wow,this video is getting way more comments than expected.

some are saying the semi sped up.
i do not see any evidence of this.if this trucker shifted and hit the gas..you would know it,i am partially deaf and i would know it.
i do,however,see conditions further up that precipitate the lane slowing down,which of course will give the illusion the trucker is speeding up.

i am not that interested in the legalese as some of you are,considering that lawful right or wrong are meaningless when people can die.

i am far more concerned with safety.
maybe if the trucker was not on the phone he would have noticed captain retard inching in and could have responded appropriately i.e:downshift..let off the gas.(NOT jam the brakes,unless you want a scene from the A-team).

conclusion=fail

maybe if speedy gonzales didn't treat a 40 ton big rig as a normal 2 ton car that had the ability to defy the laws of physics and just assumed that he/she would be let in by mr nice rig master,maybe they would not have 5k worth of body work on their car.

conclusion=fail

this could have gone so much worse than it did,and for that i am glad.

it still bothers me how some drivers deal with semi big-rigs.they truly are clueless and endanger not only themselves but everybody on the highway around them by their impatient and selfish driving.

You are most likely correct that that is not what most people think, because most people simply don't think.

Wow...so any mystic, people generally regarded as useless for any other profession, should be given more weight than anyone who ever graced a stage, no matter what other credentials they may possess? I don't believe that is what most people think, not even most religious people.

Any functioning eye can see itself if you have a mirror. A sword can cut itself if you melt/bend it. ;-)

It seems that you think god had the option to create a perfect universe, but chose not to. If 'he' is omniscient, he does know how it will turn out. (side note, all BUT ONE of those infinite possibilities would be imperfection, but why would 'he' not choose perfection?)

The elegant function of the universe is no proof or even indication of any intelligence behind it, but is only proof of elegance of the laws of physics/nature. No intelligence or designer required for this elegance, and I think the need to have an anthropomorphized "creator" take credit is just a way to feel that somehow humans (which most would say 'he' created the universe for, and/or are made in 'his' image), and therefore you are, in some way, very like the 'creator' and deserving of misusing the universe in any way you see fit.

Non theists do not get mad at god anymore than you get mad at Santa for not bringing you what you want, or leprechauns for not handing you their gold. We get mad at people acting ridiculously, giving credit to phantoms for explainable events, confusing fact with myth, confusing impressionable undereducated people, wasting valuable time with nonsense and non sequitur (often simply as a method to obstruct change), and standing in the way of progress, both scientific and societal. We don't think god fails our standard (except the standard of reality or the requirement of actual existence), we think the very IDEA of god fails along with every definition or description...every time it's examined honestly....no matter which god you choose to examine.

Also.., he's a freekin' Toon. Toons are not bound by our puny laws of physics!

I got all the way to 1:45 and could no longer listen to this clap trap. It's total BS 'science' put forth by someone who obviously does not understand the science he's 'explaining'.
As has been mentioned, nothing was 'dialed in' because physics forces values to remain in a narrow range. That's anthropomorphizing the laws of physics, and is simply ridiculous.
If the speed of light were different by a 'hairs breadth', it would change nothing. (I'll say that definitively because it is different depending on the medium the light travels through, btw)
If gravity were different, yes, the universe might be ever expanding or eventually collapsing, that does not erase the possibility of life, it only puts a time limit on the period that it might exist, under our current understanding of what's required for life. It might not actually limit life at all.
I hate pseudo science videos created by non scientific people with a purpose to confuse other non scientific minds into believing insanity. Downvote!

The platypus was the joke part. (I think you got that);-)
Please...first that's not proving a negative. That's about understanding the definition of a word....and second it is wrong...divorced men without children (but that had been married) are bachelors, married men with a bachelor's degree are bachelors, young married knights that follow another's banner are bachelors, as are married landless knights. D'OH! ;-)
I don't have to prove the universe isn't designed, nor do I say anything that definitive. (because one could say that the laws of physics are a form of design, so in that sense I do think the universe is 'designed', but not by a 'designer god'). If you feel the need for others like me to believe as you, it's up to you to prove it IS designed, and by who.
I do say there's no need for a 'designer', and it seems incredibly unlikely as well as completely unnecessary. I will also say all I've heard about 'god' only references stories told by men long ago (or anecdote), and trying to 'prove' some of those stories is not proving god. I can't say what might prove god...if he existed omnisciently he might know, but he's keeping quiet about it! ;-)
I also say incredible claims require incredible evidence, not anecdotal 'evidence'...conversely 'that which can be asserted without evidence can be discarded without evidence.' (Hitchens)

ok, forget the multi-verse. Just assume the Universe is infinite, but we can only observe a section of it, 'the observable universe'.

