How the hell else would you measure gravity than by the force of gravity? That's the point I was trying to make. Like how you can only measure water by the quantity of the fucking water. Please, fuckin internet pussy pushover, save your fingers the trouble typing those stupid commands, I'll talk about whatever I want, do you honestly think I'm gonna scurry off crying and do what you told me? Eat shit, Fail Hard, your ratings reflect your influence and credibility XD
Only in as a much as it's a given, but we're talking about the anti-Copernican guy he's answering here. We're not taking Einsteinian mechanics into this (although important, he never discusses this in his own video).
So, in this case, when we're talking about Newtonian mechanics, distance takes a significant role in the nature of gravitation, particularly how the anti-Copernican was using it.
The only thing that really mattered in your video was the lights. Yes, if an alien looked at the dark side of the Earth from orbit, the lights would be a good indication of life.
Plants are only green because it was much more evolutionarily beneficial to them (in our solar system) to absorb red and blue that it was green. However, a planet orbiting another type of star would produce plant life of a different color, and there are (cont)
plenty of other potential causes of a green looking landmass on a planet.
Yes, the math fail was correct, but using the incorrect terminology (exponential vs power) doesn't negate the fact that distance is more important than the mass of either object.
I thought it was common knowledge that different molecules have unique absorption spectra...so looking at a color can often tell you exactly what it is made of (how do you think we know the chemical composition of our local gas giants?). Also, like you said, the color a plant would be is predictable based on the output of the star... so different colored plants is only a problem if you are supremely uncreative or desperately need to agree with your favorite youtube pundit.
The lights though are not actually visible from space, the shots are long exposure shots which makes the lights appear much brighter then they normally would be.
An exponential function has the form a*b^x, where a and b are constants and x is your variable. A power function has the form a*x^b, again, a and b are constants and x is the variable.
However, Shane's original point is still just as valid even with it only being a mere power funciton. The distance is significantly more important than either mass.
Thanks for giving the League of Reason a bad name. Shanedk's political views may be fucked (I don't know much about them, but from what I remember about his responses to people like Tf00t and Donexodus2, I would have to say that I agree that they are), but that's no reason to attack his educational videos with bogus claims and shameful nitpicking.
Shane takes libertarianism to the extreme, but slightly moderated, libertarianism is the way to go and the way the US operated for well over 100 years and they were the years that we built the nation. Why shouldn't someone get to keep his labor? The gov gets plenty of taxation through taxation on "income" (things like stock gains) and corp earnings. Why should a person work Monday, Tuesday and part of wed to pay for the over-sized gov we have that ruins everything it touches?
First of all, I never had any intention of starting a political debate. I just wanted to point out that MasterGhostKnight's attack on Shanedk was politically motivated, and therefore, uncalled-for.
Second of all, I'm not into politics. I'm just a humble astrophysics major who is skeptical of the notion that small government and low taxes are the solution to every problem, so if you would kindly let me have my opinion, I'll gladly let you have yours.
You can't call someone's political views "fucked up" in a public forum and not expect someone to reply.... Remember, when you say that shane's views are "fucked up" you are insulting anyone with similar views.
Well, you're right. My outright intention wasn't to insult anybody, but I can see why it came off that way. I apologize for my poor choice of words, but regardless, my comment was directed toward MasterGhostKnight about his sad excuse for a rebuttal. Not Shankedk, and not anyone who shares his views. I suppose I just thought any reasonable person would have written off my comment on Shane's views as the offhand remark that it was, because I, for one, have been in enough political debates to
know that they rarely result in anyone changing their mind, and therefore, are usually a waste of time. Perhaps I was wrong to assume that a man of 40 would feel the same way.
I have changed my mind on plenty of things based on the evidence that people put forth. I have changed political views as well as religious views because I am an open minded person that isn't afraid to admit that I am wrong or that I was ill informed. It didn't come across as an off-hand remark. If you truly felt that way, maybe you could have said, "while I don't agree with Shane's political views, I think you are just nitpicking his science vids because you don't like his political views".
Well, if you're busy shoving your nose up the hindquarters of Tf00t and DonExodus2, it's no wonder you see them as fucked up.
What was his response to Tf00t? Essentially clarifying that thunderf00t blames problems on the free market when it doesn't exist and doesn't even understand basic economics.
His response to DE was that he wasn't even considering a third party vote, and giving undue emphasis to what he saw as Obama's positives without looking at his negatives.
So, you don't agree with shanedk on political issues (i don't either btw), so you're gonna pick on mistakes that don't even make a difference when it comes to the validity of his point (everyone knows what he meant by "exponentially"). If the only thing you have to say is that he used the word "exponentially" wrong, then you should just shut it.
That was a terribly nit-picky video. The mistakes you outline here are either semantic or inconsequential. It would be like if I pointed out that Richard Dawkins says exponential when he means geometric at one point in his new book (he does this at one point), and then proceeded to claim that I "powned" Dawkins.
While I'm no huge fan of Shane (he can't seem to make an argument without insulting just about everyone involved), this video just reeks of badly-planned internet prick-waving.
Your statement about the chlorophyll would be correct, if aliens knew that green patches on Earth are produced by plant life. But how could they if they cannot see a single plant from orbit/another planet ? How could they know that green colour is produced by plants? On a different planet with different light conditions (temperature of home star = different light spectrum) 'alien' plants could have another colour.
Green = life. Oxidised copper too? Plastic too? Green minerals and rock too?
After watching this and looking in the comments I have decided that Shane's mistakes are on the scale of your spelling of the word pwn in the title of the video. That is not important at all.
I wouldn't even classify it as a mistake, but more of a quibbling semantics issue. I find his association with the 'League of Reason' to be hilariously ironic.
There's no way this can be real. It's like every negative internet stereotype documented in Encyclopedia Dramatica has been concentrated into this single individual.
In the title of this video you say you are going to give an example of how to pown [sic] a political crackpot. Are you a liar or merely completely ignorant of what constitutes "politics"? All you do is say stuff about science, like:
". . .the chlorophyll green in plants do not occur naturally . . ."
If you have actually watched part 1 and not skiped into part 1b, you know why I done that. If you have taken atention you would know that the political stuff comes in upcoming part 2.
But as it has been a recuring theme, nobody gives a damn to what I say and just goes straight forward to bending over to shanedk.
Quite the contrary, I have referenced absolutely nothing but - what you said. Anyone can observe and confirm it. The meanings of the words you use can be referenced as well and the meanings of your statements are - beyond debate.
Why should I even consider the political opinion of someone who says something as scientifically dumbass as " . . . the chlorophyll green in plants do not occur naturally. . ." anyway? I can't.
He should do a video correcting the spelling errors in this video and grandstanding on them-- but that would bring him down to your level. It's all a simple matter of clarification. I don't understand why you are being such a douche.
Shane made a video called "Meta Bogosity" where he corrects and clarifies some of the problems people pointed out in his Bogosity series. Why haven't you done a video grandstanding on that? I just don't understand the tone of these videos.
The guy is incorrectible. He has absolutly no education on any give scientific area, and yet here he stands trying to be smart making blantant errors. Why?
And this is only 1 video, if I get all others, I can't even imagin the size of the video I would have to make correcting those mistakes.
If you want to continue with the atitude of bending over and sucking him of instead of looking at the matter of fact, that is your decision.
I don't think that; if I did then I would be stooping to your level. Your main argument is against his politics; attempting to correct his science only shows how weak your political arguments must be.
The main purpouse of part 1 is to get people up to speed to how knowledgeable he is. It is target to clean out all the fanboys. This is science, this is a clear cut issue, and yet allot of people and still sucking him up so hard. Imagin if I started with a not so clear cut piece as politics.
But that wouldn't require two videos; all of the points you raised could be cut down and shown as a short, annotated clip at the beginning of your political video.
I would have only requiered one video to explain and back my claims about that issue, I wouldn't need this second one. But as it turns out the first video requiers a litle more knowledge then the average viewer would posses, and that is fine, not everyone is an engineer. It would have been a more blantant issue if the average user could have understand it, but what it happens is that they didn't even realised what he did wrong. So i was kind of push to make this one.
"This is science, this is a clear cut issue . . ."
