What a coincidence... I only now came across this video (though I'm looking forward to more of the regular CrAP series... though it is like shooting fish in a barrel).
Anyway just this morning I was using the Michelson-Morley experiment as an example to demonstrate the self-correcting method of science (and thus how BS like ID is NOT science). IIRC, they didn't set out to disprove the existence of the luminiferous aether, but merely to measure the earth's relative speed through it.
I was just starting to understand how people can make it through high school and still doubt evolution........then........this. There are actually people who still beleive the cosmos orbits us? Any Flat Earthers left I should know about?
i don't believe that there is such a thing as 'ether' . but we do have our own modern day ether and that's dark matter which could be argued is a medium through which starlight passes. or maybe it only exists at a sub atomic level. who knows. who cares! well on that last point... alot of ppl care. good luck in figuring it out you crazy science types!
I think a lot of these insane beliefs have their roots in a feeling of inadequacy.
Think about it, your religious so anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together is going to think that you're mentally ill. You can't abandon your beliefs because that would mean being wrong, and all around you there are thousands of scientific discoveries teaching us about the beauty of the universe and proving you wrong.
What do you do? make up you're own "logical" justification for believing.
Epic win, about time we had a physicist to debunk creationism on YouTube. There's a lot of chemists and biologists for sure; I guess the physics side is less of a focus, even though some people still seriously believe that intelligently designed 'c-decay' bullshit...
i agree on a lot of points but you argue against creationists the whole arguement is pointless on both side it is just a matter of what one chooses to believe in since no one can disprove the other.
@doommmmmmm You can't "disprove" anything outside of logic or mathematics, but you can falsify claims about the natural world. Creationism has been falsified, and so have various natural theories, but good natural theories still remain, which give us strong insights into our origins. The argument is not pointless, because raising the education level of our communities improves our livelihood. We should promote real science and ridicule religiously inspired attempts to undermine it.
@AndromedasWake In order to falsify you must show that it is not real in otherwords disprove it。The arguement is pointless because saying god didn't make the world in 7 days isn't making people smarter. proving or disproving darwin isn't helping out either。
@doommmmmmm Wrong on both counts. If falsify = disprove why do we have two words? Because they aren't the same. To falsify a hypothesis, you must examine whether or not it meets evidence-based criteria. For example, the hypothesis that all creatures appeared in their present form does not comment on the direct genetic evidence of common descent, whereas the hypothesis of gradual evolution does. We have a dilema, because both of these cannot be simultaneously true....
@AndromedasWake Whatever i'd rather not get into all of this but before i leave i'll point out that both sides are ignorant thinking that they know best it's not an argument really it's just a battle to prove who is more arrogant.
@doommmmmmm Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to everyone despite not even understanding the nature of the debate.
@doommmmmmm Except that you claimed two sides of a debate were both ignorant which would imply that you know better than them, which would imply that you feel superior to them.
@CareerKnight at what point did i state that i know better than them? i was just stating my opinion.look @ my comment toAndromedasWake i said the same thing.
@doommmmmmm Usually when you say someone is ignorant it means you know more than them in this area at least. Otherwise you don't really have anything to back up your statement. Its like saying someones bad at baseball when you have never seen them play or seen any of their stats.
@doommmmmmm Yes! Are you saying it is possible to get out of being called on saying the most arrogant thing possible (no I don't think your statement is) because its an opinion? Last I checked if something is demonstrably true and verify-ably accurate (aka a fact) then its pretty hard to call anyone arrogant for stating it.
@CareerKnight do yourself a favor and fuck off because i tend to post opinion and not really care about what others think of it unless it actually interests me, the only other way i'll deal with it is if i have nothing to do so then i'll just toy around with the idiots that respond, which is what happened here.
@doommmmmmm Thanks for giving me a good laugh. I love how you assumed I was calling you arrogant because I gave a reason why Andromedaswake would assume you felt superior and responded with hostility towards me based on an assumption. Then when I called you on a bad line of reasoning your only response was the equivalent of tipping the board over and declaring victory.
@CareerKnight i could really care less about what you say. oh and thank YOU for the good laugh. your lack of understanding of the word opinion really proved amusing.
@doommmmmmm The fact that you replied yet again (and added nothing) means that your first sentence in the latest reply is more then likely a lie. Ok I'm done feeding the troll.
