says 2011 is off the charts but really it's only off the charts based on the general direction. If you follow the lines increase and compare the distance from the 2011 dot to it, it's no more further out than other years that reach out and above the line. This is my problem with global warming charts. I mean no one really puts forth evidence that is clear because if you follow that line back in time I'm sure as a whole movement it fluctuates with smaller fluctuations locally as seen in the chart he shows.

Not sure you understand that chart. It's actually two statistics about Texas which happen to correlate. The x-axis is rainfall, and the 2011 dot indicates that last summer was a wee bit drier than the driest ever -- significant. But the temperature is double the previous largest deviation from the average (previous largest deviation was 2.5 degrees; 2011 was 5 degrees) -- incredible. Now, this is interesting, but nowhere near conclusive on its own -- freak weather things happen all the time, but it is huge, and it is for a very large area -- all of Texas -- not just some statistically anomalous hole that was purposefully chosen to quotemine. Cenk's overall point here with the other freak weather states is that there is a massive increase in really freak weather incidents. I'm still not convinced, and would want some information on what the average number of heat records usually is in a given period. It could be that thousands of places reporting all-time weather highs is normal.>> ^Thumper:

I meant around 3:45. Where he has the chart up with 2011 being a big red dot. And Yes, I think the chart data isn't indicative of anything other than our local weather history. The Earth's temperature has always fluctuated. We as an element on the Earth do not have the impact global warming suggests. At most we should be concerned with the pollution for our health reasons, not because we're throwing the Earth's climate out of whack. >> ^messenger:
Not at 4:45 he doesn't. And I don't understand what you're saying anyway. Are you saying this gigantic temperature spike that annihilates previous records is normal if regarded in the right context?>> ^Thumper:
at 4:45 he says 2011 is off the charts but really it's only off the charts based on the general direction. If you follow the lines increase and compare the distance from the 2011 dot to it, it's no more further out than other years that reach out and above the line. This is my problem with global warming charts. I mean no one really puts forth evidence that is clear because if you follow that line back in time I'm sure as a whole movement it fluctuates with smaller fluctuations locally as seen in the chart he shows.