Thank you for the concession. It's OK, anyone can make a mistake. Even PhDs drop signs and draw vector diagrams with vectors pointing in the wrong direction. See Feynman's Lost Lecture where he confuses himself by doing this.
People are fallible - it's beyond debate. Anyone who doesn't overtly recognize this fact is probably just trying to kick someone's ass.
Any one can make a mistake, i'm totaly fine with that. The issue is not that he has made as simple mistake, the issue is that he talking about stuff he absolutly has no clue about, making an ass of himself and everyone thinks that it is the most acurate thing on the planet just because he is arguing against a geocentrist or a creationist. That is my problem.
Um, do you think Shane is misrepresenting himself as a scientist, or a PhD? That would piss me off.
However, maybe he just knows enough to debunk a geocentrist and a wide range of credulous cretins with a sufficient level of detail for the layperson to understand. That doesn't take a PhD. In fact, I've facepalmed many times watching Kent Hovind debates with real scientists, as he slays them with generalities and populist tripe.
One thing is clear, he is not a scientist and he has almost no knowledge about math (at least that much is clear, not because of this video, but because of other activity in the League Of Reason board). He could have a PhD in law or poltical sociology for all I care.
Maybe it is enough to put up a show and he can know more then people that know less then him, like a creationist or a geocentrist. But people are giving hi to much authority and are not thinking critically, and that I can't have
And why I can't have that people don't think critically and take him as an autority. Because then people won't listen when I expouse his political bunk.
The irony of Skitt's Law is all over these videos and your comments. You dwell on little things like the use of the word 'exponential', when maybe he should have said 'squared' or 'related by an a exponential factor of two' instead. His point was valid, and the equation he showed was correct. It's fine to point this out, but why the attitude?
So you're trying to show people that he isn't always correct in every detail. Congratulations. You win the prize! Douche.
The word exponetial as a meaning. When you actually learn math you would most likely come across with the inverse squared terminology befor the exponential, it is kind of strange how he could have mistaken those.
Lets assume (or better yet lets not, its a proven fact) that he doesn't know math, what the hell he is doing trying to lecture other people on stuff that he himself doesn't know?
Like I said.. his point was valid and the equation was valid. I was not at all disturbed by the use of the word "exponentially" because there IS an exponent of 2 in the relationship he was explaining.
You essentially claim that you made these videos because you are worried about other people committing blind appeals to authority when you finally get to the meat of your animosity--which is political. This is petty, arrogant and smug. I look forward to you meeting karma with your political vid.
Exponetial has a mathematical definition. a power of 2 is not an exponential, and exponential dependency has by defenition be able to be expressed in the exponent. This is not up for debate.
Insisting that it is correct is going back to a mistake that it has been corrected.
Wait.. are you saying that constants cannot be exponents? What about 2:44 of this video? Replace the capital letter 'E' with the number '2'. Is it suddenly not an exponent any more?
No one is talking about an exponential function "e^(x)"-- including yourself at this point in the video. I am talking about the exponential relationship of the number 2 in the equation. Wikipedia "exponential growth" and look at the "basic equations" section. Exponential relationships do not have to involve e.
I checked Wikipedia again (the double exponential function section) and it implies that 2^x is also an exponential function (independent variable appears as an exponent).
I also saw this definition allowed in Princeton's online dictionary and on a site called purplemath(dot)com.
To say that I'm picking on small things is being decitfull. Go rewatch his video armed with the knowledge that I gave you, put it into context listen to what it means and see how much of the video is actually usefull because of that.
And everyone is acusing of having a real bad attitude, being a douche and whatever. But the matter of fact is that everyone deny the facts and said that what is said is acurate, only now they are starting to recognise that it is not the case.
The point of this video was not even to make a scientific point, or to educate anyone about science (although it correct mistakes and people can actually learn something). The point was to destroy the figure of authority that people have of them, and we know how that turned out.
People like to turn out a big fuss about creationist not thinking critically but yet they are hipocritical enough to do the samething when the point is in his favour, we can not allow ourselves to do that.
And the main target of this series is not even shanedk, although he has sensibly related with the main issue and needs to be dealt with, shanedk is only necessary because he is responsible of creating the bunk material that other people use as argument. And for that reason he has to go.
We can not see most of the spectrum of radiation, but that doesn't stop us from detecting it.
Again I do not care about the characteristics of the pseudo-alien that you have created in your head.
When you say "you can't see any signs of life from a near earth orbit", i'm inclined to interpret that "you can't see any signs of life from a near earth orbit", this is an objective statment, there is no room for other interpretations specially if you take into account the context.
Only in your mind that you have created the context that the statment must hold if it was on anothe planet with any knowledge and only harm with the qualitative term green.
It was earth.
That is just an excuses to justifie a mistake.
I have explained this lots of times, and frankly you are not willing to ear whatever I am saying. Because I find myself having to explain this to you all over again.
As I find myself having to explain this again. I can. Even if I couldn't it wouldn't matter because that was never what it was mentioned. That is a later excuse that you have come up with to justify his mistake, and I hope that you can atleast realise that.
no no no just by looking at the earth you can't conclude theres life on it you know this no matter what tests you want to do on it the statement is you cant directly see evidence of life just by looking.
You have completly failed to read my comment yet again. I'm seriously tiered of you, my english is bad, but I seriously recomend that you take english classes to be able to learn to read.
So you should have notice the part where I mentioned that although I can (this is not the relevant part) that it doesn't matter wether you can or not [because you already know what it is] (this is the relevant part)
No, I have clearly stated that I don't agree with that. and no it was not taken out of context. And the fact that you said this at least you recognise that the detail that " an ignorant alien would hav to necessarilly be able to do it" is your fabrication.
This is what i am trying to explain to everyone sense the begining. I don't care about what you think he could possibly meant (if you watch the context carefully there is no other way he could have possibly meant it). I arguing with the information that he provided, i'm arguing with what he said and not what you think he should have said or could have said. If he meant something completly different from what he said how could I possible distinguish what he said from what he meant?
And only in YOUR mind are you completely ignoring the ENTIRE PREMISE of Shane EVER bringing that up; he was talking about how you can't just tell by looking at a planet that there is life. Talk about an excuse to cover up a mistake, for shit's sake, you're the one trying to debunk Shane, you could at least focus on what he's actually talking about instead of all this stupid debate-framing bullshit.
NASA has stated that organisms on other planets could photosynthesize differently from Earth. Other planets' life could have color signatures such as red, orange, yellow, or black. The process of photosynthesis by plants here on Earth detail the use of the sun's light energy to sustain themselves and grow.
'Mano, tengo que decir, de verdad, este video es un fracaso...
OK, Spanish aside, how the fuck would anyone know that that green stuff is living matter if they're looking at earth FROM OUTER SPACE?!?! We didn't even know why Mars was red until we landed probes on it, I guess we should have assumed it was life just because of the color. Seriously, the ONLY reason we recognize the green of earth as life is because WE LIVE HERE. And he's NOT EVEN RULING OUT the possibility of micro life!
Secondly we know age ago that the coloration of mars is to to iron, ages before the invetion of any space probe.
Thirdly chromatic analysis would do that.
Forthly that is evading the point, he said that there were no signs of life from a near earth orbit, it's false. The mentioning that it must be to some one from another planet who doesn't have the slightest clue about specroscopic is a later spin, because he was not talking to an alien.
THAT's why. You see, I figued you'd understand Spanish better than English, seeing so you can't type in the latter language particularly well.
How did we know before we landed on Mars that it was red because of iron? I thought that was an assumption until we proved it.
Chromatic analysis could ONLY WORK if both 1) we're looking at elements we already know about, and 2) they happen to reflect the same color as on Earth.
My menus are in Portuguese, Not Spanish. I can understand spanish, I don't talk spanish, and I understand english very well.
The same way we know that the sun is mostly consisted in hidrogen and helium despite the fact that no probe as ever gone to the sun.
And you seriously don't have the slightest clue of what we can tell by simply analysing the chromatic spectrum (what we can identifie to be or not to be) And secondly the rules of physics are the same everywhere in the universe
Aun asi, 'mano, mi espanol es mejor que tu ingles. And you still acted like I was stupid for thinking you spoke Spanish. You said so yourself, you can understand it, so if the two are that similar, why would you act like I'm stupid for assuming one or the other given the very slim amount of context clues for me to go by? Otra vez, chingate bendejo. And what fucking good would the chromatic spectrum be for detecting life if a plant could be black or orange on another planet like Shane said?