AndromedasWake keep up the good work (I enjoyed the background info on our original hypothesis on the nature of light) and I hope you release another video in your CrAP Debunked series soon.
@CareerKnight i really could care less about what you say i just keep replying to you so i don't get bored, your nothing more than simple amusement to me.
@doommmmmmm ... We know which is a stronger hypothesis by examining the evidence objectively. We are not proving or disproving anything, and that goes for Darwin. Proof and disproof are not scientific concepts. Verification and falsification are. Specifically, falsification is what we deal with because we can reliably falsify claims but cannot verify anything with 100% confidence. Understanding and defending Darwin's work is extremely important, because it is the basis of modern biology.
@AndromedasWake hehe... and modern biology certainly is beneficial!? i say Darwin was a monkey. a fremasonic ape who was just an instrument to further pervert humanity. to twist man's image of his true self.
as science goes in, morals and soul goes out. why? cause there is no need for them. science can manage without them! if this modern world with all its crimes, diseases, psychological and moral deprivation is the result of Darwinism and science, then i think we were better off with religion!
Good god... I really wish I could get every geocentrist up in a rocket in orbit around the Earth, so they could see beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Earth SPINS.
@thissystemneeds then they would come up with the excuse that it was that they were moving thanks the force they believe that moves the sun and stars around the earth
bowden is a clown. i watched 3 of his vids. it was quite painful. i left a comment where i asked him if he was drunk, stoned, or just stupid. i doubt it will appear in the comment field. this clown, and nephilimfree should team up. their brain power would "maybe" equal a termites.
wait, that was a big leap, once you stated his original premises i thought you were about to show how he derived the gamma function but you skipped right other to general relativity.
@circusOFprecision No I am not projecting. How can that statement be projecting? and "Mainstream Science"? Science is science, if Geocentrism is true publish the research in a peer-reviewed paper.
You are going to say "There is a conspiracy, that keeps geocentrism from being published" No there isn't geocentrism is just bullocks, that's why it won't be published.
Have you noticed that Bowden's model converts the solar system to a binary system whereby Mercury and Venus orbit the sun as they as a system orbit Earth? It requires a transit by both planets between the Earth and sun once daily, if not more. Funny, I don't remember seeing them going across the face of the sun each day!!!
I wonder if the canonical conjugate of "Nothing makes sense except in the light of relativity" is "Nothing makes sense in the light of quantum theory"...
So, if I'm understanding things correctly.... Bowden and his ilk think that the earth does not spin on its own axis, a motion leading to day/night and the other diurnal motions? Did I miss anything?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@klakkaros Well Bowden is referring "aether" but the name maybe misleadin. The theory basically is considered to be a physical medium occupying every point in Space, so please take a closer look at the work of for example John Keely and Nicola Tesla who both were very aware of "aether". AndromedasWake does not seem to understand what aether is because he is willing to deny the existence of it. The movement and behavior of this"aether" i think is best explained by Marco Rodin.
@SundayScientist : Marco who ??? . . :-D . . . Apparently, you believe in something, and you will dismiss everything that will contradict your belief. This is called faith, and it's Ok, as long as you keep your fantasies to yourself and don't go Jyhad with that... I guess we're all lucky science works differently : You develop a theory, and as long as all experiments confirms it, the theory can be believed as potentially true... Please try to understand the difference between the two processes.
@paercebal are you suggesting you have managed to perform some experiment that can proof that aether does not exist? I am amazed how little people know of todays science. I have been working with this "aether" for some time now and the technology really works and has been working for at least a decade.
@SundayScientist : Aether was expected to have an measurable effect. Morley and Michelson did their famous experiment, and it failed to demonstrate any effect whatsoever. But feel free to continue your technological breakthrough with aether, as long as I can continue to discuss philosophy with my unicorn friend... We both can wait for the day your discovery will earn you a Nobel Prize.
I think that it's very important to debunk geocentrism, honestly. In fact, everybody should understand precisely how we know that the earth orbits the sun. Don't just trust the scientists... know how we know!
I think that debunking geocentrism (and those guys who don't believe that we went to the moon) is vital, because it gives the watchers the intellectual tools needed to think critically.
