Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^JiggaJonson:
Reminds me of how many Native American tribes wont let you photograph them because they believe it steals their souls. That dog is a superstitious buffoon.

Yes, everyone knows that it's webcams that leave their users as soulless husks.

No one will ever see a singularity, that's part and parcel of the whole black hole thing. Most physicists think they don't actually exist and just use the term as a marker for the breakdown of the current standard model. There can't ACTUALLY be infinite curvature of space-time: the idea is mathematically absurd. But that's what our best theory leads to... thus, our best theory is wrong and we know it. When physicists (or perhaps this guy, who knows?) come up with a theory of quantum gravity that fits all observation and has predictive power, everyone expects the singularity issue will be resolved. Einsteinian relativity will still work, just as Newtonian gravity still works today, it's just not the whole picture.

A black hole does not need to have a singularity in order to have such powerful gravity that light can't escape. The mass needn't be infinitely dense, just packed smaller than the event horizon. But since nothing can escape the event horizon, not even light, we'll never directly observe what's going on in there. Accept it!

Since police don't get convicted for shootings, and people who shoot police don't get off, shouldn't this cause a rip in the space-time continuum or something?

>> ^Drax:
>> ^robdot:
if I where to shine a flash light in the direction I'm traveling then the light emitting from that flashlight should travel (relative to me) at the speed of light minus 500,000 mph. Otherwise the light would be traveling faster then the speed of light to someone not onboard the magical cosmic space
I think your wrong on this point, the speed of light is a constant. it will measure the same to all observers.

Then it -would- travel at speed of light minus the speed of the train to me, otherwise for someone "standing still" (whatever that is) the light would be traveling the speed of light plus the speed of the train.
I'm just gonna stop here before my HEAD ASPLODES.

This seems to be correct. Light travels at a constant speed through space. Unless your magic train is outside of space (and time) the light from your flashlight would travel at the speed of light, period. It is not affected by the speed of the emitter. The speed of light is a constant (yeah, refraction can make it SEEM like it changes, so can space expansion, but it's really a constant), and is not cumulative.
My question to math teachers was always..."If I'm going the speed of light in my chevy nova and I turn on my headlights, do they work?". Sadly, they never answered me, but the correct answer is "...kind of, define "work"." They would emit photons, but those photons would not go faster than the nova through space, and so they would not "light up" the space ahead of the car (as long as it traveled at the speed of light). My hypothesis is the photons would remain between the emitter and the reflector, and the "relative" speed of the car and light would be between 0 and twice the speed of light, but actual speed of each would remain the speed of light. There would not be a beam of light, but a point (or 2 points, one in front of or at the emitter, one in front of or at the reflector) where photons were traveling in the same direction, constantly gaining in "density".
A good question here might be, would there be a point where the photons reach a maximum "density" (where no more photons can occupy the same point in space time), and, if so, what happens when this point is reached?
Oh no! (head expands and pops!)

Funny how that defense (along with "just following orders") didn't hold up at the Nuremburg trials.

Now that you’ve officially Godwin-ed the thread, does it mean the space/time continuum is about to collapse? How about this? Barak Obama yesterday said that he was “not going to hold agents responsible for following orders…” How does it make you feel to know that Obama believes the Nuremburg defense is valid?

No matter how many ways you ratonalise it, this is torture. Torture is wrong. There is no way to justify it.

I already said that waterboarding is torture. If you thought otherwise then you are mistaken. But I disagree with your generic comment that ‘torture is wrong’. You can only make such a statement when you have supplied the EXACT definition of what torture is. If you leave the word vague and fuzzy then it could mean anything. The act of confining someone involuntarily is torture, but I wouldn’t say it was ‘wrong’.

Broad, sweeping generalizations go nowhere. Define what you consider to be an acceptable form of pressure to obtain intel from uncooperative detainees. Explain how your choice is not torture.

There is no argument about whether this is torture or not...blah blah blah...you $%&!

Read what I wrote. I already said WB is torture. Your lack of the ability to comprehend a VERY simple and clear statement is not a sign of my ignorance. Just so you can't miss it, I'll say it again. Waterboarding is torture. As a form of torture it is both effective while at the same time being relatively benign. It is scary, panic inducing, freak-out horrifying – but causes no damage. CIA says waterboarding terrorists helped to prevent attacks in Los Angeles. Hundreds, maybe thousands of lives saved and all we had to do is waterboard a guy like Zubaydah. I call that a pretty good deal.

I had a little tribute going here but it was ruined by all this time and dates and space time physics nonsense.
Also .. I'm drunk and didn't search

I'm merely quoting my quantum physics professor.

Yes its a very LOW probability, but the probability exists. Quantum mechanics also says that if you run full speed into a wall enough times, one of those times you will pass right through it.

QM states that all particles exist in a statistical "distribution" rather than at a particular location. It is only when you measure the particle that the location becomes fixed in space-time. This principle allows electrons to "tunnel" through a thin oxide (high probability with applied voltage bias and/or temperature), and it also allows all the particles in your body to "tunnel" through a wall at the same time (infinitely low probability).

Likewise, there exists a probability that all the particles which form a "cat" could be measured in such an arrangement (because each particle exists as a statistical distribution) that they form a "horse," if only for a fleeting moment. Again INFINITELY low probability, but it does exist.