Although Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and French are latin based language and they can sligtlly nderstand eachother to a certain degree, it doesn't mean that they are the same. And keeping insisting on the subject just makes you look even more ignorant (while trying to look smart, and that makes it even worst).
Did I ever SAY they were the same? No, in fact YOU are the one who said that you "can understand Spanish". Maybe you should have said that you can understand SOME Spanish, because you apparently made the two languages out to be much more similar than they actually are in saying that you speak one and can still understand the other. Whatever, maybe you just lied, and don't actually understand it at all. Keep failing at framing please, it's fun for me to point these things out.
For someone pretending to be smart by mistaking Portuguese whit Spanish (which prompts me to say that you don't know spanish), can't really make any judgement how much a Portuguese understands Spanish or vice-versa, because you really don't know either.
Again, if speaking one doesn't make you knowledgeable of the other, why would you insinuate that that was the case by saying that you understand both because you speak one of them?
Secondly, the name green or black are qualitative terms that are very useless in science. in chromatography we quantitatively analyse the "power" of each frequency, and determin what it is (sense each chemical has its own chromatographic signature), but most importatly we can tell what it isn't (it isn't anything that exist naturally).
Doesn't "Chromatographic signature" just mean "color signature"? Black, green and orange are all different colors which would then emit different "frequencies" that you speak of, correct? Is this or is this not effectively observing and measuring mere color?
Your appeal to authority means absolutely nothing in the face of what has been demonstrated to you today. Nice job trying to re-frame the debate in your favor with something so irrelevant to the topics at hand. I laugh at your pathetic attempt to regain your footing after having been verbally obliterated. That shitty little appeal to authority does not change anything. You have been defeated on most, if not all, accounts.
All have I seen so far is a couple of retards claiming victory when in fact they are only talking nonsense of shit they don't know absolutly anything about.
I do this for living, and if you think that it is your highschool knowledge about subject that is going to make a stand against an informed profetional on the subject then you are retarded, and you really should consider the position you are in. It is a simple as that.
Again, an appeal to authority isn't going to help you at all if you can't simply back up your position. I'll even give you a chance to do that: What the hell did you mean by "a specific intensity in dBW for a given frequency in hertz"? Enlighten me, o big boss man.
I'm not saying that the geocentrist is right, the geocentrist is wrong period, and I have explained why (the real reason why, not a bogus one).
But it is a very weird position to be against a person that is against a geocentrist.
If I was a geocentrist (well given what i know about the subject i wouldn't be, but ignoring that), shanedk would have been in great trouble. Probably the next time I will give the material to the geocentrist, and let him have some fun debunking smartasses.
The matter of fact that we know that the green observed in LEO pictures are vegetation.
the green as you put it is a qualitative term, a quatitative green, means it is vegetation, look for spectroscopy. And it is stupid to believe that we can not do it.
No. And the reason why is explain in this same video. but you aparently skiped that. Which tells me that you never actually bother to watch it. And here i am trying to explain you basic things that would have been avoided if you just have given the time to look at it.
No I didn't dodge it, i have said in the video that you can't, and i have explained why you can't. But again you have never actually looked at the video.
What it is not true is that there aren't any signs of life from LEO pictures, and the matter of fact is that there are.
And for some you are the one trying to dodge this, it is almost like you are shanedk, he is a grown man, he can take care of himself.
The spectographic color is a propretie of chemical in question, if you know the spectographic function you can not be mistaken.
Besides this is beyond the point that was made. The point that ws made is that there wasn't any signs of life from LEO, which there are, and unless you tacle that no argumentation about spectography is really going to change that.
I have already answered that, but for some reason you tend to ignore, and here you are asking it again. You are worst then a creationist, which you are so keen to acuse me of.
You are not here to ear an answer, you are here because you know you said something incredebly stupid and you are now trying to defend whatever credibility you have left. And I'm not here to copy paste my last comments because you missed it.
So my advise to you is to take it like a man and admit your mistakes.
Wait, stating things that are factual and true can be used against him. Interesting.
You know just by you posting these videos and posting the most retarded comments I've ever seen in my life, including spelling and grammar, you're not doing yourself a favor.
Or you do whatever other idiot does, that is to try and seem smart out of the mess that he has made, giving everyone more reasons to prove that you are ignorant, (like your comment about the nature of forces), or probably do the most stupid thing of all that is to post a debunking video of this and let all of your subscribers know how stupid you are. You would be doing me a favor.
Aww you quoted my comment. Unfortunately I dont see why you did as you actually didnt answer anything that was stated or asked in my comment. I also love how you left the green plus 2 in thats classic.
Not sure why you edited my name out though. I guess you were trying to be clever or perhaps youre afraid of something?
Either way your spelling and grammar is atrocious and your knowledge of the English language is essentially crap.
You said, "the gravity increases exponentially as the distance betwen the 2 bodies decreases and vice-versa", The possible meaning of vice-versa is "the distance decreases exponentially as the gravity increases", which is wrong no matter how you put it.
You also completely ignored the annotation where I pointed out, in response to comments saying the same thing, that there are TWO definitions of "exponential."
Ignoring obvious things and quote mining, or in this case, clip mining, are indeed creationist tactics.
MasterGhostKnight, if you want people to take you seriously, you should probably actually try discrediting Shane based off of something he got wrong, then you correct it. All you've done so far is prove you don't know what you're talking about, and that you completely fail to even pay attention to the videos you're critiquing.
Additionally, your last video said that Shane was implying that the Moon happened to have rockets attached to it, when... he never said that at all. You placed a part of a video out of context, to make it seem like he was answering a question to make it seem like things orbiting the Earth need rockets attached. The clip you poorly placed in was actually an answer / followup to why Satellites need thrusters, so they can stay in one spot in the sky so your dish can get a clear signal.
He never said explicitly that the moon had rockets, I never mentioned rockets in the video. All i have limited myself to do is to show that his statment is equivalent of saying that the moon has an "engine" (despite the nature of that engine been refered by shanedk in context as rockets)
He never said that either. Also, you're playing semantics now, you know exactly what I meant. Either way, Shane never said ANYTHING was attached to the moon, not even close. He was talking about Satellites and how they remain in a particular spot so you can point your dishes into the sky at them. When their fuel is used up, they no longer function.
He wasn't talking about EVERYTHING that orbits the earth. He was clarifying and earlier statement.
Exponential means one thing as a noun, and another thing as an adjective. I used it as an adjective, but you used its definition as a noun to try and discredit me. Pathetic.
I don't think someone who misunderstands and spells 70% of his words wrong should be arguing about the English language. Exponential has multiple definitions, how about YOU look it up, and get back to us? Welcome to the English language.
Unfortunatly I don't care how bright this pseudo-aliens that you created in your mind are. Given that I'm suficiently stupid would that mean that it is impossible with our current technology to know which leg goes after the left leg if I'm trying to walk forward?
what the hell are you talking about? They told you that the night photo's used are composites of long exposure shots and as such those lights in the photo do not actually appear if you were looking at the planet from space because they are not bright enough.
and you make some stupid counter argument that the intelligence of aliens is irrelevant and people need tools to get into space, your argument here makes zero sense and makes you look like an idiot
And how are aliens going to know that the green stuff is plant life, you moron? Plants on their world won't necessarily be green! They might think they're copper deposits or something. Is green marble the result of chlorophyll?
I never mentioned pure copper, neither that was the point. You said that there are "no signs of life" while one of the features that are most clearerly seen from space is vegetation.
You said "copper is nowhere near the same green." But if there's other stuff along with the copper, that can CHANGE THE SHADE of green that it uses. You KNOW this. The ONLY way your objection can make sense is if I were referring to pure copper, WHICH I WASN'T.
And you also ignored my point that vegetation on their planet may not be green. See Dawkins's speculations about the colors of plants on other planets.
I really don't give a flying fuck about what Dawkins said. If you were talking about another planet besides earth I might have taken into consideration (might if we didn't go into spectorscopy). The matter of fact is you gave the example of earth, those are plants and those are visible.