How do we know? The only thing I've been able to find are sloppy academic articles that neglect to evaluate evidence (other than within piss poor assumptions) and an alarming social condition that makes people spew out phrases like "just trust the experts". I'm not saying geocentrism is correct, but the idea that the earth orbits the sun has it's own set of problems, and you know how those scientists love to neglect anomalies.
The sad truth is that, for 90% of modern science, we DO need to trust the experts.
But for the shape of the world there are experiments you can do yourself!
One: watch a tall ship closely (with binoculars) as it sails away from port. You'll notice that the bottom section disappears before the top.
Two: Call your cousin in Mexico while you at at a point directly north of him. Have him measure the shadow of a yardstick, and compare it to the shadow you get.
I honestly don´t what´s more amazing... the fact that "geocentrists" still exist... or the fact that computers have become so easy to use that geocentrists can figure out how to make video clips and upload them to YouTube.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
AndromedasWake you are making your self look like an idiot by trying to debunk this on :) No offence but Bowden has a point and clearly he can make it by not attackin you even though you are acting like he pissed your cereals. :)
@SundayScientist You are making yourself look like an idiot by saying that Bowden has a point. Okay, so Bowden has made several CLAIMS, which are in fact, backed up by no scientific evidence and as a result he has had to dream up his own evidence. He does this by quoting papers which he says contains evidence for his claims. The danger of course is that, as AndromedasWake clearly points out, he contradicts himself when he states that the Aether is moving.
I just watched Malcom Bowden's "rebuttals" and.... I'm not sure if I want AW to keep the pwnage up... or if we should just find a way to make the hurting stop...
The Yoda of cognitive dissonance and laughingstock of physics known as Malcolm Bowden has a "rebuttal" video featured on the BearenBeacon channel.. it is, of course, hilarious.
An interesting thing to point out is that, as you mentioned, sound has to travel through a medium. Now, if a medium (the aether) existed in space and this was how light traveled through space, then sound could also travel through it.
However, observation has shown us that sound waves cannot travel through space. This is because there is no medium in space (aether or otherwise) for sound waves to travel through.
Love these videos. Keep them coming. I can't believe we are still discussing the Aether. It was always one of those things you hear about when reading Poe, or Bronte, or casting a spell in World of Warcraft.
I don't understand this video.I want to see the experimental results and the proof they disagree on the ether argument.What is a stellar aboration?I want to see more information graphed.what do you mean constant 'to all observers' I understand the constant speed of light in a vacuum andchanging in other mediums but I don't understand the language used in parts Maybe Im just stupid but I think these videos should be twice as long and explain any principles used with abit more backround theory.
I like your attitude. You have the makings of a good scientist. I can comment somewhat on "constant, to all observers." Have you ever wondered what you would see if you were traveling in a car at the speed of light and turned on the headlights? Well, very accurate measurements have shown that no matter what perspective you are in (moving in a car, stationary relative to the surface of the Earth, etc) You will measure the speed of light to be the same (186,000 miles per second)
This is what is meant by all observers. Because different observers have a different reference frame. If you are walking to the front of a train, you observe your speed to be about 5 kph. Someone outside the train observes you to be moving at the speed of the train +your walking speed. Thus different reference frames measure different speeds for you. But the same is not true for light. No matter how the observer is, this speed is the same.
If you are on the same train and turn on a flashlight, both you and the observer would measure the speed of the beam of light to be the same speed. Thus, the speed of light is the same in all reference frames. (both the moving train, and the "stationary observer" outside the train. The Aether concept was invented initially, as an "absolute reference frame" of measurement. And we now know that there is no absolute reference frame, and that no Aether need be invoked to explain our observations.
Great video series! So cerebral and correct. I want to complement you on all of the many *meaningful* facets of your vids...but all I can think to say is "Malcom Bowden...Is also on WHEELS! So he can move about..."
Wow, cheetah... You are truly a moron of a class that very few may inhabit. Perhaps if you read the book of holes...err holy book... that you so admire you might not speak so often in it's favour.
I'm a little surprised that a fortune teller is trying to pretend there's a problem with any of the debunking of Redsky and the apparently senile Malcolm Bowden.
I wonder if Bowden and Redsky have an explanation for this question. If the earth really doesn't rotate, how can satellites maintain a geostationary orbit?
