 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Watch this video and then pick your jaw from the floor (no, it's *not* a
parody or a comedic sketch, it's real and serious):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0c5yClip4o
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Watch this video and then pick your jaw from the floor (no, it's *not* a
> parody or a comedic sketch, it's real and serious):
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0c5yClip4o
>
I knew what video this was going to be before I even clicked on the
link. It's really quite spectacular.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg> wrote:
> Watch this video and then pick your jaw from the floor (no, it's *not* a
> parody or a comedic sketch, it's real and serious):
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0c5yClip4o
It's actually the first time I see reasonable comments on youtube.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > Watch this video and then pick your jaw from the floor (no, it's *not* a
> > parody or a comedic sketch, it's real and serious):
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0c5yClip4o
> It's actually the first time I see reasonable comments on youtube.
Yeah. Even an illiterate person ought to understand that if the mass
in "E = mc^2" is close to zero, then E would equal zero, not c^2... :)
(Of course that pseudoscientific speech gets even more awesome as it
progresses...)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > > Watch this video and then pick your jaw from the floor (no, it's *not* a
> > > parody or a comedic sketch, it's real and serious):
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0c5yClip4o
>
> > It's actually the first time I see reasonable comments on youtube.
>
> Yeah. Even an illiterate person ought to understand that if the mass
> in "E = mc^2" is close to zero, then E would equal zero, not c^2... :)
it's also the first time I see you using an emoticon. All thanks to homeopathy.
;P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:48:20 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Watch this video and then pick your jaw from the floor (no, it's *not*
> a
> parody or a comedic sketch, it's real and serious):
Clearly from the video, I learned the speed of light incorrectly - it's
clearly c^2, not c. After all, they wouldn't like about something so
basic as that, would they? ;-)
(The James Randi video about homeopathy was quite good as well, showed up
as a 'related' video)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Watch this video and then pick your jaw from the floor (no, it's *not* a
> parody or a comedic sketch, it's real and serious):
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0c5yClip4o
>
It would be one of the better uses of 'anti-terrorist' laws to have this
woman arrested for threatening her neighbor with an WMD. After all, the
bomb she mentioned is made of collapsed matter and since E=mc² and
apparently as m decreases the energy increase then her small handheld
anti-dog poop 'bomb' must be infinitely powerful.
Oww, my head hurts now. This kind of thought makes it hard to even mock
them in their own words. How much mass am I? Well, right about my weight
in kilograms, lady.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 00:53:06 -0500, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Oww, my head hurts now. This kind of thought makes it hard to even mock
> them in their own words. How much mass am I? Well, right about my weight
> in kilograms, lady.
Heh, but her density is far higher than her mass and size would
indicate. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Watch this video and then pick your jaw from the floor (no, it's *not* a
> parody or a comedic sketch, it's real and serious):
I've heard more accurate science on Star Trek.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Yeah. Even an illiterate person ought to understand that if the mass
> in "E = mc^2" is close to zero, then E would equal zero, not c^2... :)
>
First I thought she was going to confuse nuclear and chemical processes.
Then I was willing to go with her in seeing what witty philosophical observation
she'd make out of her reasonable observation that most of matter (volumetrically
speaking) is nothing. Then with E=c^2 I felt so betrayed, not even catching
the math mistake.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> [-- text/plain, encoding 8bit, charset: iso-8859-1, 14 lines --]
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > Yeah. Even an illiterate person ought to understand that if the mass
> > in "E = mc^2" is close to zero, then E would equal zero, not c^2... :)
> >
> First I thought she was going to confuse nuclear and chemical processes.
> Then I was willing to go with her in seeing what witty philosophical observation
> she'd make out of her reasonable observation that most of matter (volumetrically
> speaking) is nothing. Then with E=c^2 I felt so betrayed, not even catching
> the math mistake.
The math failure is the most obvious mistake. At a more generic level,
you can't just redefine the meaning of "mass" and then use the exact same
formula as if it was still valid. Because that's exactly what she did: She
changed the meaning of "mass" in "E=mc^2" to her own definition (seemingly
something along the lines of "everything that is not empty space") while
still considering the equation valid. However, the 'm' in "E=mc^2" is not
"everything that is not empty space".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn wrote:
> Then I was willing to go with her in seeing what witty philosophical observation
> she'd make out of her reasonable observation that most of matter (volumetrically
> speaking) is nothing.
Apparently, the math only works out if you assume photons and electrons
really are mathematical points. Which I thought was funky.
And while most ordinary matter is full of only electrons and photons which
are apparently mathematical points, the number of neutrons, protrons, and
other -trons with volume is far larger than she thinks. For example, almost
all of a neutron star is made of neutrons, so there is much more non-empty
matter out there than she thinks.
She's basically doing what all such charlatans do, which is to simply state
lies as truth and then build on that.