I was talking about aliens FROM ANOTHER PLANET looking at Earth. I was making the point that you have to get REALLY FUCKING CLOSE to the planet to visually confirm life. If we saw green stuff on another planet, would we immediately conclude life? Would we?
The only rebutal that I'm willing to acept is that you prove me right here right now is "that the green seen on LEO pictures are not from vegetation and that you can't see the real green of vegetation". But that is not the case.
2. Copper is not the same chromatic green, it is rare the ammount of copper alloys that you can find naturally with a visible chromatic green. (copper age ring any bells?)
3. Whit the right analytical tools. HELL YES! An allien could know if there was any life in a LEO.
4. The point that you made was that there were no signs of life PERIOD. And that is the point that I made.
5. If adhominems is all that you can argue, then we are done here
1. You said there are no evidence of life in LEO. And unless that has changed, you have no means to debate.
2. 3. and 4. "Spectrometers" are devices capable of analysing quatitatively the ammount recieved in each specter. your eye can do that but doesn't give you absolute values and can only destinguish 3 different colors (if you are a regular person). Radio waves are exactly like the same waves that we see, only in a diffrent frequency.
NO...YOU...HAVE...NOT!!! EVERYTHING you have used to show it's life REQUIRES INFORMATION OBTAINED ON EARTH--information that the aliens WOULD NOT HAVE!!!
Are you REALLY so stupid that you don't understand this?
What part of the chlorophyll green in plants do not occur naturally you don't understand?
You are just ignoring everything that contradicts with you.
If you seriously come to me again with a question already answer, i will stop the civilized conversation and make a joke out of you, I can make Venomfangx look like a serious person near you.
Again, if you'll READ the passages of Dawkins I referenced, you'll see that plants on alien planets WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE GREEN. The portion of the light spectrum they absorb and reflect is a result of evolution. If their star is blue, they may look orange. If their star is dim, plants might very well be black--greedily absorbing every photon they can!
All you're showing here is your own ignorance and your own unwillingness to learn.
"Pick up" meaning "detect", yes? In that case NO, we CANNOT detect life AS LIFE from a low-earth orbit. We can see green, but we CANNOT IDENTIFY IT OR VERIFY IT AS LIFE from a low-earth orbit. We just know that it is due to our prior knowledge from having BEEN ON THE SURFACE.
Unfortunatly this isn't a matter for debate, this is the sate of the art in this field of science. If you want to blantantly contradict what we know and what we can do about this subject then I sugest you to start contradicting what other profetionals in the field are doing. But I have a slight impression that this is only a product of you iliteracy on the subject instead of a piece of briliancy that is misteriously overlooked by everyone else more qualified then you do.
THE GUY WHO MADE THIS VIDEO IS A MORON.
oiuoiu988 2 years ago 2
"Oh, let's ignore that he said gravity but not the force of gravity..."
Yeah, I drank water this morning, never mind that I just said water instead of a quantity of water, please....
338dmac 2 years ago 2
Gravity is an intrinsic proprety of a mass, and it is allways constant.
The Force of gravity is the effect "felt" due to gravity which can depend on other factors.
You clearly don't know the terminology, so don't talk about it.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
How the hell else would you measure gravity than by the force of gravity? That's the point I was trying to make. Like how you can only measure water by the quantity of the fucking water. Please, fuckin internet pussy pushover, save your fingers the trouble typing those stupid commands, I'll talk about whatever I want, do you honestly think I'm gonna scurry off crying and do what you told me? Eat shit, Fail Hard, your ratings reflect your influence and credibility XD
338dmac 2 years ago
FAIL!
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
Okay, feel better sweetie? Sorry that still doesn't bring your ratings up, oh poor baby XD
338dmac 2 years ago
Only in as a much as it's a given, but we're talking about the anti-Copernican guy he's answering here. We're not taking Einsteinian mechanics into this (although important, he never discusses this in his own video).
So, in this case, when we're talking about Newtonian mechanics, distance takes a significant role in the nature of gravitation, particularly how the anti-Copernican was using it.
ladyattis 2 years ago 2
The only thing that really mattered in your video was the lights. Yes, if an alien looked at the dark side of the Earth from orbit, the lights would be a good indication of life.
Plants are only green because it was much more evolutionarily beneficial to them (in our solar system) to absorb red and blue that it was green. However, a planet orbiting another type of star would produce plant life of a different color, and there are (cont)
MasauFuku 2 years ago
plenty of other potential causes of a green looking landmass on a planet.
Yes, the math fail was correct, but using the incorrect terminology (exponential vs power) doesn't negate the fact that distance is more important than the mass of either object.
MasauFuku 2 years ago
I thought it was common knowledge that different molecules have unique absorption spectra...so looking at a color can often tell you exactly what it is made of (how do you think we know the chemical composition of our local gas giants?). Also, like you said, the color a plant would be is predictable based on the output of the star... so different colored plants is only a problem if you are supremely uncreative or desperately need to agree with your favorite youtube pundit.
scoopapa 2 years ago
The lights though are not actually visible from space, the shots are long exposure shots which makes the lights appear much brighter then they normally would be.
ibspify 2 years ago
F = G*m1*m2/r^2 IS THE SAME as
F = G*m1*m2* r^-2
Thus, it IS an exponential function.
anglicantian 2 years ago
No, it's a power function, not an exponential.
An exponential function has the form a*b^x, where a and b are constants and x is your variable. A power function has the form a*x^b, again, a and b are constants and x is the variable.
However, Shane's original point is still just as valid even with it only being a mere power funciton. The distance is significantly more important than either mass.
MasauFuku 2 years ago
Oh yeah, guess I mixed those up. Yeah, shane's points remain valid.
True, in exponential functions the variable is the exponent, that doesn't apply here.
anglicantian 2 years ago
Thanks for giving the League of Reason a bad name. Shanedk's political views may be fucked (I don't know much about them, but from what I remember about his responses to people like Tf00t and Donexodus2, I would have to say that I agree that they are), but that's no reason to attack his educational videos with bogus claims and shameful nitpicking.
IlSilentEarthIl 2 years ago
Shane takes libertarianism to the extreme, but slightly moderated, libertarianism is the way to go and the way the US operated for well over 100 years and they were the years that we built the nation. Why shouldn't someone get to keep his labor? The gov gets plenty of taxation through taxation on "income" (things like stock gains) and corp earnings. Why should a person work Monday, Tuesday and part of wed to pay for the over-sized gov we have that ruins everything it touches?
christo930 2 years ago
First of all, I never had any intention of starting a political debate. I just wanted to point out that MasterGhostKnight's attack on Shanedk was politically motivated, and therefore, uncalled-for.
Second of all, I'm not into politics. I'm just a humble astrophysics major who is skeptical of the notion that small government and low taxes are the solution to every problem, so if you would kindly let me have my opinion, I'll gladly let you have yours.
IlSilentEarthIl 2 years ago
You can't call someone's political views "fucked up" in a public forum and not expect someone to reply.... Remember, when you say that shane's views are "fucked up" you are insulting anyone with similar views.
christo930 2 years ago
Well, you're right. My outright intention wasn't to insult anybody, but I can see why it came off that way. I apologize for my poor choice of words, but regardless, my comment was directed toward MasterGhostKnight about his sad excuse for a rebuttal. Not Shankedk, and not anyone who shares his views. I suppose I just thought any reasonable person would have written off my comment on Shane's views as the offhand remark that it was, because I, for one, have been in enough political debates to
IlSilentEarthIl 2 years ago
know that they rarely result in anyone changing their mind, and therefore, are usually a waste of time. Perhaps I was wrong to assume that a man of 40 would feel the same way.
IlSilentEarthIl 2 years ago
I have changed my mind on plenty of things based on the evidence that people put forth. I have changed political views as well as religious views because I am an open minded person that isn't afraid to admit that I am wrong or that I was ill informed. It didn't come across as an off-hand remark. If you truly felt that way, maybe you could have said, "while I don't agree with Shane's political views, I think you are just nitpicking his science vids because you don't like his political views".
christo930 2 years ago
Either way, it's no big deal, just a minor misunderstanding. No sweat.
christo930 2 years ago
Well, if you're busy shoving your nose up the hindquarters of Tf00t and DonExodus2, it's no wonder you see them as fucked up.
