"Bike stunts" hardly describes this parade of miracles.
I'm fairly certain a few of those defied the laws of physics.
When riding standing up, backwards, while juggling is one of the tamest of your"stunts", you've earned yourself a *quality and a *promote

I am glad you pointed this out, because it looked very real to me, no joke. The thing that tipped me off was the first traffic circle, and I thought, "no one goes that slow or stops in a traffic circle". And then I noticed one or two vehicles violate the laws of physics, and I started to wonder.

I was going to call 'fake' but his instagram is full of videos like this.

I had no idea that the laws of physics had no grasp on RC choppers.

So...I see people are selling their soul for super natural rc helicopter skills. I'm pretty sure he just broke a few laws of physics.

Despite its laughable conception of the laws of physics, this was way fun.

Actually, matter does appear and disappear from and to nothing. There are energy fields that permeate space, and when their potential gets too high, they collapse and eject a particle. Similarly, particles can be destroyed or decay and upon that event they cause a spike in the background energy fields.

One of the essential functions of a collier is to compress a bunch of crap into a tiny spot, so that when enough decays in that specific spot it will cause such a local spike in energy that new particles must subsequently be ejected (particles that are produced at some calculated energy level - different energy levels producing different ejections).

*This is at the subatomic level. Large collections of matter don't just convert to energy.

I know plenty of people roll eyes at that, but the math upon which those machines are built are using the same math that makes things like modern lithography machines work (they manipulate tiny patterns of molecules). You basically prove the math every time you use a cell phone (thing with modern micro chips).

...

But that's beside the point. If there ever was 'nothing', the question isn't "whether or not god exists to have made things" - it's "why do things exist". God could be an answer. As could infinite other possibilities.

...

Personally, eternity is the answer I assume is most likely to be correct. Because you don't have to prove anything. The universe need not be static - but if something was always there (even just energy fields), then there is an eternity in one form or anther.

Background energy and quantum tunneling are a neat concept (referring to metastability). Because you can have a big-bang like event if the background energy level tunnels to a lower state, expanding a new space starting at that point, re-writing the laws of physics in its area of existence. Meaning that our universe as we know it can simply be one of many bubbles of expanding tunneling events - created at the time of the event, and due to be overwritten by another at some point. Essentially a non-permanent local what-we-percieve-as-a-universe, among many. (I'm avoiding the concept that time and space are relative to each bubble, and there is no concept of an overarching time and place outside of any one event).

(All this comes from taking formulas that model measurements of reality, globing them into larger models, and then exploring the limits of those models at extreme values/limits. ... with a much lagging experimental base slowly proving and disproving elements of the model (and forcing model refinement upon a disproval, so that the model encompasses the new test data))

-scheherazade

There's a difference between ignoring the laws of physics for a gag and sloppy animation that just gets them wrong.

Not speaking for @Drachen_Jager, but he seems to be saying that this animation is guilty of the latter as well as the former.

To me it initially looked exaggerated for effect, and certainly not aiming to be realistic, but I'm not an animator professional or otherwise. I will be going back to watch it again more carefully in light of these comments!

1. If not for taste, then you must be doing it because you've been mislead (like I was) to think it's a nutritional requirement. There is zero nutritional reason to eat animals for the majority of people on this planet. Perhaps habit is involved, but nothing that can't be broken if you want to. 99.9% of vegans were not vegan.


2. There is no gene in the human body which specifically makes you eat meat or drink milk. The chemical reaction that makes you crave certain foods is influenced by the foods you eat. In a hypothetical survival situation, eat all of the animals you need to, but we don't live in that situation.


3. I'm a middle-class person just like the majority of the westerners. I wasn't vegan for the first 30 years or so of my life. If I can do it, I know anyone can, they simply must want to. There is no financial, professional, geographical reason for everyone apart from those living in extreme conditions in western society to not become vegan. The reason why I say western society is because not only is western society the biggest cause of this (poor countries are already plant based, using very few animal products comparatively), but because westerners have the opportunity to do it easily.
The only difficult part is finding out correct information, because animal industry groups love to create clouds of doubt by funding misleading research and advertising. But the information is now out there on the internet.


4. It's a nice thought, but until those ideal conditions are reality, we must look at what action we can take now.


5. You don't need to grow your own food, farmers do that for you, and there will be plenty of land free'd up since 70% of all farm land is currently used to feed livestock.


