My initial suspicion was the same as the host's - that the bottle was rocketing up and the cap was "overrun" by the rest of the bottle. That doesn't hold up to scrutiny since the cap "shrinks" back rather than staying still.

In their first explosion, the cap actually explodes very quickly after the burst. That seems relevant. I'm not sure how.

My second thought is along the "vacuum\low pressure" line of thinking. The entire bottle is pressurized in the instant of the explosion, and then ruptures at the bottom, so now the bottom of the bottle is lower pressure as water is rushing out, pulling the cap end down. Bernoulli principle, perhaps?
I imagine a bottle full of water, but it has no bottom. The water is rapidly and forcibly evacuated. The logical thing is for the cap to be crumpled downward.

Ooh, wait. Could this have something to do with the gas at the top of the bottle vs the liquid? I'm having flashbacks to the Mythbusters episode about the sinking car, and how the pressure of the water inside the car was lower than the outside as long as significant amount of air was left in the vehicle, so even though the water was up past the inside of the car door, it still couldn't be pushed open until the rest of the car had equalized. This seems relevant to me as well, though I'm not sure how, exactly.

The water is shooting out the bottom because of an explosion in between the bottom and the top. The force of the explosion is working in both directions, so water coming out the bottom is reacting to the same pressure was water in the top, and couldn't be drawing a vacuum from the other side of the explosion. Explosions pressurize in all directions.

To create a vacuum in the top, water would have to be creating suction by travelling down the bottle, away from the cap. Yet in frames 5-11 the collection of bubbles in the top half shrinks and stays in one place. That tells me that as the water shoots out the bottom, the water in the top half of the bottle isn't moving at all and remains pressurized by the explosion, so the evacuating water couldn't be creating a vacuum in the top.>> ^lucky760:

I would guess it's because of the vacuum created when that mass of water explodes out the bottom. In the instant it escapes, there needs to be something to fill the upper end of the bottle, so the top gets sucked down.
I'd wager that if they took off the cap the top of the bottle would no longer collapse (or if inadequate air was sucked in it would still collapse, but to a lesser degree).
But what do I know.

Bad Guys: Chevy Corvette, Cadillac Escalade
Good Guys: Chevy Camaro, Chevy Suburban or GMC Tahoe
Evacuating the Good Townsfolk: GMC TopKick schoolbuses.

Ineffective Pawns: Ford Crown Victoria

I wonder who paid for the cars?

Saw MIB3 this weekend on impulse. It was okay, wouldn't necessarily recommend it unless you want a seriously breezy and disposable movie. Definitely better than the 2nd one, which is not hard to do. If they make another one they need to open up the scale a bit. This movie's budget (admittedly with marketing) is reported at $250 million. That is insane. There are only two real money sequences: a chase to end act 2 that looks like the Obi-Wan and Darth Grievous chase in episode III, and the climax which takes place at the launch of the moon mission at Cape Canaveral in 1969 and looks a lot like Apollo 13.

This movie has some really dumb and small-scale choices. Smith's character is equipped with a device that requires him to plunge from a height in order to gain enough speed to "time-jump". The movie climaxes with Smith literally standing on top of the saturn rocket lifting off for the first manned moon landing. You'd think they'd have a money shot with Smith jumping off the rocket as it lifts off. Those things went pretty slow to start, you could survive the first 30 seconds it takes to get up to any kind of speed, and then jump off for an awesome looking stunt. Or, hell, if I were writing the movie, have him just stay on the rocket until it reaches the necessary ascent speed (something like 100 MPH or some shit.. I remember thinking it didn't sound far from 88MPH), which wouldn't take long after the rockets fire. Then Smith is transported into the future thousands of feet in the air and you have a post-climax gag where he's falling apparently to his death only to have Jones' character sweep in at the last second and save him in a flying car or flying alien bubble pod more likely. Smith's character would be like "How in DA HELL you know I was gonna falling through the air over Florida man!?!?" and Jones' character would put up the video feed that only MIB had access to of Smith riding the rocket and disappearing from 1969's POV. "We had a lot of eyes on that mission" or some shit. Do I have to write this crap for you Hollywood? It flies out of my butthole effortlessly. Instead Smith's character jumps into an evacuation basket and rides it down a zip-line... and this is not even filmed in an interesting way. A whole lot of this movie looked sort of non-commital, like 2nd unit did the whole thing.