What was his response to Tf00t? Essentially clarifying that thunderf00t blames problems on the free market when it doesn't exist and doesn't even understand basic economics.
His response to DE was that he wasn't even considering a third party vote, and giving undue emphasis to what he saw as Obama's positives without looking at his negatives.
Virgil0211 2 years ago 2
Wow, you've managed to lose any shred of credibility that you may have had. You've just pwned...yourself.
nonantianarchist 2 years ago 2
FAIL
TheReasonWhyGuy 2 years ago
you are a disgrace to the league of reason
lothrazar 2 years ago
hey dude, you misspelled "pwn".
Or maybe "pown" is a new word meaning failed to pwn.
lulz
Elasaltaculos 2 years ago
So, you don't agree with shanedk on political issues (i don't either btw), so you're gonna pick on mistakes that don't even make a difference when it comes to the validity of his point (everyone knows what he meant by "exponentially"). If the only thing you have to say is that he used the word "exponentially" wrong, then you should just shut it.
I certianly wouldn't call this "powned".
artoslo 2 years ago
That was a terribly nit-picky video. The mistakes you outline here are either semantic or inconsequential. It would be like if I pointed out that Richard Dawkins says exponential when he means geometric at one point in his new book (he does this at one point), and then proceeded to claim that I "powned" Dawkins.
While I'm no huge fan of Shane (he can't seem to make an argument without insulting just about everyone involved), this video just reeks of badly-planned internet prick-waving.
mediusnacht 2 years ago
Your statement about the chlorophyll would be correct, if aliens knew that green patches on Earth are produced by plant life. But how could they if they cannot see a single plant from orbit/another planet ? How could they know that green colour is produced by plants? On a different planet with different light conditions (temperature of home star = different light spectrum) 'alien' plants could have another colour.
Green = life. Oxidised copper too? Plastic too? Green minerals and rock too?
A11ex 2 years ago
Comment removed
A11ex 2 years ago
After watching this and looking in the comments I have decided that Shane's mistakes are on the scale of your spelling of the word pwn in the title of the video. That is not important at all.
Scoforever 2 years ago 2
I wouldn't even classify it as a mistake, but more of a quibbling semantics issue. I find his association with the 'League of Reason' to be hilariously ironic.
enclave2k1 2 years ago
I forgot to mention, horrendous video.
enclave2k1 2 years ago
There's no way this can be real. It's like every negative internet stereotype documented in Encyclopedia Dramatica has been concentrated into this single individual.
I'm calling Poe's law.
Virgil0211 2 years ago 5
In the title of this video you say you are going to give an example of how to pown [sic] a political crackpot. Are you a liar or merely completely ignorant of what constitutes "politics"? All you do is say stuff about science, like:
". . .the chlorophyll green in plants do not occur naturally . . ."
Talk about crackpots.
IsaacBickerstaffEsq 2 years ago
If you have actually watched part 1 and not skiped into part 1b, you know why I done that. If you have taken atention you would know that the political stuff comes in upcoming part 2.
But as it has been a recuring theme, nobody gives a damn to what I say and just goes straight forward to bending over to shanedk.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
". . .nobody gives a damn to what I say. . ."
Quite the contrary, I have referenced absolutely nothing but - what you said. Anyone can observe and confirm it. The meanings of the words you use can be referenced as well and the meanings of your statements are - beyond debate.
Why should I even consider the political opinion of someone who says something as scientifically dumbass as " . . . the chlorophyll green in plants do not occur naturally. . ." anyway? I can't.
It's beyond debate.
IsaacBickerstaffEsq 2 years ago
He should do a video correcting the spelling errors in this video and grandstanding on them-- but that would bring him down to your level. It's all a simple matter of clarification. I don't understand why you are being such a douche.
Shane made a video called "Meta Bogosity" where he corrects and clarifies some of the problems people pointed out in his Bogosity series. Why haven't you done a video grandstanding on that? I just don't understand the tone of these videos.
hugesinker 2 years ago
The guy is incorrectible. He has absolutly no education on any give scientific area, and yet here he stands trying to be smart making blantant errors. Why?
And this is only 1 video, if I get all others, I can't even imagin the size of the video I would have to make correcting those mistakes.
If you want to continue with the atitude of bending over and sucking him of instead of looking at the matter of fact, that is your decision.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
At the beginning of this debate you couldn't even spell "matter". Should he make a 5 minute video dwelling on that?
WhyCantIVote 2 years ago 2
If you think that would some how make him right about the subject in this video, go ahead.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
I don't think that; if I did then I would be stooping to your level. Your main argument is against his politics; attempting to correct his science only shows how weak your political arguments must be.
WhyCantIVote 2 years ago 2
The main purpouse of part 1 is to get people up to speed to how knowledgeable he is. It is target to clean out all the fanboys. This is science, this is a clear cut issue, and yet allot of people and still sucking him up so hard. Imagin if I started with a not so clear cut piece as politics.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
But that wouldn't require two videos; all of the points you raised could be cut down and shown as a short, annotated clip at the beginning of your political video.
WhyCantIVote 2 years ago
I would have only requiered one video to explain and back my claims about that issue, I wouldn't need this second one. But as it turns out the first video requiers a litle more knowledge then the average viewer would posses, and that is fine, not everyone is an engineer. It would have been a more blantant issue if the average user could have understand it, but what it happens is that they didn't even realised what he did wrong. So i was kind of push to make this one.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
The last video got all most no attention.
once people understood what was going wrong (by means of this video). It got more attention then any other video I have combined.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
"This is science, this is a clear cut issue . . ."
Thank you for the concession. It's OK, anyone can make a mistake. Even PhDs drop signs and draw vector diagrams with vectors pointing in the wrong direction. See Feynman's Lost Lecture where he confuses himself by doing this.
People are fallible - it's beyond debate. Anyone who doesn't overtly recognize this fact is probably just trying to kick someone's ass.
IsaacBickerstaffEsq 2 years ago
Any one can make a mistake, i'm totaly fine with that. The issue is not that he has made as simple mistake, the issue is that he talking about stuff he absolutly has no clue about, making an ass of himself and everyone thinks that it is the most acurate thing on the planet just because he is arguing against a geocentrist or a creationist. That is my problem.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
Um, do you think Shane is misrepresenting himself as a scientist, or a PhD? That would piss me off.
However, maybe he just knows enough to debunk a geocentrist and a wide range of credulous cretins with a sufficient level of detail for the layperson to understand. That doesn't take a PhD. In fact, I've facepalmed many times watching Kent Hovind debates with real scientists, as he slays them with generalities and populist tripe.
The video in question works fine for what it is.
hugesinker 2 years ago
One thing is clear, he is not a scientist and he has almost no knowledge about math (at least that much is clear, not because of this video, but because of other activity in the League Of Reason board). He could have a PhD in law or poltical sociology for all I care.
Maybe it is enough to put up a show and he can know more then people that know less then him, like a creationist or a geocentrist. But people are giving hi to much authority and are not thinking critically, and that I can't have
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
Cool story, bro.
Virgil0211 2 years ago
"He could have a PhD in law or poltical sociology for all I care."
[ . . . ]
IsaacBickerstaffEsq 2 years ago
And why I can't have that people don't think critically and take him as an autority. Because then people won't listen when I expouse his political bunk.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
The irony of Skitt's Law is all over these videos and your comments. You dwell on little things like the use of the word 'exponential', when maybe he should have said 'squared' or 'related by an a exponential factor of two' instead. His point was valid, and the equation he showed was correct. It's fine to point this out, but why the attitude?
So you're trying to show people that he isn't always correct in every detail. Congratulations. You win the prize! Douche.
hugesinker 2 years ago
The word exponetial as a meaning. When you actually learn math you would most likely come across with the inverse squared terminology befor the exponential, it is kind of strange how he could have mistaken those.
Lets assume (or better yet lets not, its a proven fact) that he doesn't know math, what the hell he is doing trying to lecture other people on stuff that he himself doesn't know?
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
Like I said.. his point was valid and the equation was valid. I was not at all disturbed by the use of the word "exponentially" because there IS an exponent of 2 in the relationship he was explaining.
