"How exactly do you propose Einstein would have tested his theory of general relativity back in the early 1900s?"

Gee, I don't know, doofe. Why don't you google it and learn something?

"It wasn't until very recently, using atomic clocks on a plane and one on the ground was the general theory of relativity proven to be right."

Wrong.

There have been many things in history that have been thought to have been impossible. Neil deGrasse Tyson's presentation on "The God of the Gaps" is a great video addressing that line of thought.

However, that point may not even matter. My hypothesis is that our neurons don't operate all the way down to a sub-atomic or electron-spin level of granularity. There's plenty of complexity at the molecular and cellular scales. We're likely chemical and physical reactions like Newtboy says.

Except that you can't know all the properties of those atoms all at once. The Uncertainty Principle shows there is a fundamental limit to what we can know about particles. An exact replication would be impossible.

The first time this will probably come into consideration in the real world is consciousness uploading. It's not far fetched that we will eventually have the technology to take a snapshot of all of the atoms in our bodies and simulate that arrangement on a computer of some sort.

It would be exactly like your consciousness if it's simulated with 100% accuracy. And again, who can say that we'll never get to that point? But when your biological self dies, will you really be immortal if the original consciousness is destroyed?

I'm confused. They imply a 3 day trip to mars is possible, but is that at the maximum speed photonic propulsion can deliver, or do they include the acceleration and deceleration times? As I understood it, photonic propulsion can deliver extreme speeds, but only at a minimal acceleration. That means that maximum speed is much faster, but accelerating to that speed takes immensely longer, and the same goes for deceleration. Maybe they've invented a new method I've not heard of with much higher acceleration, but that's not really mentioned in the video.
They actually seem to imply they plan to use the same tech as cyclotrons, which means essentially a huge rail gun (and that's not photonic propulsion BTW, it's magnetic). Again, the amount of propulsion is miniscule, but the top speed is high with that method. Yes, you can expel matter at near speed of light, but only in tiny amounts and using huge amounts of energy.
Yes, it may take 10 minutes to achieve 30% the speed of light....with single molecules or atoms.
There are MANY reasons why we can't do this at macro sizes. Just look at the size of a cyclotron needed to accelerate an atom to those relativistic speeds. Now think about sizing that up to accelerate enough matter to move a spaceship instead of a single atom and it's likely near the size of the entire planet. We won't be building a cyclotron that size ever, nor will we likely ever shrink the accelerators to a size where they can fit inside a spaceship to shoot trillions of atoms out like a light speed gun. They are just too big and use too much power. Maybe once fusion is perfected and miniaturization also perfected it could work for interstellar travel, but never for local space travel, the acceleration levels are just too small.
Also, it seems solar sails give the same or better acceleration to the same top speeds without the impossible technology....but they don't work too well for stopping except at other stars.

Eh, we'll all be atomic garbage and either sucked back in as the universe prepares for the next big bang, or forever frozen, floating in a graveyard that spans all of existence.

Either way, I'm comfortable with the concept that there will still be parts of me around.

Sorry about those two atomic bombs, but your rude emperor wouldn't stop being rude to us. I do however, love my Honda. You're cute and I want to do several inappropriate things to you. Why did you dye your hair red? You're not from Scotland, where all the rude things you mentioned are expected, and not doing them there is considered rude. Don't eat the food in Scotland, though.

Congratulations! Your video, Atomic Trampoline Toy - Grand Illusions, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 42 Badge!

Your video, Atomic Trampoline Toy - Grand Illusions, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 58 Badge!

FDR didnt decide that. Truman did. Truman was a weakling. He was like a teenage bully who suddenly got unbelievable power. Even Churchill noticed how much he changed and how he always attacked and tried to provoke Stalin.
And that decision wasnt made because of fear of more lost lives. it was made because after Germany was defeated Russia very quickly advanced towards Japan. Truman didnt want want Russia to get a say in Japan at all costs. Yet they knew Japan was willing to surrender, with only one condition: The emperor would not be touched. The Americans didnt even want to accept that single condition. But the funny thing is, they did after the war. The emperor was not touched. But Truman, in his world, was pretty smart. He not only stopped any possibility of the Russians being able to get a part of Japan, he also showed Stalin what a powerful nation the USA has become, and that it should be feared. In reality, it was 2 atom bombs for NOTHING. Those 2 bombs were a huge factor in the start of the cold war, but ultimately it was Truman and the people behind him, who started that war. He always saw an enemy in Russia. He did everything to ensure they would think the USA is their enemy. Yet memos of Stalin and other documents showed clearly that Stalin never wanted a confrontation with the USA and even after the cold war started, he never took an attack on them into consideration.
Its just another chapter in the aggression and chaos the USA spreads on this planet.