They added a "poignant twist" to the time travel aspect which is the same problem with so many movie series these days... Star Wars, Star Trek, Spider-Man.. in a sequel, everything is revealed to have been previously connected.. connected from the start in fact! Oh yawn... more than 30 years later people are still trying to re-create the "I am your father" buzz from Empire Strikes Back. Always at the expense of cheapening the overall franchise and sapping meaning from the actions the characters took in preceeding films. What's worse, they layered on some spiritual/karmic hokum to support another cliche forced by executive interference.

It's crazy to think the first movie turns 15 years old this year. I thought it would be an eternal classic, but the last time I watched it, which might actually have been when MIB2 was coming out a whole ten years ago, it did not hold up.

Argumentum ad populum. A logical fallacy. It doesn't matter if billions of people believe a thing, it does NOT make it truth. Examples: people thought that the sun was a/the god, or people thought that rats spontaneously spawned from grain silos.

Did I ever say that because over 2 billion people are Christians, that makes it true? Though you could make a logical argument that, if God has revealed Himself to the world, and people are more inclined to follow truth than lies, that His religion would be the largest on Earth at any given time.


The definition for "evidence" that you used for your argument is only the definition as it relates to law (thus where it says "law"). Testimony is useful to us in order to piece together what happens for the purposes of trial law, but even then is highly faulty and is subject to the whims, mental health and capacity, subjective or erroneous observations, and other such mistakes or lies by those giving testimony. That is how people end up wrongfully jailed, and is also why you need much more evidence than just testimony in order to make a solid case against a defendant. Such testimonial evidence in a scientific context, or in a logical argument context, is immediately dismissible.

Are you really going to try to argue that personal testimony isn't evidence, or couldn't convince you of something? If you were in a building, and someone came running in screaming that there was a bomb in the basement and everyone needs to evacuate immediately, would you demand that he take you to the location of the bomb so you could empirically verify his claim before you would leave? No, you would consider his personal testimony to be sufficient and leave the area.

The definition you're looking for is anecdotal evidence, and believe it or not, it can qualify as scientific evidence. Read any medical journal and you will find anecdotal evidence printed very routinely. Anecdotal evidence doesn't qualify as proof, but I never said my personal testimony would prove anything to you. What I did say is that it qualifies as evidence, which it does, both in a legal and scientific sense. In the scientific sense, weakly, but that doesn't diminish its veracity, except perhaps in the eyes of those whose worldview is married to the idea that empirical verification is the only means of acquiring truth, a claim in itself which, ironically, cannot be empirically verified.

Similarly, the fact that our laws state that a person is innocent until proven guilty (ideally, in the U.S., at least) is an example of how the burden of proof MUST lie with the parties making the claim for guilt. Much in the same way that you MUST provide real, tangible evidence for the claims that you, and the Bible make. Your personal experiences, or the fact that a billion people agree with you is NOT evidence of anything. Example: The entire country was certain of the guilt of Casey Anthony, but lawyers were not able to build a case solid enough to convince a jury. Likewise for the Duke Lacrosse team rape trial. Thankfully, we require more than the incessant bellowing of Nancy Grace to convict a person.

What would you consider to be real, tangible evidence? I've never heard an atheist actually define what this would be. I assume it would be a personal encounter with Jesus Christ. Well, that is what I am telling you in the first place, that you can know Him personally. That Jesus will reveal Himself to you if you seek Him out and give your life to Him. A simple question: If Jesus is God, would you serve Him?

I, frankly, am not interested in arguing anything that the Bible says that God/Jesus supposedly said, unless you can first prove to me that it is the definite, infallible word of a god, and not a bunch of stories written and compiled by men who knew nothing of the universe beyond what they could misinterpret from their eyes and imagination, or who wanted to be able to control a populace by introducing divine rules. Which, of course, is something you cannot do without using circular arguments to refer back to how the Bible tells us that the Bible is true, or by referring to emotional pleas, personal experiences, offshoots of Pascal's Wager, or many other logical fallacies which fall apart as relevant proof of anything at their very inception. This, I believe, is what we are trying to get across to you.

The main point scripture makes about non-believers is this:

That you already know there is a God, and who He is, but you're suppressing the truth in wickedness. That God has made it plain to you, to the extent that when you are standing before Him on judgment day, you won't have any excuse. It's not my responsibility to prove anything to you, because you already know. My job is to tell you the gospel and pray that God would have mercy on you and open your eyes.

There is one thing I can prove to you, which is that without God you can't prove anything. I'll demonstrate this to you if you can answer a few questions:

1. Is it impossible that God exists?
2. Could God reveal Himself to someone so that they could know it for certain?
3. Could you be wrong about everything you know?