You essentially claim that you made these videos because you are worried about other people committing blind appeals to authority when you finally get to the meat of your animosity--which is political. This is petty, arrogant and smug. I look forward to you meeting karma with your political vid.
hugesinker 2 years ago 2
Exponetial has a mathematical definition. a power of 2 is not an exponential, and exponential dependency has by defenition be able to be expressed in the exponent. This is not up for debate.
Insisting that it is correct is going back to a mistake that it has been corrected.
And seriously your attitude just proves my point.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
According to wikipedia, an exponential function is one where e raised to a power (e.g.: f(x) = 2e^x)
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Tankyou, at least one person knows.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
I said that "2 is an exponent". It IS an exponent. See 2:45 of this video. Sheesh.
hugesinker 2 years ago
2 is a constant and therefore by definition the function is not an exponent.
Dude, drop it.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
Wait.. are you saying that constants cannot be exponents? What about 2:44 of this video? Replace the capital letter 'E' with the number '2'. Is it suddenly not an exponent any more?
No one is talking about an exponential function "e^(x)"-- including yourself at this point in the video. I am talking about the exponential relationship of the number 2 in the equation. Wikipedia "exponential growth" and look at the "basic equations" section. Exponential relationships do not have to involve e.
hugesinker 2 years ago
Isn't e also a constant?
I checked Wikipedia again (the double exponential function section) and it implies that 2^x is also an exponential function (independent variable appears as an exponent).
I also saw this definition allowed in Princeton's online dictionary and on a site called purplemath(dot)com.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
"Isn't e also a constant?"
Yes, but in the gravitational equation it is the EXPONENT that is the constant and the BASE that is the variable.
IsaacBickerstaffEsq 2 years ago
I think I know what you're talking about.
That would make it (r^2) a quadratic function.
Or if we're talking about 1/r^2 it would be a rational function.
It's the inverse square law of gravitation.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
To say that I'm picking on small things is being decitfull. Go rewatch his video armed with the knowledge that I gave you, put it into context listen to what it means and see how much of the video is actually usefull because of that.
And everyone is acusing of having a real bad attitude, being a douche and whatever. But the matter of fact is that everyone deny the facts and said that what is said is acurate, only now they are starting to recognise that it is not the case.
its a progress.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
The point of this video was not even to make a scientific point, or to educate anyone about science (although it correct mistakes and people can actually learn something). The point was to destroy the figure of authority that people have of them, and we know how that turned out.
People like to turn out a big fuss about creationist not thinking critically but yet they are hipocritical enough to do the samething when the point is in his favour, we can not allow ourselves to do that.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
And the main target of this series is not even shanedk, although he has sensibly related with the main issue and needs to be dealt with, shanedk is only necessary because he is responsible of creating the bunk material that other people use as argument. And for that reason he has to go.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
what if the aliens have no eyes
excandersham 2 years ago
We can not see most of the spectrum of radiation, but that doesn't stop us from detecting it.
Again I do not care about the characteristics of the pseudo-alien that you have created in your head.
When you say "you can't see any signs of life from a near earth orbit", i'm inclined to interpret that "you can't see any signs of life from a near earth orbit", this is an objective statment, there is no room for other interpretations specially if you take into account the context.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
you cannot say just because its green its life it does not indicate that
excandersham 2 years ago
Only in your mind that you have created the context that the statment must hold if it was on anothe planet with any knowledge and only harm with the qualitative term green.
It was earth.
That is just an excuses to justifie a mistake.
I have explained this lots of times, and frankly you are not willing to ear whatever I am saying. Because I find myself having to explain this to you all over again.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
you know master that you cannot conclude that the green is vegitation or life just by looking at the leo with no prior information.
your other points are good though i cant give an opinion on them as i dont study physics
excandersham 2 years ago
if you had no prior information from gaia you could not conclude green=vegitation im sorry you can't it was used as an example
excandersham 2 years ago
As I find myself having to explain this again. I can. Even if I couldn't it wouldn't matter because that was never what it was mentioned. That is a later excuse that you have come up with to justify his mistake, and I hope that you can atleast realise that.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
no no no just by looking at the earth you can't conclude theres life on it you know this no matter what tests you want to do on it the statement is you cant directly see evidence of life just by looking.
excandersham 2 years ago
You have completly failed to read my comment yet again. I'm seriously tiered of you, my english is bad, but I seriously recomend that you take english classes to be able to learn to read.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
no i didn't i read the comment the point is you cannot conclude just by looking at the earth that it has life you need prior information.
excandersham 2 years ago
So you should have notice the part where I mentioned that although I can (this is not the relevant part) that it doesn't matter wether you can or not [because you already know what it is] (this is the relevant part)
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
yes but an outside observer would not or would you not agree with that?
your taking his point out of context
excandersham 2 years ago
No, I have clearly stated that I don't agree with that. and no it was not taken out of context. And the fact that you said this at least you recognise that the detail that " an ignorant alien would hav to necessarilly be able to do it" is your fabrication.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
but he could very well have meant that an observer not from earth couldn't conclude that the earth had life from a near earth orbit
excandersham 2 years ago
This is what i am trying to explain to everyone sense the begining. I don't care about what you think he could possibly meant (if you watch the context carefully there is no other way he could have possibly meant it). I arguing with the information that he provided, i'm arguing with what he said and not what you think he should have said or could have said. If he meant something completly different from what he said how could I possible distinguish what he said from what he meant?
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
"This is what i am trying to explain to everyone sense the begining. I don't care about what you think he could possibly meant..."
Then why the FUCK should WE give a damn what YOU think?!?!
338dmac 2 years ago
And only in YOUR mind are you completely ignoring the ENTIRE PREMISE of Shane EVER bringing that up; he was talking about how you can't just tell by looking at a planet that there is life. Talk about an excuse to cover up a mistake, for shit's sake, you're the one trying to debunk Shane, you could at least focus on what he's actually talking about instead of all this stupid debate-framing bullshit.
338dmac 2 years ago 2
NASA has stated that organisms on other planets could photosynthesize differently from Earth. Other planets' life could have color signatures such as red, orange, yellow, or black. The process of photosynthesis by plants here on Earth detail the use of the sun's light energy to sustain themselves and grow.
excandersham 2 years ago
'Mano, tengo que decir, de verdad, este video es un fracaso...
OK, Spanish aside, how the fuck would anyone know that that green stuff is living matter if they're looking at earth FROM OUTER SPACE?!?! We didn't even know why Mars was red until we landed probes on it, I guess we should have assumed it was life just because of the color. Seriously, the ONLY reason we recognize the green of earth as life is because WE LIVE HERE. And he's NOT EVEN RULING OUT the possibility of micro life!
338dmac 2 years ago
I have no idea why did you tryed spanish.
Secondly we know age ago that the coloration of mars is to to iron, ages before the invetion of any space probe.
Thirdly chromatic analysis would do that.
Forthly that is evading the point, he said that there were no signs of life from a near earth orbit, it's false. The mentioning that it must be to some one from another planet who doesn't have the slightest clue about specroscopic is a later spin, because he was not talking to an alien.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
0:10, what, you don't speak it?
"Why did you tryed spanish."
THAT's why. You see, I figued you'd understand Spanish better than English, seeing so you can't type in the latter language particularly well.
How did we know before we landed on Mars that it was red because of iron? I thought that was an assumption until we proved it.
Chromatic analysis could ONLY WORK if both 1) we're looking at elements we already know about, and 2) they happen to reflect the same color as on Earth.
338dmac 2 years ago
My menus are in Portuguese, Not Spanish. I can understand spanish, I don't talk spanish, and I understand english very well.
The same way we know that the sun is mostly consisted in hidrogen and helium despite the fact that no probe as ever gone to the sun.
And you seriously don't have the slightest clue of what we can tell by simply analysing the chromatic spectrum (what we can identifie to be or not to be) And secondly the rules of physics are the same everywhere in the universe
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
Aun asi, 'mano, mi espanol es mejor que tu ingles. And you still acted like I was stupid for thinking you spoke Spanish. You said so yourself, you can understand it, so if the two are that similar, why would you act like I'm stupid for assuming one or the other given the very slim amount of context clues for me to go by? Otra vez, chingate bendejo. And what fucking good would the chromatic spectrum be for detecting life if a plant could be black or orange on another planet like Shane said?