Newton's 1st Law....an object at rest tends to remain at rest. The satellites are launched and positioned with small energy bursts to a stationary position. I ask you a question. When you toss a ball perfectly straight up, why does it land on the spot directly under which you tossed it from? (Ignoring wind) If the earth is rotating a thousand miles per hour (at the equator) why does the ball not lose some inertia (not ignoring wind) and fall behind the earth's rotation?
Newton's 1st law also says that an object in motion remains in motion unless affected by an external force. As the satellite starts off with earth's movement/rotation (due to starting on earth) and ADDS the movement required to fly up into space and move into orbit what external force are you expecting to cause this falling behind?
Uhhh....they call them little rockets....small boosters to position the satellite. Ever notice how that ball thrown up in the air comes to a stop just before it falls? Get it high enough and earth gravity is balanced with all the forces of gravity in the universe which act on earth. The falling behind was about the ball being thrown up. Gee....can't you separate concepts?
No, satellites can only maintain a geostationary orbit if there rate of rotation around the earth is equal to the rate of rotation of the earth. They must go around the earth to generate the centrifugal force needed to cancel out gravity. As for your ball, Newton's 1st.
That's a bad way to describe it, because it uses fictitious forces, that is, forces that exist only because you've done the modeling in a non-inertial frame.
A better approach is to look at what the satellite is doing: It's falling down as it moves ahead. An object in (circular) orbit falls the same distance down per unit time that the Earth's surface drops below it due to the curvature of the Earth.
Actually evensgrey, since you seem to be a genuinely intelligent and reasonable fellow...if you check you will see that NASA (in launching ALL rockets) uses the SAME numbers and SAME calculations and SAME results regardless if one uses a rotational earth/stationary universe or stationary earth/rotational universe construct. Absolutely true. Now if you can start thinking outside the so-called "modern" science box, you may be surprised to find Copernicus had no proof because there is none.
No magic...the calculations are the same and Copernicus had no proof and there is still no proof. It's a shame. I thought you would at least examine the facts about launch calculations but I guess I was wrong. Intelligent? Don't know but do know you're not a reasonable person....just a naive, kool-aid drinker. Go ahead....believe what they tell you...whatever they say and don't by any means think for yourself. It might hurt.
Telling such obvious lies as you are is truly stupid, but then, you've already demonstrated that you're truly stupid.
The most obvious difference between the universe we live in and the magical universe of rotating ether (other than the fact it requires light to do things that light doesn't do) is that it certainly DOES matter that the Earth rotates when rockets are launched. Those of us familiar with physics are aware that launching east adds the Earth's tangential velocity to the rocket.
Then why are the calculations the same? Perhaps because the velocity launching east adds the rotating universe velocity pulling? Go and shake your head but the calculations are the same. In the rotating universe model, the coriolis effect is real, not apparent.... and objects really do deviate. In a closed system (the universe), any point in that system can be made a fixed reference, thus if one holds the earth to be motionless, the universe rotates...all calculations remain the same.
What's "they"? The calculations for rocket launches? The coriolis effects? The physics is the same....same laws...same calculations....same results. The only thing different is your perspective.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You're afraid of what others think. You follow the crowd. FYI, the majority is almost (virtually) always wrong. You're also limiting your powers of observation and conception, just like the hypnotized masses who do what they're told. The bible described the currents in the oceans thousands of yrs. before science "discovered" them. Google "Matthew Fontaine Maury" who was a devout Christian whose belief in SPECIFIC scriptures in the bible led him to his discovery. (Psalm 8:8, Ecclesiastes 1:7)
Perhaps you could explain how you get from meaningless and incorrect verses to the observation that the fact whales are mammals means that they can ONLY live in waters that DON'T freeze over? The basis of Maury's research was the fact that the presence of whales REQUIRES constantly open water, not any ancient horror stories.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Lieutenant Maury published his Wind and Current Chart of the North Atlantic, which showed sailors how to use the ocean's currents and winds to their advantage and drastically reduced the length of ocean voyages;" The "paths in the seas" reference Maury learned from the bible long before "science" discovered it. That was THE point, the only point and you ignored it because you are stubborn and stiffnecked. You think you can "win" this discussion. You already lost when you closed your mind.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Again you ignore the facts and try to divert the discussion. You'll never get it. You lost...you are a loser....BIG "L". Kool-Aid drinker....lemming...of the unwashed....lacking in sense....a stooge....sucker...pigeon...rube.....a glorious and shining example of the masses submissive of the ivory tower elite, who love to look down on you while laughing and sipping Starbucks overpriced latte's. Post once more so you can have the last word, if that means anything to you. I am, you're not. End.