6. There is protein (including the 9 essential amino acids) in almost every edible plant - vegetable, grain, rice, potato, nut and fruit. That simply eating enough to not be hungry means you eat enough protein. You don't need to eat the 3 gluten sources to meet your daily protein requirements. Even if everyone apart from those with celiac disease became vegan, the impact to the planet would be immense, because it's not a common thing. (I'm guessing you must get annoyed with the current trend of hipsters avoiding gluten, when they don't have celiacs or have not had an intestinal biopsy to confirm it).

7. I think it's fair to say that there is very little risk, when the alternative is eating a well documented carcinogen (meat, especially processed meat, see the World Health Organisation). Surely not giving yourself cancer is a good reason to avoid meat?

8. We can philosophize about minute details of sentience, or something like abortion, but really that is say like we shouldn't drive cars because we don't fully understand the laws of physics. We know enough about physics to improve our way life. It's the same about veganism, we know farm animals are mistreated, we know they feel pain and misery, and they have a will to live, so lets fix that first, and then we can philosophize about sentience.


9. It's not about the people that don't have a choice, it's about the people that do, and the majority of people do have a choice, that is the point.


10. Again there is protein in everything you eat - how do you think a chicken or cow get's it's protein? From plants!

That is sort of right. Basically it is a law of physics, Boyle's law. The larger balloon has a lot more space for the air particles in it to move around, meaning less pressure (to a point). The small balloon has very little space, creating a condition of higher pressure, causing the air particles to seek a larger space to move into.

I went through that and suffered under a depression of knowing it, but then i underwent a brand new realisation when i was studying physics. The realisation that in actual fact, nobody on Earth has ever had a better idea about what happens when you die than anybody else. There's no experienced or authoritative perspective on that. It occurred to me because i asked the smartest man i know where he thought existence came from and he said "ask a philosopher".

Everyone's thoughts on it are either an imaginative guess (with no view point being better than the other) or a so-called educated guess based on the laws of physical reality. Well, the laws of physical reality only explain what we can observe (by definition) and furthermore at least some laws have been broken in unusual situations (where did everything appear from/happen from if there is energy conservation in the universe?). Not necessarily an educated guess in other words.

I recognise the way you talk about your 'realisation' with an air of finality, as though you have truly found the final answer. But i ask you, because i have spent my life wondering and years studying - what do you really know about what happens or why we are here?

I think it is equally likely to be a non-existence as it is to be an obscure, impossible to understand, trans-humanist wet dream. Literally anything is possible, and the only reason we limit ourselves to "god" or "nothingness" is because we're so used to waking up and seeing this undeniably weird and wonderful reality that we one day found ourselves existing in. I put it to you that it would be no more remarkable or unlikely to find ourselves in a second, entirely different kind of reality afterwards.

He said that they do, and that it's due to the laws of physics. Check out the diagrams at the start (discussion from 1:29 to 4:40).

I'll keep this fairly brief for once but, why is everyone so hung up on the idea that the theoretical "simulation" is somehow distinct from "reality"?

To put it another way, what are the laws of physics themselves?

We do appear to inhabit a reality defined by laws we can describe mathematically. The mathematical models may be abstracted, but whatever they describe is presumably in some sense analogous in its "true" nature right? (even if we can't get at it directly)

If you take the leap into thinking that reality may be more mathematical than physical in nature (or rather that "physical" is a property of what we could think of as mathematical phenomena interacting in the right way), then questions about who's computer were in kind of become moot.

If reality itself is fundamentally mathematical in nature, we don't need a computer in which to run it, so much as reality itself is the computer.

I really don't think it's an either or thing, more like a shift in how we think about the concept of "reality" itself. Even if an experiment could prove that the universe is holographic in nature, it needn't change anything about it's validity as a "real" thing.

The "simulation" and "reality" needn't be mutually exclusive, merely different ways of understanding the same phenomenon i.e. that we exist and experience things.