338dmac 2 years ago
Although Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and French are latin based language and they can sligtlly nderstand eachother to a certain degree, it doesn't mean that they are the same. And keeping insisting on the subject just makes you look even more ignorant (while trying to look smart, and that makes it even worst).
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
Did I ever SAY they were the same? No, in fact YOU are the one who said that you "can understand Spanish". Maybe you should have said that you can understand SOME Spanish, because you apparently made the two languages out to be much more similar than they actually are in saying that you speak one and can still understand the other. Whatever, maybe you just lied, and don't actually understand it at all. Keep failing at framing please, it's fun for me to point these things out.
338dmac 2 years ago
For someone pretending to be smart by mistaking Portuguese whit Spanish (which prompts me to say that you don't know spanish), can't really make any judgement how much a Portuguese understands Spanish or vice-versa, because you really don't know either.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
Again, if speaking one doesn't make you knowledgeable of the other, why would you insinuate that that was the case by saying that you understand both because you speak one of them?
338dmac 2 years ago
Secondly, the name green or black are qualitative terms that are very useless in science. in chromatography we quantitatively analyse the "power" of each frequency, and determin what it is (sense each chemical has its own chromatographic signature), but most importatly we can tell what it isn't (it isn't anything that exist naturally).
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
Doesn't "Chromatographic signature" just mean "color signature"? Black, green and orange are all different colors which would then emit different "frequencies" that you speak of, correct? Is this or is this not effectively observing and measuring mere color?
338dmac 2 years ago
It means a specific intensity in dBW for a given frequency in hertz.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
Yep, 'cause I can answer that while I'm blocked...
338dmac 2 years ago
Hmm, I thought I was blocked...? What the hell? Or did you just do it temporarily?
338dmac 2 years ago
Perhaps you should have watched the part of 4:00
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
Your appeal to authority means absolutely nothing in the face of what has been demonstrated to you today. Nice job trying to re-frame the debate in your favor with something so irrelevant to the topics at hand. I laugh at your pathetic attempt to regain your footing after having been verbally obliterated. That shitty little appeal to authority does not change anything. You have been defeated on most, if not all, accounts.
338dmac 2 years ago
All have I seen so far is a couple of retards claiming victory when in fact they are only talking nonsense of shit they don't know absolutly anything about.
I do this for living, and if you think that it is your highschool knowledge about subject that is going to make a stand against an informed profetional on the subject then you are retarded, and you really should consider the position you are in. It is a simple as that.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
Again, an appeal to authority isn't going to help you at all if you can't simply back up your position. I'll even give you a chance to do that: What the hell did you mean by "a specific intensity in dBW for a given frequency in hertz"? Enlighten me, o big boss man.
338dmac 2 years ago
What you are doing is creating an excuse to justifie the mistakes that he has done. And that is not the way you should do things.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
wow misterghostnight. you are retarded.
PowerfulSplicer 2 years ago
What's funny is that you are actually defending a geocentrist.
Scoforever 2 years ago
I'm not saying that the geocentrist is right, the geocentrist is wrong period, and I have explained why (the real reason why, not a bogus one).
But it is a very weird position to be against a person that is against a geocentrist.
If I was a geocentrist (well given what i know about the subject i wouldn't be, but ignoring that), shanedk would have been in great trouble. Probably the next time I will give the material to the geocentrist, and let him have some fun debunking smartasses.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
you cannot conclude just because somethings green it is vegitation that is beyond stupid.
You can have absolutely no idea what the green colur is being caused by unless you look closer.
excandersham 2 years ago
The matter of fact that we know that the green observed in LEO pictures are vegetation.
the green as you put it is a qualitative term, a quatitative green, means it is vegetation, look for spectroscopy. And it is stupid to believe that we can not do it.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
yes because weve looked closer since we live on the earth.
we cannot tell by looking at distant planets that just because its green it has life.
excandersham 2 years ago
if we could wouldn't you have thought scientists would be able to conclude life on other planets already?
excandersham 2 years ago
No. And the reason why is explain in this same video. but you aparently skiped that. Which tells me that you never actually bother to watch it. And here i am trying to explain you basic things that would have been avoided if you just have given the time to look at it.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
you cannot tell whether there is life on other planets simply by looking at it you know this your dodging it
excandersham 2 years ago
No I didn't dodge it, i have said in the video that you can't, and i have explained why you can't. But again you have never actually looked at the video.
What it is not true is that there aren't any signs of life from LEO pictures, and the matter of fact is that there are.
And for some you are the one trying to dodge this, it is almost like you are shanedk, he is a grown man, he can take care of himself.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
what of the green is due to copper deposits?
or the green is due to another substance with the same green colur as vegitation
excandersham 2 years ago
The spectographic color is a propretie of chemical in question, if you know the spectographic function you can not be mistaken.
Besides this is beyond the point that was made. The point that ws made is that there wasn't any signs of life from LEO, which there are, and unless you tacle that no argumentation about spectography is really going to change that.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
What signs of life are there that are STILL signs of life when you exclude all information you get from the planet itself?
shanedk 2 years ago
I have already answered that, but for some reason you tend to ignore, and here you are asking it again. You are worst then a creationist, which you are so keen to acuse me of.
You are not here to ear an answer, you are here because you know you said something incredebly stupid and you are now trying to defend whatever credibility you have left. And I'm not here to copy paste my last comments because you missed it.
So my advise to you is to take it like a man and admit your mistakes.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
"I have already answered that,"
YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE NOT!!! EVERY SINGLE WAY you have of determining that the green means plant life REQUIRES KNOWLEDGE THAT EXISTS ON THE PLANET!!!
You have NOT answered the question. You've only LIED.
Can you prove the green is life WITHOUT using knowledge from the planet itself?
shanedk 2 years ago
Suit yourself, you know that you can't delete comments on my video right?
Do you know that everything you say can and will be used against you?
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
Can you prove the green is life without using knowledge from the planet itself or not?
If you don't answer again, then the answer must be "not."
shanedk 2 years ago
Wait, stating things that are factual and true can be used against him. Interesting.
You know just by you posting these videos and posting the most retarded comments I've ever seen in my life, including spelling and grammar, you're not doing yourself a favor.
AisuSeijin 2 years ago
Or you do whatever other idiot does, that is to try and seem smart out of the mess that he has made, giving everyone more reasons to prove that you are ignorant, (like your comment about the nature of forces), or probably do the most stupid thing of all that is to post a debunking video of this and let all of your subscribers know how stupid you are. You would be doing me a favor.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
Aww you quoted my comment. Unfortunately I dont see why you did as you actually didnt answer anything that was stated or asked in my comment. I also love how you left the green plus 2 in thats classic.
Not sure why you edited my name out though. I guess you were trying to be clever or perhaps youre afraid of something?
Either way your spelling and grammar is atrocious and your knowledge of the English language is essentially crap.
AisuSeijin 2 years ago
Yes, "vice-versa"--that means it gets GREATER as they get CLOSER.
Are you a complete idiot, or does your extreme hatred of me cloud even your basic knowledge of the language?
shanedk 2 years ago 3
You said, "the gravity increases exponentially as the distance betwen the 2 bodies decreases and vice-versa", The possible meaning of vice-versa is "the distance decreases exponentially as the gravity increases", which is wrong no matter how you put it.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
You also completely ignored the annotation where I pointed out, in response to comments saying the same thing, that there are TWO definitions of "exponential."
Come on--this is a CREATIONIST tactic!
shanedk 2 years ago 2
Ignoring obvious things and quote mining, or in this case, clip mining, are indeed creationist tactics.
MasterGhostKnight, if you want people to take you seriously, you should probably actually try discrediting Shane based off of something he got wrong, then you correct it. All you've done so far is prove you don't know what you're talking about, and that you completely fail to even pay attention to the videos you're critiquing.
AisuSeijin 2 years ago
Additionally, your last video said that Shane was implying that the Moon happened to have rockets attached to it, when... he never said that at all. You placed a part of a video out of context, to make it seem like he was answering a question to make it seem like things orbiting the Earth need rockets attached. The clip you poorly placed in was actually an answer / followup to why Satellites need thrusters, so they can stay in one spot in the sky so your dish can get a clear signal.