Your saying that no one knew the oceans had currents in a time of sea-faring? The fact that the bible mentions these things does not give one once of credit to the book's veracity.
The bible also mentions female menstrual cycles before they were well understood by medical science. The evidence just keeps piling up doesn't it?
zzames6502....your family must be so proud....but you wouldn't care about that. No one your age who is emotionally about eleven would likely have any manners. Am I supposed to be impressed by your vulgarity? You only bewray your being a fool. Better had you kept silent and left us wondering than to have made such a comment and removed all doubt.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
C is not a constant. You speak of observable science, yet C has been observed to be slowing. But more important than that is your disrespect for Mr. Bowden evidenced by discoloring his persona and making derisive remarks. You should have just respectfully presented an argument You should not sin so against God. Yes, you have sinned against God. Lev:19:32: "Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man, and fear thy God: I am the LORD." Shame, shame on you.
@silvercheetahcat "C is not a constant. You speak of observable science, yet C has been observed to be slowing."
[citation needed]
Just because Malcolm is an old man doesn't mean he automatically deserves respect. Respect is earned, not given. And if you wish to earn the respect of an astronomer, the least you could do is get your facts straight about the history of astronomy.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"citation needed"? I would think a man as learned as yourself would have heard of Barry Setterfield's work.
"Respect is earned, not given." What a sad and cruel world you live in that common decency cannot be shown. I find your lack of good manners toward Mr. Bowden especially disconcerting considering you are an Englishman.
What facts about the history of astronomy did I present? Are you misdirecting and eluding even the comments on you videos? Is your position that weak? Yes, it is.
@silvercheetahcat You didn't present any. Bowden misrepresented the findings of several experiments based on his own bias. He also claimed that Lorentz contraction was a convenient last-minute invention to fudge relativity and do away with the ether. This is inaccurate.
Setterfield's light decay holds no weight among learned people, so why should I beware of it? Does it take into account the stringent constraints on the variability of the fine structure constant?...
@silvercheetahcat ... because a cursory glance at Google indicates that Setterfield's work allows things to appear distant in a 6000 year old Universe, and even the maximum variability of the fine structure constant would not permit anywhere near this much decay in the speed of light.
The fact is, VSL is purely hypothetical. There have been no observations confirming that the speed of light is changing by reference to hypothesis. Indeed, theories of this sort have a long way to go.
@silvercheetahcat By the way, common decency has nothing to do with how one chooses to refute a man who would willingly lie to children to protect and propagate his own asinine religious beliefs. And if someone wants their ideas to be respected, it's up to them to present those ideas convincingly and earn the respect they desire.
Malcolm Bowden is either willingly ignorant or a liar. Being elderly doesn't grant him immunity from ridicule.
On the contrary, being an elder does grant Mr. Bowden immunity from ridicule. You may ridicule his argument but not his person. Your disrespect is an old trick called ad hominem. You lower yourself in using it. On the other hand, if you are just insulting the man because you are an hater, then the worse for you. BTW, doesn't quantum entanglement prove aether?
@silvercheetahcat bowden is a clown. and he is willing to show the world that fact. the same goes for nepilimfree, venomfangx, shockofgod and all the rest. people who ignore science, and broadcast the fact, are at the mercy of people like AndromedasWake, me and anyone else who wants to put them on the whipping post. case closed.
Again i love these videos. I also find it baffling of people so willing to flaunt their ignorance. If these people actually took the time to check their "facts" before they started spewing bull shit i think they`d find they need to do more research, experiments and more research to stay current... Which would make them scientists.
Cheers to idiots. It`s great entertainment and i like hearing about current scientific progress in a nutshell. Off to read about Europa.
scientific method is not "truth" its just a method to conduct experiments. experimentation comes from observation.
everything from dark matter to heaviest mass correspond to strata layers of matter. and matter is setted one over the other in universe and its emanations also are stratared. so there you go science
if u r asking me Im not interested at all in testing it cuz Im not a sicentist. Im still sure I can make a device to ride on layers of matter starting from water, air, magnetic layers, and more. Also it is possible to create a surfing field around a particular object in order to ride on topo of desired matter layers so it looks as if defeating gravity.
