Now it would take a while longer to explain the implications, like wave-particle duality and the uncertainty principle, but what do you expect from 60 seconds?

That's awesome. Also, stingrays feel incredible. I was recently at the Osaka Aquarium and they had a petting section with some sharks (not sure what kind) and some stingrays. The sharks felt coarse (and were also covered in lots of individual particles of sand), but the stingrays had this kind of slimy texture, sort of like algae without the residue. It was really amazing.

Spinning the iphone - it is possible to do, i've played with that effect with a tv remote as a kid, trying to flip it over once and catch it. That's when i found out about Dzhanibekov effect. I think that basically more mass lies along the plane in which it is spinning, and it either isn't balanced or isn't precisely stable as it's released, and so there is a net centrifugal force acting on the phone in the direction that it begins to rotate (if you don't do it right), gently at first but the further it goes into its spin the more it reinforces itself and it flips. (that's what i remember from childhood, but the wikipedia article itself is accurate so double check) I'd like to investigate this effect in space/vacuums though, it's still interesting.

The water one - this is just one scientific opinion and i imagine many exist, but i can't find any true source on this. My immediate reaction to his explanation about the uniform electric field is to consider the field projected by the cup - prior warning simplifications are rife. Approximate the electric field emitted by the negatively charged cup as being normal to the surface at any point on the surface. You bring that field towards the water, and if there is indeed a more positively charged side, then it would experience a force in an electric field. We can safely believe that the water molecules will fall facing in all directions (fluid dynamics ensuring a nice distribution of particles within the stream allowing us to believe that), and any that are not pointed exactly parallel to the electric field will experience some kind of force. However water can also have a meniscus, which might encourage the water to "stick together" a bit and head towards the negative source, but i'm not sure about that in a flowing/falling context.

The fundamental point here is that an electric field is introduced to the water which responds by moving towards the source of the field. He hasn't shown me anything to doubt the standard explanation, and i don't understand why he thinks that the molecule wouldn't experience a force if it is as described. Without using electric charge to explain it, and i'm quite certain it isn't magnetic (the only other associated phenomenon), he's basically saying it's magic?

@robbersdog49 got the cane and cereal ones, and the teabag one is of course just the fact that the burning teabag heats nearby air, hot air rises which causes cooler air to rush in from the side and below, which causes a bit of an upwards current of flowing air, and when the remnant of the teabag is light enough, it is lifted by that force. As it burns lower, there's less fuel (paper) and it's less hot, so the force drops, so it only happens when it's nearly ash and very light. The last piece almost doesn't make it.

If the best theory is a designer and we give up and go home then that's the most depressing dismissal of the human spirit ever.because it's simply not possible to consider that the diversity of life arose from an imperfect copying.
When the wind blows across a beach it leaves information about the direction and force in the rearrangement of billions of unrelated sand particles. Information is ubiquitous.

When the snow falls it is already frozen - snow is just small particles of ice - and it requires just as much energy to melt the water as incoming falling snow as already formed ice. And then you have to get rid of all the water from melted snow and ice. Guess could heat the sides of the road as well - deep into the ground.


What _would_ make more sense than Solar Freakin' Roadways could for example be Solar Freakin' Rooftops - on a grand scale.

It is simplified.

Some of the concepts are actually pretty hard to put into words and just are how they are. And for each cosmologist you speak to you will encounter a different opinion of the standard cosmological model or parts of its construction.

There are parts of it i don't like because i can't follow and feel comfortable with each step. The maths makes sense, but there's nothing logical and connected in my understanding. At first i didn't like that, but then i realised that we all accept quantum mechanics where charged particles accelerate without radiating, and "instantaneously" move between distinct energy levels.......

In other words, every physical law we've got is just our primitive way of understanding the signals sent from our senses to our brain. Things seem to make sense to us the more experience we have with it happening. We don't understand why matter moves towards other matter via "gravity" - a word which we accept and go 'ahhh gravity - i understand now' but why the hell should it and/or why should it exist in the first place merely to move towards one another?!

So gravity attracts things (why?!) and time only runs in one direction (why!?) and energy is quantized according to the planck constant (WHY!?) and ... the universe is more or less like it's shown in the video! But why why why!? Well, that's a question for a philosopher.

