Hang on, now, this is physics law.

Let's say it's a 1g nail and a 100g frog. In order to effect a 100-fold increase in relativistic mass (i.e. starting mass / sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2) ) the velocity must be over 99% of the speed of light (it would be 99% if we didn't have to square them).

That's a hell of a lot more than 20 over, buddy. Is there a limit on that fine, or does it depend on the width of the ticket?

Nope. Watched them closely.
Hitting a car flat at 60 km or mph is going to stop you in <1/10 of a second. I counted >4 seconds to stop with a flop in the video. Same kinetic energy absorbed. Δv = 30mph (around 50'/sec) Δt= .1 vs 4. Do the math. 500ft/sec/sec vs 12.5'/sec/sec...that's 50g vs 1.2g. Case closed.

Fine. God forbid you listen to someone with extraordinary personal experience in this matter and a grasp of physics.
You go for the dead stop next time you're in a wreck, I'll turn my wheel.

There are variables in car wrecks. You want to compare best case scenario sudden stops with absolute worst case rolls. Feel free to think that way. It's not reasonable. I'm done.

Then look at the dummy data if immutable physics laws aren't enough for you, but no citation is needed to conclude that exponentially higher G forces cause higher level injuries, even if the angle isn't the worst possible for a specific spinal injury.

I've given you my personal vast experience, physics, and common sense. You give me apple to oranges, and exaggerate the juiciness of the apples while only mentioning dehydrated oranges. I'm done. Believe what you want, but I hope you don't have to test your theory.

Come on kurzgesagt, physical laws are the same for all sizes of known life.

Tried to be too kurz this time.

So what would you have done if (despite physics laws) you jumped in and sunk straight to the bottom and had been unable to climb or swim to the surface? It seemed like there was a lot more water than air between the balls, so I guess you probably would have drowned. Did you have somebody standing by with a rope or something the first time? I saw several shots where some of the kids jumped in head first but it always cut away before it showed how easy or hard it was to get back upright and above water. I see this being a little more dangerous that how lighthearted it was presented. But it still looks fun.

A computer big enough to accurately calculate the position and properties of every "particle" (and ever decreasing subdivisions of energy and matter) would need to be the size of the universe in the first place. We can't even simulate enough particles in an n-body simulation to match the number of stars in a galaxy, let alone individual molecules, or shall we go further and say atoms, or further and say protons, neutrons and electrons? And that's for ONE galaxy amongst hundreds of billions in the OBSERVABLE universe... using only ONE force - gravity!

The guy has a great point about the Big Bang - a billion billion galaxies worth of matter and energy created in a split second from nothing? Doesn't sound like like the conservation of energy that is so fundamental to physics, right? But that's no reason to throw out hundreds of years of evidence and research which has proven conservation of energy to be true since then. The big bang makes the most sense given what we see today... if you want to propose a better theory, it has to make more sense than the Big Bang theory. Saying that the big bang doesn't make sense is not an appropriate starting point for a new theory, and doesn't lead to "so therefore we're in a simulation."

And it's not good enough to appeal to simplicity like @robdot is doing - basically saying that everything we see could very easily be an illusion for our benefit. That's an argument for God, in my opinion... just like how religious fanatics say "it was God's will for this to happen" we'd instead say "well, that's what the simulation wanted to show us" and call it a day. Furthermore if the manifestations of physical laws out there in the universe are illusions, they are at least consistent illusions that we can calculate and predict. And in that case, what is the difference to our lives whether we call it "reality" or "simulation" or "computer"? It it still what we always knew it was. If something created our universe and allowed it to run like a simulation, it is almost certainly intangible to us and for all intents and purposes meaningless too, because we can't touch, feel, see or understand it on any level.

This is one of the topics i asked of my favourite professor - how can we trust what we see if it could be faked, and what exists beyond our universe? His answer was, if i have to doubt what i see, i might as well not do anything at all, and if you want an answer to the second question talk to a philosopher. This is a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one. The scientific method doesn't care what you call the place you live in nor "who" we think "created" it. You can't hope to understand anything if you don't base it on the evidence you have. You certainly can't form a theory on the basis that all evidence is untrustworthy.

I would like to see those links, but they do not link correctly.

New scientist

Wired

Found them. What struck me as most relevant about either of the articles is from the Wired article that basically says, in the penultimate paragraph, that this finding doesn't necessarily mean anything because 1) there may be physical laws or phenomena that we do not yet understand governing the behaviour and 2) we know how a lattice works in our computer simulations - we do not know how a lattice might work if one were to physically exist, why should it act like anything we know?

However, it is a real possibility.

I say things like that because they are objectively true. The very concept of omnipotence and omniscience violate all kinds of physical laws. They are paradoxes; the "immovable force meeting the immovable object", but all our experience and learning tells us the universe does not work like that. Again, we might be wrong, but the more we learn, the less likely it becomes that we've missed something so vast.

