This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by ant.

Adding video to channels (Timeshift) - requested by ant.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Golf-ball-deformation-at-70-000-fps

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by eric3579. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Had to read up on it: http://www.skepdic.com/skeptimedia/skeptimedia105.html

A response to the article mentions this insight:
"He has some kind of odd skin deformation - his skin sample was clinically tested at VMA (Military Medical Center) in Belgrade and was found to have two skin layers less than a normal person. He also has no sweat glands (as you noted in your article) and also no hair, eyelashes, eyebrows, and so on.

His skin is very dry and its electrical resistance is extremely high, which enables him to hold wires under high voltage with practically no current flowing through his body. [Note: current = voltage/resistance. "Under dry conditions, the resistance offered by the human body may be as high as 100,000 Ohms."* ]

There are also some side effects of lacking sweat glands: when it is hot outside, he can not go for a walk without a wet t-shirt or some other cooling tool, otherwise his life would be threatened.

I also saw the video demonstration linked in your article, and I have to say that it is more sensational than truthful - the current is NOT coming "straight through his body" but through the electric wires straight from the electrical outlet, clearly visible on the video. His body is just a good insulator which mechanically holds conductors (forks) and nothing more than that. The reason for this misunderstanding is certainly the ignorance of Ohm's law and the relation between electrical current and voltage. Everybody can do the same thing if he has rubber gloves - or Biba's skin, which is the same.

There are also claims that he can direct electrical current through his body as he wishes, generate electrical current, switch on and off a nearby electrical appliance by his mind, and so on, but there is no evidence for those claims. "

@enoch, I didn't see your response to me since you didn't "reply" to me, or "message me" ("@Trancecoach"), so I'm just seeing this now:

> you argue like someone who has found religion.

What is this, then, if not ad hominem? What has religion got to do with economics in this context? I'm willing to change my mind, if you can show me the flaws in my argument.

> and its not just you that never wants to address the dark side of capitalism.

So, please tell me what didn't get 'addressed?' Did I not respond to every point in your post? Where are your replies to my reply?

> disciples of free market capitalism never want to talk about their deformed child
> locked in the upstairs bedroom.out of sight..out of mind.

Again, what wasn't addressed? Free market capitalists love to talk about free market capitalism. Ok. So are you stuck on this such that you're unable to read/respond to my response?

Seems to me that you're projecting, because while you say that my responses are like a 'sermon,' this portion of your post actually sounds like a sermon:

> every system has its flaws.
> both positive and negative.
> and no system is a rigid single dimension but rather varying layers of slight
> differences.
> this includes every political and economic system thought of or just living in the
> realm of dreams.
> it is through discussion with people we may disagree in which new ideas can breed
> and grow.
> this was my ultimate goal in talking with you.
> instead i get a sermon.
> hope has two daughters.
> anger and courage.
> anger at the way things are,and courage to change them.
> i havent had a beer in ten years.
> gonna go grab me a beer or two.
> what a silly,sad old man i have become.
> old men should stop dreaming.....

Let's not degrade the level of discourse to ad hominem or sob stories. If you need help, ask for help. But don't blame me if you relapse. We are all accountable for our own thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.

> old men should stop dreaming

Dream all you want, but don't expect everyone else to take your dreams seriously just because you say so. (Why not address any of the points I made in my response?)

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the
average voter." ~ Winston Churchill

I'm at a loss as to what response I can give you that would 'appease' your sensibilities? As far as I could tell, all of your questions were addressed. But you ignored my reply, and went back to "no one wants to talk about it" or whatever. So, what can be said?

It seems like you don't really want to "debate" or "converse" or whatever. If I refute your arguments, then you interpret that as meaning that I don't want to talk about it. Did I get that right? That doesn't make much sense to me. If not, please explain what I am missing here.

Also, what does it matter if you are old or young, or a dreamer or not, in terms of getting to the truth about socialism and capitalism?

> but you are blinded by dogma.

If so, why not show me what part of my argument is dogmatic or not epistemologically sound?
For example, what specifically about the right to and/or preference for non-aggression is 'dogmatic?' I don't like being bullied, so does that make me dogmatic? What about the impossibility of economic calculation under any sort of socialism is 'dogmatic?' And how so?

If someone doesn't understand calculus, they might call it 'dogma.' But if you understand it, then you can look at the equations and see for yourself if they make mathematical sense (or not). Was Galileo's contention that the Earth orbits the Sun dogmatic? What about the assertion that the Sun orbits the Earth, was that dogmatic? What's the difference?

> it is through discussion with people we may disagree in which new ideas can breed
> and grow. this was my ultimate goal in talking with you.

