>> ^Grimm:

You need to check your math.
One liter of water weighs about 2.2 pounds so each balloon would only need to be 136 liters of water to weigh 300 pounds and not 300 liters (660 pounds).
Now I'm no expert with metric being an American so maybe I'm wrong. But I do know that 1 gallon of water weighs about 8 pounds (8.35 to be more exact). That would mean these would only need to be 36 gallons of water to weigh 300 pounds. Having owned 40 gallon aquariums before I can tell you that these things look to easily hold 35-40 gallons of water.>> ^BoneRemake:
no way are those bombs 300 pounds, 3 one hundred pounders maybe. 300 pounds in water is 300 litres. like fuck those are 300 litre water bags.
lies



my entire life I have believed 1 litre is 1 pound. Now I am finding out its been a sham... I am glad i was forced to check myself before I wrecked myself.

You need to check your math.

One liter of water weighs about 2.2 pounds so each balloon would only need to be 136 liters of water to weigh 300 pounds and not 300 liters (660 pounds).

Now I'm no expert with metric being an American so maybe I'm wrong. But I do know that 1 gallon of water weighs about 8 pounds (8.35 to be more exact). That would mean these would only need to be 36 gallons of water to weigh 300 pounds. Having owned 40 gallon aquariums before I can tell you that these things look to easily hold 35-40 gallons of water.>> ^BoneRemake:

no way are those bombs 300 pounds, 3 one hundred pounders maybe. 300 pounds in water is 300 litres. like fuck those are 300 litre water bags.
lies

[redacted]

pseudo-science? Hmmm, consider your source...

Dr. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch Exposed In Court Cases (2006)
1. Barrett has claimed to be a medical expert, yet failed his medical board certification.
2. Barrett has claimed to be a legal expert, yet has not studied law.
3. Barrett has claimed to have no ties to the AMA, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food & Drug Administration (FDA), yet under oath he had conceded these ties.
4. Barrett has recently sued many times for libel and yet has never won a single case.

In addition, on April 22, 2003, A California Appeals Court, ruled against the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF). The Court declared that Stephen Barrett (quackwatch.com), and Wallace Sampson MD (Scientific Review of Alternative and Aberrant Medicine) were found to be biased… and should be accorded little, if any, credibility.

one can read a copy of the Court document signed by Judge Fromholz, here
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/california_appeals_court_bludgeo.htm <http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/california_appeals_court_bludgeo.htm>

but my personal favorite is this Stephen Barrett's Extensive Lack of Credentials, Lack of Experience, and Lack of Board Certification
http://www.stephenbarrettmd.blogspot.com/ <http://www.stephenbarrettmd.blogspot.com/>

also

http://www.quackpotwatch.org/quackpots/quackpots/barrett.htm

all that to say is I would not put much worth in that site :-)

I'd rather relying on scientists, researchers, chemists, toxicologists, etc... all professionals who have published studies in peer reviewed journals. But if you think that represents pseudo-science, then it is a sad day for critical thinking.

>> ^teebeenz:

This video isnt science, its pseudo-science, and as such should be ignored.
http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/fluoride.html
>> ^notarobot:
I concede that this sift is essentially a summery of another video that is part of what appears to be a current, heated debate about the safety of fluoride for human consumption, and its effects as a drug. As a summery, this video does not detail the methods or results of studies done on the topic by PhD experts mentioned.
However, given that videos on the subjects of Drugs on Spiders, Water Balloon Motion , and how Science leads to Murder, remain in the _science channel, I fail to see how this video, nor related videos on this topic, does not meet the standards required to be considered a part of the _science sift, or valuable for inciting discussion and getting sifters to THINK about _science, which appears to be part of the mandate of this channel.

This video isnt science, its pseudo-science, and as such should be ignored.

http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/fluoride.html

>> ^notarobot:

I concede that this sift is essentially a summery of another video that is part of what appears to be a current, heated debate about the safety of fluoride for human consumption, and its effects as a drug. As a summery, this video does not detail the methods or results of studies done on the topic by PhD experts mentioned.
However, given that videos on the subjects of Drugs on Spiders, Water Balloon Motion , and how Science leads to Murder, remain in the _science channel, I fail to see how this video, nor related videos on this topic, does not meet the standards required to be considered a part of the _science sift, or valuable for inciting discussion and getting sifters to THINK about _science, which appears to be part of the mandate of this channel.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by Stingray.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by thegrimsleeper. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Just-Another-Water-Balloon-Popping-in-Slow-Motion

Some horrible camera work... probably a cell phone. But a very good experiment for high school science.

I remember doing an experiment for high-school physics, where our teacher challenged us to hit him with water balloons with one of those 2 person slingshots. He had figured out the trajectory equations so that he would be just out of reach.

The same professor did one where you stand on a chair and have a bowling ball hung from the ceiling held just up to your nose. Because of conservation of energy and the added friction of the rope, it wouldn't come back and hit you in the face.

Ok, at 2:36, what the hell did they throw at him?!?!? Is that a water balloon? You'd think it would break with that much force.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'water balloon, slow motion, o fortuna, pop, blender' to 'water balloon, slow motion, o fortuna, pop, blender, carmina burana' - edited by gwiz665

Why is it always a water balloon and never a water melon?

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by bleedmegood.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Just-Another-Water-Balloon-Popping-in-Slow-Motion