After all in the whole universe there no such as thing as emptiness or only gravity force in space.Universe is full of strata layers of matter
You are made of WIN because you pwned geocentardism again! Also props on the reference to "1984" with the term 'doublethink' which I think should be used more in creationist debunking as it is the most apt word for their nonsense i have come across.
I think they will start to "disprove" the Coriolis effect, by doing a bathtub draining experiment. Popular media claims that water rotates clockwise on the northern hemisphere and counterclockwise on the southern hemisphere due to the Coriolis effect.
ktc0754, your about halfway there, dark matter is a theoretical subsance which produces gravity like regular matter, but can't be detected by its radiation(radio waves, light, X-rays...) and therefor hasn't been directly observed, but it is inffered to exist from its gravitational effects on visible matter.
Since its nature is unknown, we cannot confirm that dark matter does not have any weak interactions; in fact, some of dark matter may be neutrinos (or similar particles, so-called WIMPs), which do in fact have weak interactions (if they did not interact with the weak force, we would have no way of directly observing them at all). In fact, some dark matter is probably baryonic (i.e., composed of atoms. This would likely be in the form of non-luminous gases and brown dwarf stars, called MACHOs).
It isn't belief in a "God" that causes the problem. Its the enforcement of doctrinal bullshit called religion that is the problem, which if you really take a look actually has little to do with a god at all and has everything to do with people oppressing and killing each other in the NAME of a god.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
also gravity is just layers and layers and more layers of diferent types of matter at different vibrational states pushing us ..so we fall lol. if you take this plus the fact that since the big bang all types of matter exploded drawing deifferent types of centripedal and centrifugue forces (motions) we have a universe with all this matter layers pushing and pulling us giving as result the universal Gravitational theory !!!!
What are you talking about? I understand that English may not be your first language, but I cannnot make any scientific or rational sense out of this post.
That makes literally no sense. If you understood even basic physics, especially particle physics, you would understand how little sense that makes.
Why does it just so happen that all bodies behave as though attracted to all other bodies with a force approximately proportional to the product of the two bodies' masses and inversely proportional of the square of the distance between them?
Alnd I really don't understand your post; can you link me to a site that gives a more detailed explanation?
Imagine the Bigbang as a gas explotion, now take a look in slow motion to the spiral centrifuge and centripedal movements inside the explotion itself. This is your Model of the universe. Now ad to this all range of ever possible vibrational strata of matter from dark matter to the most heavy mass, all overlaped. The push you see is not about the size of an object but about the Mass as a "particular Vibrational strata layer"
This makes no sense to you cuz physics dont know what gravit is XD
great video thanks
xtremetom180 5 days ago
Very enjoyable thank you
distractionxx 1 week ago
you have some great stuff here
msjessypp 1 week ago
some really good stuff here
clairebehun 1 week ago
some really good stuff here
staranjela 1 week ago
Is that Andy Serkis as Einstein?
ODaemienE 2 weeks ago
@ODaemienE yeap, indeed he is. Very nice film i must say, worth watching.
linkuei83 1 day ago
How can there be people so stupid they believe that the earth is the center of the universe we can actually see that it isn't
nickmcV123 2 months ago
@nickmcV123 Well no surprise there, we got people that think earth is flat.
linkuei83 1 day ago
What a coincidence... I only now came across this video (though I'm looking forward to more of the regular CrAP series... though it is like shooting fish in a barrel).
Anyway just this morning I was using the Michelson-Morley experiment as an example to demonstrate the self-correcting method of science (and thus how BS like ID is NOT science). IIRC, they didn't set out to disprove the existence of the luminiferous aether, but merely to measure the earth's relative speed through it.
lordrukario 3 months ago
I was just starting to understand how people can make it through high school and still doubt evolution........then........this. There are actually people who still beleive the cosmos orbits us? Any Flat Earthers left I should know about?
davidsfriend01 3 months ago
i don't believe that there is such a thing as 'ether' . but we do have our own modern day ether and that's dark matter which could be argued is a medium through which starlight passes. or maybe it only exists at a sub atomic level. who knows. who cares! well on that last point... alot of ppl care. good luck in figuring it out you crazy science types!
RedLetterChristian 4 months ago
WE NEED MORE OF THIS!