This is all very nice, but did you bother to find out what my 'ultimate goal' in talking to you was? Or is it all about yours?

Some-but-not-all people get upset when you point out how their beliefs do not correspond to the facts. Socrates was sentenced to commit suicide and Galileo died under house arrest.

I won't say whether or not this is true, or applies in this instance.

> every system has its flaws. both positive and negative. and no system is a rigid
> single dimension but rather varying layers of slight differences. this includes every
> political and economic system thought of or just living in the realm of dreams.

This, in itself is a dogmatic statement.

Look, man. I like you. I appreciate your comments, your earnestness, and willingness to engage our discourse. I also appreciate your respect and appreciation (although I can't say I'm sure how I've earned or deserved it). You've apologized for what seems to me to be ad hominem and I appreciate and accept your apology. I, too, apologize if you seem that I've been terse or avoidant in authentic engagement in dialogue with you. But in keeping with the points and arguments themselves, I think we'll both be much better off in terms of learning and growing and avoiding going off-track or off-topic into commentary about the messenger as opposed to the message.

sighs..nevermind man.
the fact that you thought i was throwing ad-homs at ya or calling you names is all i need to know.

you argue like someone who has found religion.
the vernacular is different but the style is the same.
hence my light hearted evangelical reference.
sorry you thought that was a dig at you.
already told ya i respected and admired you.

discussions to me are always about understanding.i learned a ton from you and truly appreciate the time.

but you didnt convert me.

and its not just you that never wants to address the dark side of capitalism.
disciples of free market capitalism never want to talk about their deformed child locked in the upstairs bedroom.out of sight..out of mind.

every system has its flaws.
both positive and negative.
and no system is a rigid single dimension but rather varying layers of slight differences.
this includes every political and economic system thought of or just living in the realm of dreams.

it is through discussion with people we may disagree in which new ideas can breed and grow.
this was my ultimate goal in talking with you.
instead i get a sermon.

hope has two daughters.
anger and courage.
anger at the way things are,and courage to change them.

i foolishly believed that you and i could have a conversation that would ignite the spark of ideas.
that through discussion and debate something new and exciting could be born.
capitalism has its problems.
as does socialism.
we need something better.

but you are blinded by dogma.
and i am just an old fool.
a silly old dreamer who really should have known better.

i sincerely apologize that you felt i was calling you names.

i havent had a beer in ten years.
gonna go grab me a beer or two.
what a silly,sad old man i have become.
old men should stop dreaming.....

It takes energy to deform/compress the block in order to make room for the bullet. I think the bullet travels further into the block when it hits head on. When the bullet hits off to the side, some of the energy is able to be spent on rotating the block instead of compressing the block.

Essentially my guess is that the bullet can only transfer so much kinetic energy to accelerate the block upwards. Above that threshold it finds other ways of disposing of this energy. Why this threshold/diminishing return might exist idk.

So yeah, I think there must be some change in the efficiency of the transfer of energy in the two examples. Does smacking the bullet right in the centre create more sound? Does the bullet deform/heat up more in the first example because the block simple can't get out of the way fast enough? You'd think that spinning a block would take comparitively little energy compared to all those other inefficiencies. Perhaps if you were to increase the velocity of the bullet you might not see that large of a difference in the height it rises - rather the block would sustain more damage, the slug would pancake more etc etc.

It does seem raher counter-intuitive though. I'd like to know the explanation.

Sickle-Cell Anemia is similar with a slight twist. The disease is caused by a mutation of a gene for haemoglobin, which deforms and causes the red blood cells to take on a sickle shape. In the case of SCA the gene has more than one dominant allele, known as codominance (I think thats also why hair colours "mix", but dont quote me on that). As a result carriers of the disease have one copy of the mutated gene and one healthy copy. They produce healthy AND deformed sickle shaped red blood cells. Carriers with this heterozygous form are practically free from symptons of the full disease and while not immune to malaria they are more resistant. Strangely, and for reasons I dont fully understand, those with the full disease are still vulnerable to Malaria, or at least malaria makes the symptoms of SCA worse.

Unsurprisingly SCA is fairly common in parts of Africa where Malaria claims a lot of lives. It would be a pretty amazing adaption if it were not for the 25% chance that any child between two carriers suffered from the full disease.

Now for my somewhat related story:
I tried the "natural" Malaria remedy in Kenya. The Masai guide had this huge grin on his face when he offered it to me that in hindsight should have definitely tipped me off. I'm guessing it was quinene based because it was so bitter that I wretched it and a fair portion of my breakfast up and out on the spot. He made it up later when he found some wild honey (you know, as you do - Masai ftw) to take the taste away.