I found Colbert's question about "unknown knowns" the most interesting, but here's the thing:

Bush was the Commander in Chief. He didn't present their "intelligence evidence" of Iraq's WMDs to the American people because he *had* to. He tells the military what to do, they do it; the people don't get "veto rights". The only reason he presented it to the American people (I still remember watching Colin Powell show satellite photos etc.) was to shore up votes for his re-election. Which is exactly what any politician would do in that situation -- make a decision, and present that decision in the best possible light to the voters.

In other words, when Bush et al. were presenting that stuff to us, they weren't selling the actual invasion itself to us. They were selling us an image of their own legitimacy and competence. Viewed like that, of course they aren't going to inform us of those "unknown knowns"; it would shatter the image of them confidently and capably doing what they knew they had to do -- which was the actual point of it (selling that image to us, I mean).


I was sold, at the time. As were most (but not all) Americans, including many many people much older and wiser than I was (and am). I now agree that the invasion was a colossal mistake and that Bush's presidency in general was rather disastrous. BUT, that being said, I think it is problematic to hold these kinds of decisions against a president beyond a certain point.

FDR decided to drop two atom bombs on Japan rather than continuing with conventional warfare and risking many more American (and Japanese) lives with an invasion. Many people have questioned (and continue to question) that decision. But FDR was there. He was the Commander in Chief, he had some facts and plenty of unverifiable information and suggestions from his cabinet and intelligence sources of the time, and he made the decision.

I don't envy people in power who have to make weighty decisions like that based on incomplete information, only to have people question those decisions by citing information that they didn't have at the time. For the rest of their lives.

OK, but the question, even if they are just harnessing the atom for peaceful means, still stands---What about Al Ghazali's prohibition against math?
Personally and culturally?

Obviously, they've rationalized it (again, let's assume every single intended use is peaceful. Unlike, for example, Pakistan's)---

I'm a bit curious what that looks like inside a person's brain.

Wow... he's living my dream existence.

Atom... check
Rottweiler... check
Internet based job you can piss off in your Atom with your Rottweiler whenever... check

Right down to the "FuckEm!" welcome mat...

This is an excellent explanation for someone of his age and his skill with video editing obviously helps a lot. It held my interest, the world needs more entertaining and educating videos like these.

My only criticism - and some youtubers have already pointed this out - is that the explanation of time dilation "..the same bodily change that happens on earth takes much longer to occur when you are moving so fast.." is wrong.

Signals sent within the body can be analogous to a clock - any fixed duration measured between two ~lightspeed reference frames will be different, including seconds measured by an atomic clock - but time dilation specifically has nothing to do with the mechanics behind how you measure the time or the time it takes a signal to travel. It's a property of the nature of spacetime. Time itself actually slows down. There's no 'trick' to understanding how or why, it's just a property that it has. We can forgive him because he'd already demonstrated that physics is the same in any inertial reference frame and there is no "preferential" reference frame; therefore the motion of the reference frame can't be responsible for the observed difference, so he obviously already really knew all this.

There's no shame in getting that wrong, because he'll be taught more and better about it as he progresses through school. Generally the arbitrary subjects are the hardest to live with because you just have to accept them as they are rather than 'understand'. Quantum mechanics is the same - you just have to accept the rules and apply the maths. Everyone struggles with it, even Feynman said "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."

The best way to reduce risk from taking, or getting caught with DMT is to not do it.

I'm glad to hear him at least mention negative effects, but he just glossed over them. In a video like this, I think the negative possibilities, physical and mental, need FAR more time and attention.

I do agree with him in that, if you are not certain this type of experience is for you, just don't do it. The mental/psychological damage can be severe and permanent. I also think it's a good idea to start with a tiny dose and build up if you MUST do it...but still not "safe".
That said, as a black market drug, you never know how pure what you have is, or what it's mixed with, and also the method you use changes the amount needed for effect. Simply saying '5mg is a good start dose' ignores all these facts.

Smoking steel wool, even course steel wool, can destroy your lungs. First, it's not pure, clean steel. Second, even the course steel wool partially vaporizes (fine steel wool will just burn, completely vaporizing). Steel vapor and lungs don't mix. Use glass.

His suggestions to use the drug in public (in the woods or at the beach) are TERRIBLE. I understand his thought process in suggesting peaceful environments, but if you're doing schedule 1 drugs, do them at home. This drug is IMPOSSIBLE to pretend you aren't on, or to act 'sober' while tripping, and if people see you on it and don't know what's happening (or maybe even if they do know), they'll almost certainly call the police. Getting caught with DMT is likely to ruin your life.

The quantum physics double slit experiment describes how light behaves under certain conditions, not how normal matter behaves...and also, atoms aren't made up of electrons, they're almost entirely protons and neutrons by weight. He should have stopped at 14 min. in my opinion. The rest made him look slightly insane and like he speaks with authority about things he doesn't understand very well.

I'm still waiting for the insightful invention someone comes up with after one of these amazing 'conversations' with non-human beings. If this drug really did what those into it claim, you would expect most users to be incredible 'outside the box' inventors advancing science in ways normal people would never consider...but I have not heard of even a single instance of that kind of useful insight coming from DMT.