GraberStone 6 months ago
Oh fuck i got stupid in my eyes
laserindie 6 months ago
that sun at the begining should orbit a crocoduck
fucktardickis 7 months ago
you rated the video 1 star!
thrillzonevideos 8 months ago
I think a lot of these insane beliefs have their roots in a feeling of inadequacy.
Think about it, your religious so anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together is going to think that you're mentally ill. You can't abandon your beliefs because that would mean being wrong, and all around you there are thousands of scientific discoveries teaching us about the beauty of the universe and proving you wrong.
What do you do? make up you're own "logical" justification for believing.
MrAudiovideodisco 9 months ago
Could someone please ask Mrs. Bowden to turn her hairdryer off when her husband is trying to make YouTube videos?
SoundOfScilence 11 months ago
Bloody Andy Serkis as Einstein?! GOLLUM!
JanPospisil42 1 year ago
Epic win, about time we had a physicist to debunk creationism on YouTube. There's a lot of chemists and biologists for sure; I guess the physics side is less of a focus, even though some people still seriously believe that intelligently designed 'c-decay' bullshit...
Darkdude929 1 year ago
i agree on a lot of points but you argue against creationists the whole arguement is pointless on both side it is just a matter of what one chooses to believe in since no one can disprove the other.
doommmmmmm 1 year ago
@doommmmmmm You can't "disprove" anything outside of logic or mathematics, but you can falsify claims about the natural world. Creationism has been falsified, and so have various natural theories, but good natural theories still remain, which give us strong insights into our origins. The argument is not pointless, because raising the education level of our communities improves our livelihood. We should promote real science and ridicule religiously inspired attempts to undermine it.
AndromedasWake 1 year ago 13
@AndromedasWake In order to falsify you must show that it is not real in otherwords disprove it。The arguement is pointless because saying god didn't make the world in 7 days isn't making people smarter. proving or disproving darwin isn't helping out either。
doommmmmmm 1 year ago
@doommmmmmm Wrong on both counts. If falsify = disprove why do we have two words? Because they aren't the same. To falsify a hypothesis, you must examine whether or not it meets evidence-based criteria. For example, the hypothesis that all creatures appeared in their present form does not comment on the direct genetic evidence of common descent, whereas the hypothesis of gradual evolution does. We have a dilema, because both of these cannot be simultaneously true....
AndromedasWake 1 year ago 5
@AndromedasWake Whatever i'd rather not get into all of this but before i leave i'll point out that both sides are ignorant thinking that they know best it's not an argument really it's just a battle to prove who is more arrogant.
doommmmmmm 1 year ago
@doommmmmmm Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to everyone despite not even understanding the nature of the debate.
AndromedasWake 1 year ago 7
@AndromedasWake I've never felt superior or inferior to anyone。That was ignorant of you to assume so。
doommmmmmm 1 year ago
@doommmmmmm Except that you claimed two sides of a debate were both ignorant which would imply that you know better than them, which would imply that you feel superior to them.
CareerKnight 11 months ago
@CareerKnight at what point did i state that i know better than them? i was just stating my opinion.look @ my comment toAndromedasWake i said the same thing.
doommmmmmm 11 months ago
@doommmmmmm Usually when you say someone is ignorant it means you know more than them in this area at least. Otherwise you don't really have anything to back up your statement. Its like saying someones bad at baseball when you have never seen them play or seen any of their stats.
CareerKnight 11 months ago
@CareerKnight you call me arrogant just for posting an OPINION. i love the word OPINION do yourself a favor by looking up its definition.
doommmmmmm 11 months ago
@doommmmmmm Yes! Are you saying it is possible to get out of being called on saying the most arrogant thing possible (no I don't think your statement is) because its an opinion? Last I checked if something is demonstrably true and verify-ably accurate (aka a fact) then its pretty hard to call anyone arrogant for stating it.
CareerKnight 11 months ago
@CareerKnight do yourself a favor and fuck off because i tend to post opinion and not really care about what others think of it unless it actually interests me, the only other way i'll deal with it is if i have nothing to do so then i'll just toy around with the idiots that respond, which is what happened here.
doommmmmmm 11 months ago
@doommmmmmm Thanks for giving me a good laugh. I love how you assumed I was calling you arrogant because I gave a reason why Andromedaswake would assume you felt superior and responded with hostility towards me based on an assumption. Then when I called you on a bad line of reasoning your only response was the equivalent of tipping the board over and declaring victory.