Mindf*ck eh? And I'm asserting that evolution is even harder to truly comprehend than this!


"And no, quantum mechanics doesn't say anything about cats transforming into horses. Quantum mechanics says that quantum particles exist in all possible states at all times unless they are observed. You'll be nominated for a golden crocoduck yourself if you keep saying things like that."

>> ^Memorare:
maybe siftbot is operating in some parallel universe where time is sped up.
In these physics videos one thing they never offer an explaination for is why the quantum level events don't scale up and occur on our macro level since everything is made up of sub-atomic particles organized as atoms. As with the Schroedinger's Cat paradox it would be kind of disappointing to finally discover a unified theory of everything, only to learn that it really doesn't matter since it doesn't scale up to mundane reality and therefore only "exists" as a theoretical concept. (personally i think the notion that the cat is both dead AND alive simultaneaously and observation determines which, is a lot of mathematical bs, ie it's not Really true except on paper but then i'm not a cosmologist or metaphysicist so what do i know)
Also, a simpler question that has an answer but i just don't know what it is...
with all the anti-matter positrons bombarding the planet via cosmic rays, don't they ever bang into some electrons and create a tiny but big enough to be measured matter/anti-matter explosion? Sure matter is mostly empty (or not so empty apparently) space and possible collisions are few, but cloud chambers indicate tons of these thigns zipping around so Howcome there's not bazillions of these tiny explosions going off all around us constantly?


Yes, the quantum world really destroyed the normal stance of science. It is when math stole the show and ruined the normal claims that science was used to making about the world. In the now, we are talking about things that exist outside of our ability to experience them. The only things that can experience them are our machines we create to measure them; and they do so in a diminished and programed method (they interpolate data). So we are left to interpret an interpretation of an event. When you start getting that convoluted then you have to make the realization that you are no longer talking about what "is", but what your machine is interpolating (The forms of the universe aren't necessarily discrete or concrete, but it will be changed by the machine so that a result can be given). We have gotten to the point where we are no longer talking about the way things "are" about the universe anymore, just about how our machines experience the different elements of phenomena in the universe (your eyes are just as much a part of this machine analogy as well, but that is a tale for another day).

I think one of the largest criticisms of the relativist camp that really sticks is there is not sufficient reason to accept the quantum model over any other model that explains things. The grounds for saying the things that exist in quantum mathematics don't lie in understanding of those elements but the claim that since the math works, then it must be true. This is putting the cart before the horse and it begs the question "why". Why not any other way that also works? We could refine Newton to incorporate some of the quantum findings and use that as the explanation of everything. There is not sufficient reason to suppose that forces are the real things in the universe, or space time warps, quantum probability matrices.

Most "old" ways of thinking just get abandon for not being popular among the new generation of scientist trying to make a name for themselves. Quine talked about this extensively. Things move in and out of popularity in this realm like any other and scientists are just like MTV peoples and everyone else of jumping on the new trend. Truly, there is not sufficient reason to believe that Aristotelian motion isn't the real method of locomotion in the universe.

Simply put, new science don't care about whys anymore. New science is about making models of massive amounts of data. It won't ever be able to give a reason if something violates that model, it just has to re-engineer the model to incorporate the new data set. It lacks any truth to it because it is always in need of more data to continue to refine its model. It will never know when the model is complete or 100% accurate. It is actually the end road of the epistemology of empirical materialism. A constantly evolving model of data is the best "truth" you can hope from science. It will never have a why, that simply isn't a role of science. It is because "it is" and that is all they will ever be able to say; now more than ever.


edit (several times for grammar, man I sux at expressing myself)

Old news. I invented this two years ago with some paper clips, a watch battery, lemon juice and four pointy cups from a water cooler. They'll soon discover the magnetic field "domes" fall prey to quantum nonlinear space-time diffeomorphisms that thwart all attempts at clear readouts of volume resolution.

(All right, I'm lying. I used two paper cups).

The Space/Time/Origin sf series is an interesting look at the fermi paradox. have avoided most of the para above due to spoiler spider sence though. may re read if i watch it.

The sad thing is that even without a degree in science, this man has debunked scientists with simple logic. He does not argue with them about the relativistic curvature of space/time. He asks them simple, rational questions about the nature of the universe, cosmogony, entropy, and other things they should think about before they make broad statements about what is true and what is not true.

>> ^Estuffing83:
Thepinky, that was one of the more eloquent responses I have read on the sift and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it (I am an atheist). My only problem with the text you quoted from your professor is that he seems to be assuming that his knowledge in an area that he has no proven background trumps that of those who have devoted their lives to science. If he were a science professor debunking scientists, fine. He is not, however, so I cannot take what he says about them too terribly well.

That hardly looks like a time paradox unraveling the space-time continuum!

My mind exploded when the space time continuum ripped up in the top left corner. Future-Beaker plowing over Past-Beaker! the implications of this are astounding...

>> ^EDD:
I GOT IT - GERMANY IS NEXT TO FRANCE AND SWITZERLAND! IT'S THE LHC's FAULT!!! THEY'RE BRAEKING THE FABRIC OF REALITY!!!
Seriously though, it's also noticeable that it gets worse by the end of the video. You should really try do something about it before you enter into another timeline and disrupt the space-time continuum.
I also immensely like how this isn't in any channels.


I was 20 mins late for work today, too. I blame that on the LHC as well...