Ahhhh...I see now. You misunderstood your own quote...AND it's wrong...I'm now wondering where you got it from.

Quantum theory is not the theoretical basis of modern physics, it is a mostly theoretical part of sub-atomic physics, and could be called a 'base' for understanding much of that subject, but is not a catch all explanation for even all sub atomic physics, certainly not physics in total.
Modern physics explains the nature and behaviors of matter and energy on the atomic and sub-atomic level, not quantum theory. Quantum theory does NOT explain atomic physics at all, it's only about sub atomic physics. Quantum theory is a sub set of physics, not the other way around as you implied.
Sub atomic physics and 'atomic' physics don't seem to jibe with each other... yet, and the rules of one do not work in the other. It's all counter intuitive and difficult for scientists to understand, the lay person has a snowball's chance in hell of understanding what we even think we know, even less if they get bad info to start with.
That means your understanding is completely wrong. Even sub atomic particles can't really be in two places at once in the way you understand it...it's all insanely difficult math that suggest something that, in lay man's terms, is close to being in two places, but is not actually that, because it's also in neither place (and in some equations, everywhere at once, and nowhere)! It's impossible to state fully in normal English, it's math...and screwy math at that.
Matter simply can't really be in 2 places at once, not even sub atomic parts of it. Certainly not a person. Some experiments may SEEM to show that certain particles/waves may be, but they aren't really...it's wierd. No actual quantum physics scientist has made such an insane claim (that YOU are in 2 places at once) that I know of....it's just plain wrong and displays a complete lack of understanding of the basic principles involved and the difference between sub atomic and non-sub atomic. If someone said that, you can be certain they were either not a physicist, or were trying to over simplify and explain through a poor, un-explained analogy as poor teachers have a tendency to do when explaining difficult subjects to those with no grasp of the basics.
And I don't own any scientists, gawd believing or no. ;-)
...and none of that has a thing to do with evolution beyond being the basic 'rules' for matter.
...and none of that has a thing to do with moral superiority or morality at all.
...and it all has nothing to do with religion based homophobia/bigotry....the topic of this video....so now that another thread has been hijacked, I'm taking this thread to Cuba!

I think your quote may be wrong, quantum physics deals only with the sub-atomic level.
Atoms and/or molecules do not behave like some particles do. Particles also can't be in 2 places at once, but appear to be able to move from one place to another without traveling between. It's an incredibly difficult science to understand, more so when it's basic principles are misunderstood.
This has nothing whatsoever (or barely anything, nothing directly) to do with evolution. It is an attempt at explaining the sub atomic world, not the atomic one. Evolution happens in the macro/atomic level and larger. It MAY happen in some unknown way in the sub atomic level, but hasn't been noted or studied there that I know of.
Did I state or imply that 'there's no way gawd did it'? I don't think so, you are projecting. While I don't 'believe' in gawd(s), I do leave open the miniscule possibility it exists, or that one did before the big bang....one problem is there's no real set definition for gawd, so if something outside our universe created this one, is that "gawd"? Must it be super-natural, or simply a creator? Must it exist in our universe to count? How about in our perceptible dimensions? Could it just be alien to our universe, but not a supernatural omniscient direct human creator? There's far too many points of view on that to have consensus of what constitutes a 'gawd'.
I will state that there's no proof, or even evidence, of a (or many) gawd(s). That said...Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, (thanks Mr Jackson), so there's also no 'proof' it doesn't exist (it's hard or impossible to prove a negative).
Jumping to the conclusion that, because there's no proof of no gawd, it must exist, is also close minded against the high probability (likelihood) that it doesn't, and never did, exist outside human minds.
Science and gawd don't go together or explain each other any more than addition explains a words spelling. They're totally different arenas of thought. Thinking that science 'proves' the existence of 'gawd' either greatly overstates the 'proof' or completely misunderstands science. At best, science doesn't disprove the existence of 'gawd(s)', but then again that was never the mission of science or real scientists...they don't deal with/in theology at all.
I would point out that, most Christians (or any religious people really) have repeatedly 'proven' the non-existence of 'gawd(s)' to themselves...all gawds except the one they think exists....but for some reason the one they believe in is exempt from all the proofs (math term, not bad English).