The difference being my lenses are designed to show reality, and can self correct when a flaw is discovered. Religion glasses are fixed lenses that distort what you see intentionally.
You can't prove it only because you can't examine everything you can apply the scientific method to, but every time it's been applied to a problem/question, it has been the best method tried to answer the question, no matter what other methods are tried.
Please, explain the 'assumptions' you speak of. The assumption that reality is real, and what we measure is also real? I'm happy to make that assumption, and will admit that it is one, but a base one must assume if you wish to have a chance of understanding the real world. If you don't believe reality is real, you have little place in science, as it only attempts to explain reality.
The 'problem of induction' sure seems a misunderstanding of science, which does NOT say the laws of physics are immutable, or that a series of measurements PROVES a pattern that will continue. The laws of physics were different at and near the big bang, and patterns change. Science knows this, and accounts for it, in fact, science discovered it.
Of course I have a world view, but it is not rigid as your is. I can assimilate new information to modify my world view as it becomes available, you can not, you must modify the information to fit your view.
When my 'sources of information' are data from random experiments and studies of phenomena, they are NOT selected because they agree with my assumptions, they just happen to agree with them (usually) because I had good teachers that give me a good base to make assumptions from, and when I see the assumption is wrong, I toss it. It happens...just not about religion.
You don't listen to me seriously, because you're mind is made up, I don't listen to you seriously because you're a fallible human and can't possibly know the things you claim to 'know', nor can you prove the unprovable, and trying is a total waste of time.
Tell god to get off his ass and show me then, and we can stop all this BS...until he proves the unprovable to me, it will remain unproven.
Your awe at reality is not proof of anything except your awe, no matter how much you wish it to be proof of god. My awe at beauty is simply awe, nothing more.
I'm not looking at your last video link, I've spent WAY too much time on this already, for nothing. You can't admit you even might be wrong, and can't ever prove you're even partially right (I've explained why)...so Good night.

Shiny,
Yes, intelligent design is a valid theory, but 'Intelligent Design' is not. You know the difference, right?
So far, the only evidence I've ever seen or heard about of 'intelligent design' in biology is in the manipulated biology we humans have designed.
Intelligent design applies to anything WE design, it is not inherent to either chemistry or astrophysics themselves, nor is it a term used in either field.
No, it's not possible to completely DISPROVE the hypothesis, but you must look for it through religion colored glasses to see even the most tenuous evidence of it, without that filter, it's not visible anywhere. It's also not possible for you to prove that golden monkeys don't fly from my anus when you aren't looking, but masquerade perfectly as turds when looked at directly, but you would not believe me if I said that's what happens, even if I had a book that said so, right?
The laws of physics are not "finely tuned" (already implying an 'unseen hand') to allow for life, it's more like life evolved to exist in the conditions present. There's no 'fine tuning' going on, life that couldn't exist in the conditions found doesn't exist, life that could may or may not.

Because you start from a point of "god exists and designed all" and search for things that even loosely fit that hypothesis by looking through religion tinted glasses, you find it. Because I don't have that filter to see the universe through, and do not accept 'unknown mystery' or coincidence as proof of 'god' and/or his hand, they will always be invisible and indeed un-necessary and so not believed in by me, just like my brothers invisible friend.


As I've said many a time, if god exists, he's certainly going to amazingly great lengths to remain unknown, unseen, unfelt, unheard, and un-needed by me and billions of others, and misunderstood by even more.

Because unbelievable hypothesis require indisputable proof, you must know it's impossible for YOU to convince me. Even if 'god' popped into my living room and took me on a sightseeing tour of the universe, I would still say "he" could be an advanced alien, not a deity, and require proof of divinity rather than technology or simple advanced knowledge or ability. If "He" is omnipotent, he knows that, understands that, and only 'he' is capable of proving that, or even knowing how it might be proven....but has failed to do so to date one tiny whit. I'll wait for him to pop in and prove it to me. Until then, thanks kindly for your 'soul saving' effort just the same, but it's never going to succeed. I do appreciate it's done with good intentions...but you do know what they say about good intentions, don't you?

Your entire theory of the universe is speculation....including your theory on what I'm OK with. Certainly your theory on deities and the after life...complete and total speculation based on belief, not fact.
I find this video's hypothesis terrible. Because a measured physical property is near what they say they expect it might be if we artificially created the universe implies they know what the constraints of a mythical artificial simulated universe are (that's impossible, if it's an artificial creation, there are no constraints other than those programmed in, and they could be ANYTHING if the programmer is writing the laws of the universe/physics).

Therefore, I am NOT OK with the HYPOTHESIS that the universe is a computer program or designed by a designer (other than the 'designer' that is the laws of physics). I find it a silly blind guess about something we can't possibly know about without creating one ourselves, and even then we'll only know about the one way we did it, not the possible ways it could happen.

A programmer would certainly not be a god to me, but I'm not prone to deifying that which I don't understand. It MAY be a mysterious being (or not), that doesn't make it god anymore than I'm god to my dog. Because some dogs are gullible enough to believe their master might be a god does not make him/her one. The same goes for unknown properties of the universe. Some people may believe the unknown is somehow proof of the divine, that simply does not make it true, or even reasonable.