I watched one guy on TV saying that bananas are poison, and oranges are
poison, but they're healthy if you mix them together. I have no idea what he
was selling, but he said it with such confidence it has become a running
joke here.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> For example, almost
> all of a neutron star is made of neutrons, so there is much
> more non-empty matter out there than she thinks.
Right, the neutron star is an obvious disproof of the bowling-ball-matter
factoid. Perhaps I gave her too much benefit of the doubt on that. However, I
remember my Lutheran catechismal materials in 8th grade making philosophical
reflections about the fact that most ordinary matter around us is mostly open
space. I have a vague recollection of some reputed scientist-- Sagan??-- doing
the same.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19-1-2010 12:43, gregjohn wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> For example, almost
>> all of a neutron star is made of neutrons, so there is much
>> more non-empty matter out there than she thinks.
>
>
> Right, the neutron star is an obvious disproof of the bowling-ball-matter
> factoid. Perhaps I gave her too much benefit of the doubt on that. However, I
> remember my Lutheran catechismal materials in 8th grade making philosophical
> reflections about the fact that most ordinary matter around us is mostly open
> space. I have a vague recollection of some reputed scientist-- Sagan??-- doing
> the same.
>
That is correct. I was unable to watch the entire video. With respect to
putting all mass in one place. At a certain compression you get the
famous black hole. The size of the Schwartzschild radius increases
linearly with mass i.e. faster than the cubic root of the mass.
IIRC if you would put the enire mass of the universe into a blackhole it
would have a radius of half the universe or so. Or at least something
slightly bigger than a bowling ball.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn wrote:
> reflections about the fact that most ordinary matter around us is mostly open
> space.
I think that once you start getting philosophical and asking what "open
space" is, this starts to become nonsensical.
Sure, if you measure the space taken up by the nucleus compared to the space
taken up by the whole atom, there's a lot of "open space" there. But that
"open space" is full of electrons and photons, which is why it doesn't all
collapse. If it were really "open" then it would all crunch down together
under its own attraction. The fact that it's actually full of electrons is
what's holding the atoms apart.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Watch this video and then pick your jaw from the floor (no, it's *not* a
> parody or a comedic sketch, it's real and serious):
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0c5yClip4o
>
This reminds me about the Scotsman the Englishman and the Irishman who
walked into a bar.
They said “Ouch!”.
It was an iron bar. <boom boom>
Only not so funny.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/19/2010 7:39 AM, andrel wrote:
> On 19-1-2010 12:43, gregjohn wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> For example, almost
>>> all of a neutron star is made of neutrons, so there is much
>>> more non-empty matter out there than she thinks.
>>
>>
>> Right, the neutron star is an obvious disproof of the bowling-ball-matter
>> factoid. Perhaps I gave her too much benefit of the doubt on that.
>> However, I
>> remember my Lutheran catechismal materials in 8th grade making
>> philosophical
>> reflections about the fact that most ordinary matter around us is
>> mostly open
>> space. I have a vague recollection of some reputed scientist--
>> Sagan??-- doing
>> the same.
>>
> That is correct. I was unable to watch the entire video. With respect to
> putting all mass in one place. At a certain compression you get the
> famous black hole. The size of the Schwartzschild radius increases
> linearly with mass i.e. faster than the cubic root of the mass.
> IIRC if you would put the enire mass of the universe into a blackhole it
> would have a radius of half the universe or so. Or at least something
> slightly bigger than a bowling ball.
Well, actually, one theory, and its one that Hawkins apparently
supports, from my understanding, is that there isn't such a thing as a
singularity. What you get is a mass that superheats, and has so much
gravity that its own light can't escape. Thus, the universe would
compress to what ever size is possible in such a black star, given the
maximum level of compression you *can* compress matter, before it can't
pack any tighter, but just gets increasingly hotter. This is bound to be
rather larger than a bowling ball.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/16/2010 11:36 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Watch this video and then pick your jaw from the floor (no, it's *not* a
>> parody or a comedic sketch, it's real and serious):
>
> I've heard more accurate science on Star Trek.
>
Kidding? I have heard more accurate science in the movie Space Balls.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> it's also the first time I see you using an emoticon. All thanks to homeopathy.
> ;P
Next thing you know, I'll start using expressions like "lol", "omg" and
"ftw"...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> it's also the first time I see you using an emoticon. All thanks to homeopathy.
>> ;P
>
> Next thing you know, I'll start using expressions like "lol", "omg" and
> "ftw"...
>
Good idea :-P
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp escreveu:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> it's also the first time I see you using an emoticon. All thanks to homeopathy.
>> ;P
>
> Next thing you know, I'll start using expressions like "lol", "omg" and
> "ftw"...
see? homeopathy really does have some magical property that does good
to people. :)
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