The laws of physics may change in different parts of this infinite universe.
We are in the one pocket where we can be.

The answer is the anthropic principle =
It had to be that way for us to evolve here to then look at the universe and ask "why are we here?"
Likely the universe has had many iterations, and may even have regional laws of physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

It's pretty much the same argument that goes into Evolution

"our home star is as weird as it gets"

Not even close. There are phenomena out in the universe that make our sun look like a simple, plain jane, run of the mill speck of sand.

For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergiant

"that defies the laws of physics"

Nothing about the sun defies physics. The only places in the known Universe that may defy physics is inside a Black Hole for that is where it is theorized that the law of physics starts to break down.

These sorts of arguments heavily weigh on definitions. What do you mean when you say life? Natural selection may not explain the presence of the first 'blueprint molecule' (which would probably be much simpler than anything we'd recognise now as DNA) but it can and does explain the massive expansion of data contained within that molecule.

A good definition is that something is alive when it is embedded with genetic information, and you can only apply the idea of natural selection to living systems. Non-living systems follow the laws of physics, not natural selection.

Similarly, what do you mean when you say 'information'? Clearly you aren't using the word in the way most people do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information

I think that definition covers the sense in which I am using it. The information in DNA is stored as a genetic code with language, grammatical syntax, meaning, vocabulary, error correction and many other features.

Congratulations! Your comment on Defying the Laws of Physics - on Bicycle!? has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 4 Badge!

Your video, Defying the Laws of Physics - on Bicycle!?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Alternate title: Demonstrating the Laws of Physics - on Bicycle!

This is the worst kind of sci-fi to me. In fact, I don't even consider movies like this science fiction--they're science fantasy since they're not based on science at all.

Using our brain's capacity more efficiently will allow us to intercept wireless transmissions and read them NSA-style in our heads, grow and change our hair at will, and break every other known law of physics?

Give me a break. I'll pass on this one. Even if it is Sucker Punch redux.

@MichaelL

And this calculation exists in complete isolation from the rest of the universe and laws of physics? That was the angle I was coming from and I did explain several times how it was indeed unnecessary and self indulgent of me to do so.

Just because a simple weight/force calculation was all we needed practically didn't mean that the rest of the universe just disappeared. We can just conveniently ignore it.
I didn't because I was A. bored and B. had rocketry on the brain from playing too much KSP.

This is what I meant by not the whole story. Your not wrong but that does not necessarily preclude what I was waffling on about.

Though while were at it if that astronaut and suit weight say 100kg then that'd be 180N of force right? So that's like lifting a 18kg object on earth? I don't know about you but 18kilos would take some shifting for me, especially if I was trying to throw it vertically. Doable but not what I'd call easy. (& naturally throw in the cumbersome suit and its a total pain in the arse)


And goddamit the whole Fosbury flop thing flashed into my head but I dismissed it. Never occurred to me that that extra meter or so would have such a profound effect when you introduce a multiplier like gravity. Great example!

In case anyone is wondering why they are making a semi-big deal about whether or not you can see the puck once it is across the line, I remember several years ago there was a play where a goalie covered up the puck with his glove (which should result in a whistle, but in this case didn't immediately) and in the split second afterwards had 90% of his glove, including the portion where the puck had been visible a split second before, pushed across the goal line.

The play went under review, and I believe Darren Pang (a former goalie) was confident that it would be ruled no goal because even though it was next to 100% obvious that the puck had crossed the goal line, you couldn't physically see it. The review came back and he had been correct, and he ventured further that even in a hypothetical situation where the puck slipped under a goalie's leg or something (out of sight of any camera) and then the goalie's entire body slid into the net across the line, it would be ruled no goal if the puck was obscured from vision until the play was whistled dead.

I thought it was interesting that the laws of physics can assert that the puck MUST be in there, but according to the rules it won't count unless you can directly SEE it across the line.

At least, that is how I remember the discussion going. Anyone care to confirm or set me straight on any details I may have screwed up?