AisuSeijin 2 years ago
He never said explicitly that the moon had rockets, I never mentioned rockets in the video. All i have limited myself to do is to show that his statment is equivalent of saying that the moon has an "engine" (despite the nature of that engine been refered by shanedk in context as rockets)
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
He never said that either. Also, you're playing semantics now, you know exactly what I meant. Either way, Shane never said ANYTHING was attached to the moon, not even close. He was talking about Satellites and how they remain in a particular spot so you can point your dishes into the sky at them. When their fuel is used up, they no longer function.
He wasn't talking about EVERYTHING that orbits the earth. He was clarifying and earlier statement.
AisuSeijin 2 years ago
All clips are contiguous, if you go to the original video you will see the exact same thing.
And I made sure that the I copyed the cliped contiguously so there are no chances of acusing me of mining.
Your acusation are week, because all it takes is to look at the original video, which you haven't done so far.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
No there are no 2 definitions of exponential, this is math, math has no room for debate.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
Exponential means one thing as a noun, and another thing as an adjective. I used it as an adjective, but you used its definition as a noun to try and discredit me. Pathetic.
shanedk 2 years ago
Exponential has a definition, it's math, it is not linguistics, it is not up for debate period. Look it up.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
Words have more than one definition, idiot. Even in math.
shanedk 2 years ago
It is not up for debate. Deal with it.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
I don't think someone who misunderstands and spells 70% of his words wrong should be arguing about the English language. Exponential has multiple definitions, how about YOU look it up, and get back to us? Welcome to the English language.
AisuSeijin 2 years ago
butt he alredy speek very wel england
WhyCantIVote 2 years ago
You're apparently not even smart enough to realize that those night shots are composites of long-exposure shots.
shanedk 2 years ago
And your point is?
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
That people actually looking at the planet at night from orbit DO NOT SEE THEM.
Idiot.
shanedk 2 years ago
Specially if they are stuck on earth, oh but waith you see they have to use this sort of tools to get into space, only then they can see it.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
HIS POINT is that they wouldn't be that bright if you were actually looking at it in person.
338dmac 2 years ago
Unfortunatly I don't care how bright this pseudo-aliens that you created in your mind are. Given that I'm suficiently stupid would that mean that it is impossible with our current technology to know which leg goes after the left leg if I'm trying to walk forward?
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
what the hell are you talking about? They told you that the night photo's used are composites of long exposure shots and as such those lights in the photo do not actually appear if you were looking at the planet from space because they are not bright enough.
and you make some stupid counter argument that the intelligence of aliens is irrelevant and people need tools to get into space, your argument here makes zero sense and makes you look like an idiot
ibspify 2 years ago
but we are not looking for persons are we? We are looking for signs of life.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
And how are aliens going to know that the green stuff is plant life, you moron? Plants on their world won't necessarily be green! They might think they're copper deposits or something. Is green marble the result of chlorophyll?
Idiot.
shanedk 2 years ago 4
Unfortunatly copper is nowhere near the same green, you are just evading the fact that you made a blantant mistake.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
Did I say it was PURE copper? No, I did not.
You're fucking desperate.
shanedk 2 years ago
I never mentioned pure copper, neither that was the point. You said that there are "no signs of life" while one of the features that are most clearerly seen from space is vegetation.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
You said "copper is nowhere near the same green." But if there's other stuff along with the copper, that can CHANGE THE SHADE of green that it uses. You KNOW this. The ONLY way your objection can make sense is if I were referring to pure copper, WHICH I WASN'T.
And you also ignored my point that vegetation on their planet may not be green. See Dawkins's speculations about the colors of plants on other planets.
shanedk 2 years ago
I really don't give a flying fuck about what Dawkins said. If you were talking about another planet besides earth I might have taken into consideration (might if we didn't go into spectorscopy). The matter of fact is you gave the example of earth, those are plants and those are visible.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
I was talking about aliens FROM ANOTHER PLANET looking at Earth. I was making the point that you have to get REALLY FUCKING CLOSE to the planet to visually confirm life. If we saw green stuff on another planet, would we immediately conclude life? Would we?
shanedk 2 years ago 2
The only rebutal that I'm willing to acept is that you prove me right here right now is "that the green seen on LEO pictures are not from vegetation and that you can't see the real green of vegetation". But that is not the case.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
I never CLAIMED the green isn't from vegetation--and you know this, so this is another one of your pathetic LIES.
shanedk 2 years ago
Good, so we both a gree that the green is from vegetation, so why did you said that there is no signs of life from a LEO picture?
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
If you're NOT a pathetic, lying dogmatist, then answer me this: HOW WOULD ALIENS KNOW THE GREEN IS FROM VEGETATION???
Asked many times, never answered.
shanedk 2 years ago
1. Aliens where never mentioned
2. Copper is not the same chromatic green, it is rare the ammount of copper alloys that you can find naturally with a visible chromatic green. (copper age ring any bells?)
3. Whit the right analytical tools. HELL YES! An allien could know if there was any life in a LEO.
4. The point that you made was that there were no signs of life PERIOD. And that is the point that I made.
5. If adhominems is all that you can argue, then we are done here
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
1. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT DETECTING LIFE ON ALIEN PLANETS, YOU LIAR!!!
2. Again, if it's NOT pure copper, the impurities CHANGE THE APPEARANCE! Go take a first-grade art class.
3. With radio receivers, spectrometers, etc., yes. NOT BY LOOKING!!!
4. Yes, because an alien would have NO way of knowing at that point that plants on this planet are green!
5. I have a LOT more than ad hominems. I bring up MANY points which you either ignore or LIE about.
shanedk 2 years ago
1. You said there are no evidence of life in LEO. And unless that has changed, you have no means to debate.
2. 3. and 4. "Spectrometers" are devices capable of analysing quatitatively the ammount recieved in each specter. your eye can do that but doesn't give you absolute values and can only destinguish 3 different colors (if you are a regular person). Radio waves are exactly like the same waves that we see, only in a diffrent frequency.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
Answer the question: how would the aliens know it's life?
shanedk 2 years ago
HELLO? I have already done that.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
NO...YOU...HAVE...NOT!!! EVERYTHING you have used to show it's life REQUIRES INFORMATION OBTAINED ON EARTH--information that the aliens WOULD NOT HAVE!!!
Are you REALLY so stupid that you don't understand this?
shanedk 2 years ago
What part of the chlorophyll green in plants do not occur naturally you don't understand?
You are just ignoring everything that contradicts with you.
If you seriously come to me again with a question already answer, i will stop the civilized conversation and make a joke out of you, I can make Venomfangx look like a serious person near you.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
Again, if you'll READ the passages of Dawkins I referenced, you'll see that plants on alien planets WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE GREEN. The portion of the light spectrum they absorb and reflect is a result of evolution. If their star is blue, they may look orange. If their star is dim, plants might very well be black--greedily absorbing every photon they can!
All you're showing here is your own ignorance and your own unwillingness to learn.
shanedk 2 years ago 2
I don't give a flying fuck about what Dawkins said. And I never stated that the plant on other planets have to be green.
The matter of fact still remains that you have said that "even from near earth orbit you can't pick up 'any' signs of life" which is false.
Answer me, did you or did you not said "even from near earth orbit you can't pick up 'any' signs of life"?
Is it or is it not that same statment false?
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago
"I never stated that the plant on other planets have to be green."
Then, I ask AGAIN, how would someone from another planet KNOW that the green was indicative of life?
YOU HAVE NEVER ANSWERED THAT QUESTION!!!
You are a LIAR.
shanedk 2 years ago
"Pick up" meaning "detect", yes? In that case NO, we CANNOT detect life AS LIFE from a low-earth orbit. We can see green, but we CANNOT IDENTIFY IT OR VERIFY IT AS LIFE from a low-earth orbit. We just know that it is due to our prior knowledge from having BEEN ON THE SURFACE.
338dmac 2 years ago
Unfortunatly this isn't a matter for debate, this is the sate of the art in this field of science. If you want to blantantly contradict what we know and what we can do about this subject then I sugest you to start contradicting what other profetionals in the field are doing. But I have a slight impression that this is only a product of you iliteracy on the subject instead of a piece of briliancy that is misteriously overlooked by everyone else more qualified then you do.
MasterGhostKnight 2 years ago