We haven't missed it, chaosengine; the vast majority of people on Earth believes there is a God.

Human history is full of misery, suffering and cruelty to everything around us. One of the few bright points is our quest for knowledge, and you willfully reject that to cling to a stone age belief system that has been demonstrably proven false (geocentricity, for example) again and again.

In every important way, man hasn't learned anything and hasn't changed at all. The misery and suffering in the world increases year by year, it doesn't decrease.

Factually, it's incorrect.
Morally, it's bankrupt and consistently on the wrong side of history.

Matthew 24:35

Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

One day you might wake up and realise (to paraphrase the much missed Douglas Adams) that "the garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it".

Until then, you are welcome to indulge in your fantasies, but if you insist on injecting your irrationality into debates like this, expect disagreement.

I've read most of Douglas Adams works. I grew up secular and you would probably be shocked at the level of agreement we would have had in the not too distant past. I have been set free from the bondage of slavery to sin, and have been born again into a living hope. What you know on its own profits you nothing, because without faith it is impossible to please God. Ask God to reveal Himself to you. You don't have to acknowledge it to me, but that is the only way you will ever know anything about God, is by His personal revelation to you. He is faithful to give you a revelation of your need for a Savior.

I say things like that because they are objectively true. The very concept of omnipotence and omniscience violate all kinds of physical laws. They are paradoxes; the "immovable force meeting the immovable object", but all our experience and learning tells us the universe does not work like that. Again, we might be wrong, but the more we learn, the less likely it becomes that we've missed something so vast.

Human history is full of misery, suffering and cruelty to everything around us. One of the few bright points is our quest for knowledge, and you willfully reject that to cling to a stone age belief system that has been demonstrably proven false (geocentricity, for example) again and again.

Factually, it's incorrect.
Morally, it's bankrupt and consistently on the wrong side of history.

One day you might wake up and realise (to paraphrase the much missed Douglas Adams) that "the garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it".

Until then, you are welcome to indulge in your fantasies, but if you insist on injecting your irrationality into debates like this, expect disagreement.

I'm not making up the definition, I'm stating my simplified interpretation of it, which by the way, doesn't counter anything you said.

You seem to think for other "universes" to exist, ours must have some physical boundary at the edge that we can observe. And crossing that would be the only way to get into another universe?

I'm simply saying that a place with a totally different set of physical laws, whether that resides in our universe, or we reside in it, can exist. We aren't able to rule that out.

There is also the possibility that another universe with the same physical laws can exist, but again, impossible to get to or observe.

Let's say I have a computer simulation of a world with no boundaries and AI lives in it. Wouldn't I then be able to duplicate that program, and run it on another disconnected computer? How would these two AI's interact with each other? Know about each other? Even if they are exact copies of each other? Yet inside their world, they have no detectable boundaries.

Let's say they figured out there was another "copy", it wouldn't ruin the physics of their world at all. It would just have to introduce to them the concept that something OUTSIDE their universe exists.

I'd love to get in on this conversation because this subject really interests me. This video touched on a lot of interesting theories.

@robdot - I don't understand people who think they "know" the answers to the universe. There are unanswered questions in every model. Do you know the answer to what dark matter and energy is? Nobody has yet detected it. Yet, our "universe" is supposedly filled with the stuff.

Let's also define what a universe is. My definition is; it's a place governed by the same set of physical laws.

So we have "our" universe, that we hypothesize about through our observations and measurements. We have theories that say "other" universes exist in some form or another. If their physical laws are different then ours, there would probably be no way to observe them, and therefore no way to prove their existence. Lack of proof is not proof that it doesn't exist.

I could write a book on what i "think" about what our universe is. For simplicity, let me just say that I moved from telecom engineering to software architect. In software, we create programs to run simulations. We create vast game worlds with whatever "physical" attributes we want to program into them. Lets assume we created artificial intelligence. In what context would "it" live? Most everyone assumes it would just be one conscience interacting with us in the form of a robot (Que cheesy Hollywood films).

Let's give it the power of quantum computing. It then decides to understand us (it's creator), it needs to program a simulation that mimics all it knows about our physical world. It wouldn't make one simulation, run it and be done. It would make many simulations, probably simultaneously, tweaking each new one based on the results of the previous ones.

Just imagine where this could lead. This intelligence could figure out how to create a multitude of different, very elegant universes. Its time scale would be different then our time. It's simulation could take seconds on its viewing scale, but appear to be billions of years when observing from within it. We have the power to pause, rewind, replay, tweak our simple creations. Imagine what this super intelligence could do with theirs?