EDIT: What science has done is disprove most, if not all 'proofs' put forward alleging to prove the existence of gawd(s), and also removed all requirements for ones existence to explain the universe and existence.

I hope noone does this shit ever again.
Helium is a finite resource, and its getting rare.

We need it for things like medical scanning machines, particle colliders, nuclear detectors....my god what a waste.

Interesting talk that I enjoyed a great deal, though I wonder if that was more for the quality of his delivery rather than the material.
It was interesting to learn about reality being wave-based and our perception is that of the particle. e.g the EM wave that is light we see as particles we call photons.
Also I do believe Dawkins was there at the end asking a question.

Liquefaction is caused by extremely fast and regular vibrations in a substance composed of uniformly sized particles. The shakiness of that video induced the phenomenon.

this is so stupid. basically solipsism predicated on a terrible understanding of physics, quantum physics, and particle physics.

You sir clearly do not fully understand the nature of entropy (and nor does about 95% of the human race so you can be forgiven there).

You have however stumbled into making a genuinely worthwhile point here (though I must state I think for completely the wrong reasons).

The idea that the universe inevitably moves towards a complete "heat death" is I think incorrect, it fails to account for the effect of ever increasing complexity within the closed systems the universe produces (i.e. evolution which applies as much cosmically as it does to organic life on earth).

If the universe remained with no more complexity than it currently has then yes everything would eventually "burn out" and spread the energy of the universe so thinly that everything would cease to work (if only on a space-time level).

But the nature of the universe does not remain static, it creates ever more complex and actuated systems dialectically. Energies>Particles>Compounds>Nebulae>Stars>Planets>Organisms>Unconsciousness>Consciousness>???>God! (not intended to be an exhaustive list it's purely for illustration)

Evolution does trump entropy IMHO but this is largely because the actual laws of entropy are crazy complicated to understand and most people (including to some extent myself) don;t fully understand the subtleties of how it really works.

If nothing else; to say that the whole universe eventually enters a state of complete entropy assumes that every complex closed system that does or ever will exist will eventually break down. This is far from a forgone conclusion, we alone as evolving conscious creatures are capable of developing means to circumvent or even prevent this. Let alone what other wonders we have yet to observe or the universe has yet to manifest!

In conclusion: The Universe evolves until it reaches God (or dies trying ). God does not then create the universe but rather commits suicide (what else is God to do? Eternity is a very long time for someone that already knows and has done everything...). Process repeats ad infinitum.


Makes a lot more sense that way around don't you think? (and no ancient books of dubious origin need ever be consulted to derive it either)

Saying God created the universe only leaves you with more questions which by their very nature cannot be answered. We would have to be God itself to ever answer them, so we are left with a judgement call. No logical certainty, only faith.

This way around we can by pure rationalism and empiricism arrive at an explanation of how the universe might evolve God via ever increasing complexity of consciousness and actualisation (true post-humans alone would be like demi-gods, it's not a huge leap to keep taking this idea further)

Further to that Ontological mathematics (that is to say "really real mathematics") can assess a framework to understand how the universe itself came to be (we can arguably go pre-big bang with this but that's always going to be a controversial idea here).

^ Now I might be wrong about some or even all of that but it is at least a reductive argument. Using God as an explanation for anything without first explaining God is always going to be a circular argument. If your going to use circular logic you can prove basically anything you feel like!

"God is dead!"

My thoughts:

* For technology that is 8 years old, this is mighty impressive how small the difference is. It's worth looking back to see the 360/PS3 launch titles to see just how much has come from programming efficiency rather than raw processing power. It will be interesting to see if in 5 years, these new consoles will look equally miles better than they do now.

* Textures are sharper, particle effects like smoke and dust are snazzier and draw distance is greatly improved but ... on the whole, the lighting, most of the doodads in the environment, and the overall 'feel' is the same if you don't look too close.

* Sony's consoles seem to always display darker by default than MS's. I don't understand why for the purposes of comparison they can't pump up the brightness.

* With all the furore about Xbox One being 720p and PS4 being 900p (which doesn't sound too bad but is about 50% more pixels to the PS4), there doesn't seem to be a large diference in detail. If anything the environmental effects seem slightly better on the Xbox One.

If anything in particle physics is actually like the experience of trying to keep a cat on a leash, we're in for a bad time.