Some poor research assistant is going to be running tests at the LHC looking for extra dimensions when suddenly a resonance cascade will rip dimensional seams, devastating the facility. Aliens from another dimension known as Xen will enter the facility through these dimensional seams. A funny talking guy dressed in a suit and brief case will start appearing at random as you battle your way out of the facility! You will soon discover the secretly developed gravity gun and use it to solve puzzles with your new friend, Facility Policeman Barney! Portals of orange and blue will bend the laws of physics! A plague will take the world by surprise, turning everyone into rabid zombies!

oh wait, that's just Valve.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^swedishfriend:
Life could exist in every solar system in every galaxy. We don't know that it doesn't.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^swedishfriend:
And you think that what you call life is somehow separate from the whole? Isn't life an expression of the same laws of physics that occur everywhere in the universe?>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^deathcow:
Why does the universe exist and why did it develop in a fashion which encouraged life?

Encourage life? Have you seen the universe? It is, under no circumstances, encouraging to life.
At best, life has found ways to cling to existence in nooks and crannies which are slightly less unpleasant than the norm.


No, that's a good point. From that perspective life is no more special than gravity and nobody ever asks why the universe is so conducive to gravity.
But still, life is not in any way flourishing on a universe-wide scale, so either way you look at it the question is bunk.


You're right, it could. And it would probably be clinging to existence in nooks and crannies just like on Earth, like I said in the first place.
As NDT is fond of saying, 99% of all known species are extinct. That is an observation that is simply not compatible with the idea of a universe that "encourages" life.


you seem to be quantifying "life" in terms of your own perceptions of space and time.
just saying.

>> ^swedishfriend:

Life could exist in every solar system in every galaxy. We don't know that it doesn't.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^swedishfriend:
And you think that what you call life is somehow separate from the whole? Isn't life an expression of the same laws of physics that occur everywhere in the universe?>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^deathcow:
Why does the universe exist and why did it develop in a fashion which encouraged life?

Encourage life? Have you seen the universe? It is, under no circumstances, encouraging to life.
At best, life has found ways to cling to existence in nooks and crannies which are slightly less unpleasant than the norm.


No, that's a good point. From that perspective life is no more special than gravity and nobody ever asks why the universe is so conducive to gravity.
But still, life is not in any way flourishing on a universe-wide scale, so either way you look at it the question is bunk.



You're right, it could. And it would probably be clinging to existence in nooks and crannies just like on Earth, like I said in the first place.

As NDT is fond of saying, 99% of all known species are extinct. That is an observation that is simply not compatible with the idea of a universe that "encourages" life.

Life could exist in every solar system in every galaxy. We don't know that it doesn't.
>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^swedishfriend:
And you think that what you call life is somehow separate from the whole? Isn't life an expression of the same laws of physics that occur everywhere in the universe?>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^deathcow:
Why does the universe exist and why did it develop in a fashion which encouraged life?

Encourage life? Have you seen the universe? It is, under no circumstances, encouraging to life.
At best, life has found ways to cling to existence in nooks and crannies which are slightly less unpleasant than the norm.


No, that's a good point. From that perspective life is no more special than gravity and nobody ever asks why the universe is so conducive to gravity.
But still, life is not in any way flourishing on a universe-wide scale, so either way you look at it the question is bunk.

>> ^swedishfriend:

And you think that what you call life is somehow separate from the whole? Isn't life an expression of the same laws of physics that occur everywhere in the universe?>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^deathcow:
Why does the universe exist and why did it develop in a fashion which encouraged life?

Encourage life? Have you seen the universe? It is, under no circumstances, encouraging to life.
At best, life has found ways to cling to existence in nooks and crannies which are slightly less unpleasant than the norm.



No, that's a good point. From that perspective life is no more special than gravity and nobody ever asks why the universe is so conducive to gravity.

But still, life is not in any way flourishing on a universe-wide scale, so either way you look at it the question is bunk.

And you think that what you call life is somehow separate from the whole? Isn't life an expression of the same laws of physics that occur everywhere in the universe?>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^deathcow:
Why does the universe exist and why did it develop in a fashion which encouraged life?

Encourage life? Have you seen the universe? It is, under no circumstances, encouraging to life.
At best, life has found ways to cling to existence in nooks and crannies which are slightly less unpleasant than the norm.

Well, yeah, that's essentially what he said. There's no meaning to life apart from what we meaning we give it. Some people find that depressing. Some, like myself, do not. Let's just have a bit of craic!>> ^shinyblurry:

You'll notice he never actually gave a reason why one particular version of reality should be preferred to another. He gave an example of choosing to support gay marriage to create a fair and just society, which of course are value judgments about the ideal way to live. There is no reasoning as to why we should make those judgments in the first place. All he said was, if you realize that we are the final arbiters of right and wrong (which isn't true, but for the sake of argument I'll concede this), "chances are" that you would be more apt to choose gay marriage than not. That is simply another unsubstantiated value judgment, and does not provide a foundation of reasoning to support the conclusion; namely, that we can derive meaning and purpose from telling stories about molecules in motion. That this idea of extracting meaning from cold, dead matter will ever be anything more than a morass of personal preferences arbitrarily defined by a group consensus, the definition being subject to change at any time according to the whims of its members. I advance that if meaning itself is subject to our whims, then there is no actual meaning to anything after all, and the only solution left is nihilism.

More like "40 lb Gyroscope Demonstrates the Laws of Physics".

Your video, 40 lbs Gyroscope Disobeys the Laws of Physics!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I only noticed it on this one vid, might have been me who knows.

>> ^Fusionaut:

Weird... Is VS broken?>> ^Auger8:
Strange it wont let me vote on this one the arrows aren't there tried reloading still nothing
[edit] Hmm Siftbot is messing with me it seems now I appear in the voting list but I just clicked on the number itself. lol whatever

Weird... Is VS broken?>> ^Auger8:

Strange it wont let me vote on this one the arrows aren't there tried reloading still nothing
[edit] Hmm Siftbot is messing with me it seems now I appear in the voting list but I just clicked on the number itself. lol whatever

>> ^jonny:

Just because it makes you feel old...
But apparently you are correct. According to Swampgirl's last talk post on the subject, it must be pre-1980. Shame, I always liked the 25+ guideline (that's the age criterion for cars, anyway).
>> ^xxovercastxx:
1983, not quite old enough for vintage.
nochannel science wheels 80s


If I remember correctly, it was originally < 1990 and she later changed it to < 1980. It probably would have been better to just say older than X years. Then the description wouldn't need to be modified every few years.

Just because it makes you feel old...

But apparently you are correct. According to Swampgirl's last talk post on the subject, it must be pre-1980. Shame, I always liked the 25+ guideline (that's the age criterion for cars, anyway).

>> ^xxovercastxx:

1983, not quite old enough for vintage.
nochannel science wheels 80s

Yep, just tried it on my phone.>> ^ant:

Is this video working?

It sounds cool, but at the same time I can't help but think, how many of the laws of physics did we break to make this happen?