We do see lensing, so we do know. It's also true that black hole lensing can be recreated with an actual lense setup if you really wanted, so we're not exactly talking about the mysterious here.

The thing with physics in games is that all you have to do is make sure you program the physical laws correctly - mass and light respond to gravity, etc. - and it'll look how it should look..

Wiki has a bunch of examples. Einstein's cross is great.

it's been a really bad week for my back and lots of meds have been needed, which impairs my math skills. My mistake there...and I've retracted that....and I apologize.

It's no problem. It's completely understandable for what you're going through over there. I'll say a prayer for you and your family. Hopefully some pain free days are coming your way soon.

Doing the math correctly, I see you ARE right that it's about 400 times the distance.
But they (and so you) are wrong that it's 400 times the "size". You are right that the radiuses/diameters are a ratio of 400-1. That's different from size, even 2d size.
It may seem semantical, but to me it's an important distinction. This is what I took issue with mostly, since I was CERTAIN the actual "size" (in 3D) is no where near a ratio of 400-1, but closer to 64 million -1. Even in 2D it's nothing like 400-1.

Point taken..you were just trying to be accurate in the way the terms were defined.

Also, I'm not intentionally ignoring your point, it is an interesting fact that the ratios are close, but only coincidental IMO, certainly not 'proof' of anything supernatural.
EDIT: even if they were a perfect ratio, it would only suggest a physical law of motion we don't know or fully understand yet.
I would be interested to see a list of other planets and their moons to see if any other planet/moon (or combination of moons) in our solar system shows the same ratios. Neither answer would make me think anything supernatural however, it's just not that kind of question in my eyes.

Taken by itself, it is an extraordinary coincidence if you deem it as such. Yet, when you pile on the many other factors that have to line up for us to have life here, I find coincidence isn't the appropiate word. Now, some say that because it is such a huge Universe, there are bound to be planets like these (which isn't proven, btw)..and we shouldn't be surprised to find ourselves on one of them because we would expect to find conditions which allow for our existence, given that we exist. I don't think that is a persausive argument.

There is a good analogy about this that I borrowed from the net:

"Suppose you are to be executed by a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all of them aiming rifles at your heart. You are blindfolded; the command is given; you hear the deafening roar of the rifles. And you observe that you are still alive. The 100 marksmen missed!"

Taking off the blindfold, you do not observe that you are dead. No surprise there: you could not observe that you are dead. Nonetheless, you should be astonished to observe that you are alive. The entire firing squad missed you altogether! Surprise at that extremely improbable fact is wholly justified - and that calls for an explanation. You would immediately suspect that they missed you on purpose, by design."

I'm not sure I agree with this.

The constitution isn't a dead document. Every generation (except this current one) has passed amendments to it. I don't think there was ever a specific "inalienable right to own slaves" in the constitution. The framework for equality is always there. We just had to get to it as a nation. And we're still doing it. Maybe always will be.

Rights really are the things that can't be given through law. To twist your words to my understanding:

Rights are the concrete physical law that underpins our existence.

I down-voted it because the presenter was just annoying and looking for something to be offended over.

Also because, I don't really believe in the idea of "god given rights". Aside from the fact that I don't believe my rights have anything to do with something I don't believe in, the simple reality is that rights derive from societal values.

Most people today would agree that same sex couples should have the right to get married. But (in many cases) they can't.

Most people would say that the government doesn't have a right to unjustly spy on you. But they do anyway.

A few hundred years ago, there was an inalienable right to own slaves.

Rights are not some concrete physical law that underpins our existence, they exist because we as a society have decided they should. And as I said before, government is supposed to be the instrument that guarantees those rights are not violated.

Yes...you are correct....I either did my distance-math backwards, or missed a button entering the distance to the moon into my calculator...it's been a really bad week for my back and lots of meds have been needed, which impairs my math skills. My mistake there...and I've retracted that....and I apologize.
Doing the math correctly, I see you ARE right that it's about 400 times the distance.
But they (and so you) are wrong that it's 400 times the "size". You are right that the radiuses/diameters are a ratio of 400-1. That's different from size, even 2d size.
It may seem semantical, but to me it's an important distinction. This is what I took issue with mostly, since I was CERTAIN the actual "size" (in 3D) is no where near a ratio of 400-1, but closer to 64 million -1. Even in 2D it's nothing like 400-1.

Also, I'm not intentionally ignoring your point, it is an interesting fact that the ratios are close, but only coincidental IMO, certainly not 'proof' of anything supernatural.
EDIT: even if they were a perfect ratio, it would only suggest a physical law of motion we don't know or fully understand yet.
I would be interested to see a list of other planets and their moons to see if any other planet/moon (or combination of moons) in our solar system shows the same ratios. Neither answer would make me think anything supernatural however, it's just not that kind of question in my eyes.