1. These guys aren't scientists of any description whatsoever and I don't know what they're doing on any Science Channel. - Irishman

Franco Wong - Dr. Franco N.C. Wong is a principal investigator in the Research Laboratory of Electronics (RLE) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
Max Tegmark - is a Swedish-American cosmologist. Tegmark is an Associate Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where he belongs to the scientific directorate of the Foundational Questions Institute.
Seth Lloyd - is a Professor of mechanical engineering at MIT, and he has made contributions to the field of quantum computation and proposed a design for a quantum computer.

So unless MIT is some fly-by-night operation handing out jobs to any lunatic off the street, I believe you are mistaken.

2. It absolutely, categorically, scientifically does NOT contain one single piece of experimental data to back up the claims. - Irishman

Did you not see Dr. Wong experimenting with lasers and splitting photons, or do you think that was all for show? I'm sure they just let him shoot lasers all day without presenting any data.

3. Is this now the level of the VS Science Channel? - Irishman

If you're so dismayed by the quality of science sifts here, I don't believe anyone's created a ScienceSift.com web site yet. Don't let me stand in the way of your greatness.

4. [T]hen add a presentation that claim that some crazy scientists idea is fact, without having any real proof. - Bovan

See Points #1 and #2

5. 50 million people voted for Bush - twice. It doesn't mean he's a good president. - jonny

You're right. 74 upvotes don't guarantee quality whatsoever, nor was I trying to imply that. However when you call a video "crap", then you're strongly suggesting that 74 people like crap. Though 50 million people voted for Bush, TWICE, I'm not prepared to call all 50 million of them retards. It's just not my style to insult huge swathes of population like that. Maybe I'm too sensitive.

6. This is bullshit. - Mycrofthomlz

As with jonny's original remark, I downvoted your comment. If you'll check, I didn't downvote Irishman's first comment, because at least he offered some explanation, and I even upvoted sineral's and neuralnoise's comments because they at least attempt to justify their opinions. If I want "This is bullshit" comments I can go directly to YouTube. Maybe these guys are all full of it, as I don't have the background in physics to properly question them. However I don't think they're loons who have no idea what they're talking about either.

So is what they're saying "bullshit", or is this video's presentation of the material "bullshit", or what? I mean YOU'RE the scientist. When you attend a symposium is that how you refute someone's hypothesis or research?

I don't expect a treatise, but more than "This is bullshit" would be nice, especially since we allegedly pride ourselves on thoughtful discourse here. Otherwise I would just prefer that you downvote and then walk away. Where is your downvote, BTW? Please do it. That will not offend me. Insulting comments do.

***I am no saint. I also sometimes write things I shouldn't. Please downvote my comments when I do so.***