That right-side wheel fairing on that last fast straight was deforming more than I'd like at that speed!

The VHS deformations to the text sold it for me.

Very well done.

Probably so deformed that it rapidly loses energy after the initial impact.

Matthew 16:26 What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?

It is written that in the last days, knowledge will increase, but it doesn't mention anything about wisdom. You can see that very clearly in the world system, that for all of mans hubris regarding his accomplishments, the character of man has not changed one iota. The evil that is done in this world is symptomatic of a disease that has no modern cure, which is called sin, and all who sin are slaves to sin. This is why Jesus came into the world, to free men from slavery to sin and death. Investigating 4 alpha decay sets and why the neptunium set doesn't appear in nature is never going to reveal that to you. There is no knowledge that you can gain from studying the natural world which is going to solve the problem of sin; it is only Jesus Christ who has solved this problem.

Yes, you're correct, the bible is not a science book; it is a salvation book. God inspires men to do great things in science; just ask Newton. Yet there are two questions science cannot answer; why am I here, and what happens after I die? No experiment will give you any revelation on these matters. They are the most important questions, and Jesus did answer them. He said we are here because God created us to be in fellowship with Him, and there will be a judgment after we die that determines where we end up. That is why, if Satan came to your door and gave you a deed to all of the nations of the world and all of their wealth (hundreds of trillions at the least), in exchange for your soul, you would have made an unprofitable deal. Everything in this world is perishing and will pass away, but those who do the will of God will abide forever.



>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^shinyblurry:
1 Corinthians 1:18-21
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know God, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

What does the bible have to say about the 4 alpha decay sets and why the neptunium set doesn't appear in nature? Problem is, the bible doesn't really answer any scientific questions, nor does it give any useful tools into discovering how the world works. So while I still hold that Corinthians has the best definition of love, it can't give you an understanding of the bio-chemical-neurological goings on of love, and has to deal with deformities of the working order of the body with the deus ex machina of demons. No one prayed the printing press into existence so you could even have a bible in written form, or a keyboard and the internet, or medicine, or refrigeration. Anyone who can't agree that science and technology vastly improve the quality of life on the planet more than any one other thing, including religion, has a large burden of evidence to overcome, imo. While I don't go as far as Bill Maher kind of people and say that religion is bad (I think it does do a lot of good), I will say that I think STEM has done most of the heavy lifting in our modern world in terms of doing good.

>> ^shinyblurry:

1 Corinthians 1:18-21
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know God, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.


What does the bible have to say about the 4 alpha decay sets and why the neptunium set doesn't appear in nature? Problem is, the bible doesn't really answer any scientific questions, nor does it give any useful tools into discovering how the world works. So while I still hold that Corinthians has the best definition of love, it can't give you an understanding of the bio-chemical-neurological goings on of love, and has to deal with deformities of the working order of the body with the deus ex machina of demons. No one prayed the printing press into existence so you could even have a bible in written form, or a keyboard and the internet, or medicine, or refrigeration. Anyone who can't agree that science and technology vastly improve the quality of life on the planet more than any one other thing, including religion, has a large burden of evidence to overcome, imo. While I don't go as far as Bill Maher kind of people and say that religion is bad (I think it does do a lot of good), I will say that I think STEM has done most of the heavy lifting in our modern world in terms of doing good.

>> ^messenger:

I think you're onto something, but to me it looks a bit different. I downloaded it have been looking at the individual frames. The deformation wave from the bottom doesn't reach the top until after the bottle is too deformed by other forces. The top of the bottle, including the cap, started moving into the bottle in frame 2 of the explosion. In that same frame, you can see one point that's not moving in about half-way between the cap and the wide part all the way around. It looks like a bulge going out almost as fast as the top is coming in. That bulge forms the leading wave of the rest of the bottle coming up. If the cavitation was powerful enough to suck the top of the bottle in, surely it would also be strong enough to also suck the (much weaker) sides of the bottle in too, especially the point where the bulge starts, but in fact, the opposite happens.
You gonna tell Destin? If you don't, I will.>> ^Boise_Lib:
My thought is that the top area is slightly thicker and stronger. As the bottle circumference deforms outward it pulls the top down. It seems the top only comes down after the bottle is already ruptured by the pressure wave--that's why I think the pressure isn't affecting the top.



My hypothesis is easily falsifiable. If the top half of a bottle had an expandable jig placed into it and the outer circumference of the top 1/3 of the bottle was stressed outward would the top portion be pulled down?

If you want to communicate with Destin be my guest--but I want credit when they hand out the Nobel.