>> ^Sketch:

>> ^RadHazG:

Naturally its a large pod. Plenty of room for compressed slow release breathable air tanks. We send air with men on spacewalks, we can surely keep a large capsule with 6 people filled for a while.
>> ^saber2x:
what happens when the oxygen in your pod runs out over Kansas seeing your in a vacuum tube?



And they kind of need air in the vehicle too..... like, a lot of it? Never mind the spacewalks. As in, that's of no concern.

LOlolololol
In reply to this comment by messenger:
You might do at least minimal research before calling someone wrong:

"A vatrain is a maglev train run through an evacuated tunnel." -- The Whole Internet>> ^MycroftHomlz:

You're Wrong Charlie, you get no lifetime supply of chocolate. They actually only said in the video magnets make it go up. They did not say it was a maglev train. These are entirely different animals. It is called evacuated tube because of a vacuum. Thanks for the physics lesson though.
>> ^shole:
as said in the video, the cars don't move by sucking it through a straw, but by magnetic levitation....

You might do at least minimal research before calling someone wrong:

"A vatrain is a maglev train run through an evacuated tunnel." -- The Whole Internet>> ^MycroftHomlz:

You're Wrong Charlie, you get no lifetime supply of chocolate. They actually only said in the video magnets make it go up. They did not say it was a maglev train. These are entirely different animals. It is called evacuated tube because of a vacuum. Thanks for the physics lesson though.
>> ^shole:
as said in the video, the cars don't move by sucking it through a straw, but by magnetic levitation....

>> ^budzos:

>> ^deathcow:
refer to the 1976 book "A world out of time" By Larry Niven

Wow that looks awesome. I'm gonna get a copy.


Go to book store (or amazon, kindle or otherwise),
follow aisles until "Larry Niven" section found,
purchase a copy of everything found there,
win.

>> ^MycroftHomlz:

You're Wrong Charlie, you get no lifetime supply of chocolate. They actually only said in the video magnets make it go up. They did not say it was a maglev train. These are entirely different animals. It is called evacuated tube because of a vacuum. Thanks for the physics lesson though.
>> ^shole:
as said in the video, the cars don't move by sucking it through a straw, but by magnetic levitation....



The tube contains a vacuum, meaning there's no air to push or pull you forward. It must use maglev propulsion as well. The lack of air allows you to go 6500km/h without burning up or causing sonic booms.

>> ^deathcow:

refer to the 1976 book "A world out of time" By Larry Niven


Wow that looks awesome. I'm gonna get a copy.

Your video, Evacuated Tube Transport: Around the World in 6 Hours, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

You're Wrong Charlie, you get no lifetime supply of chocolate. They actually only said in the video magnets make it go up. They did not say it was a maglev train. These are entirely different animals. It is called evacuated tube because of a vacuum. Thanks for the physics lesson though.

>> ^shole:

as said in the video, the cars don't move by sucking it through a straw, but by magnetic levitation....

Thanks for the promote!
In reply to this comment by MycroftHomlz:
*promote

Why couldn't it be cheap to maintain a vacuum? It doesn't have to be anywhere near a total vacuum (which is mechanically impossible, BTW), just a relative vacuum. Any reduction in air density results in decreased air resistance, and increased top speed. I don't know the physics of it, but I'm guessing that even a 50% air density vacuum would result in a massive top speed increase. In a perfect vacuum, the theoretical top speed would be (acceleration force) x (track length). This 6,500 km/h number may be a limit imposed only by how good a vacuum they think can be reliably produced.

And about safety, obviously the track wouldn't be built in a bare tube that could dent or break. The tube could be whatever material, but then encased in something else and/or buried so nothing could fall on it/crash into it/etc. Before it went into operation, for consumer confidence (and even before production, for investor confidence) it would have to be demonstrated that the structure is strong enough to withstand any reasonably foreseeable event. I'd be mostly worried about earthquakes, personally, especially when crossing the Pacific.

Just like with aviation and normal trains, it will have its growing pains and regular disasters, but I bet it ends up being on par safety-wise with flight, and significantly cheaper, given the fuel savings.>> ^shole:

as said in the video, the cars don't move by sucking it through a straw, but by magnetic levitation
they draw the air out of the tubes and use magnets to speed it up, which is very efficient due to lack of air friction
there's a ton of problems with this though
it would need to be (relatively) airtight and stable throughout
that can't be too cheap, whatever the material
constant maintenance
what if there was an external accident that dents the tube, like a failing support structure, and the train-car later comes to that dent at this huge speed?
it would be worse than a plane coming apart midair
great for scifi, but i don't see it being reality any time soon