CareerKnight 11 months ago
@CareerKnight i could really care less about what you say. oh and thank YOU for the good laugh. your lack of understanding of the word opinion really proved amusing.
doommmmmmm 11 months ago
@doommmmmmm The fact that you replied yet again (and added nothing) means that your first sentence in the latest reply is more then likely a lie. Ok I'm done feeding the troll.
AndromedasWake keep up the good work (I enjoyed the background info on our original hypothesis on the nature of light) and I hope you release another video in your CrAP Debunked series soon.
CareerKnight 11 months ago
@CareerKnight i really could care less about what you say i just keep replying to you so i don't get bored, your nothing more than simple amusement to me.
doommmmmmm 11 months ago
@doommmmmmm ... We know which is a stronger hypothesis by examining the evidence objectively. We are not proving or disproving anything, and that goes for Darwin. Proof and disproof are not scientific concepts. Verification and falsification are. Specifically, falsification is what we deal with because we can reliably falsify claims but cannot verify anything with 100% confidence. Understanding and defending Darwin's work is extremely important, because it is the basis of modern biology.
AndromedasWake 1 year ago 4
@AndromedasWake hehe... and modern biology certainly is beneficial!? i say Darwin was a monkey. a fremasonic ape who was just an instrument to further pervert humanity. to twist man's image of his true self.
as science goes in, morals and soul goes out. why? cause there is no need for them. science can manage without them! if this modern world with all its crimes, diseases, psychological and moral deprivation is the result of Darwinism and science, then i think we were better off with religion!
CT2507 11 months ago
@CT2507 Darwin wasn't a monkey. Monkeys are cousin species to humans. And we're all apes, you included.
As for the rest of your comment, what the fuck?
AndromedasWake 11 months ago
Good god... I really wish I could get every geocentrist up in a rocket in orbit around the Earth, so they could see beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Earth SPINS.
thissystemneeds 1 year ago
@thissystemneeds then they would come up with the excuse that it was that they were moving thanks the force they believe that moves the sun and stars around the earth
slickwick45 1 year ago
So when's the third part coming out?
ianmathwiz7 1 year ago
Thank GOODNESS you're a good-guy.
If you were evil, you would be one dangerous person.
mmmmmarcus 1 year ago
man, i feel so betrayed watching this. how can a guy with a cool british accent and white hair lie to me like that?
andrewridgway 1 year ago
@86corvus too damn right dude!
BadNinjaMax 1 year ago
theyre all so fucking wrong! EVERYONE KNOWS THE EARTH IS FLAT AND STANDS ON THE BACK OF A GIANT TURTLE!
86Corvus 1 year ago 2
bowden is a clown. i watched 3 of his vids. it was quite painful. i left a comment where i asked him if he was drunk, stoned, or just stupid. i doubt it will appear in the comment field. this clown, and nephilimfree should team up. their brain power would "maybe" equal a termites.
peace, lardo.
lardo444 1 year ago
wait, that was a big leap, once you stated his original premises i thought you were about to show how he derived the gamma function but you skipped right other to general relativity.
lee0slayer 1 year ago
Anyone else notice the propensity for Creationists to project?
mrhnm 1 year ago
@mrhnm
Aren't you projecting?
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision No I am not projecting. How can that statement be projecting? and "Mainstream Science"? Science is science, if Geocentrism is true publish the research in a peer-reviewed paper.
You are going to say "There is a conspiracy, that keeps geocentrism from being published" No there isn't geocentrism is just bullocks, that's why it won't be published.
mrhnm 1 year ago
where is part 3 of this?
ScottTheAtheist 1 year ago
yea for me, I stopped an intergalactic war!
MakinH2O 1 year ago
(I love the magnifying glass-like sound. It makes it sound like your character lives in an observatory)
"You think that the aether is moving? You think that aether EXISTS?! and it is MOVING?!" lol
AlbinoZebra100 1 year ago
it's sad that there are still geocentrists
tshred666 1 year ago
@tshred666 No, not sad - it's actually hilarious! As long as they are kept away from little children, that is.
CloserEnd 1 year ago
@tshred666
It's sad that mainstream science is so piss poor and corrupt, yet we feel compelled to just trust it anyway.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Now it's time to put on your goggles, so you don't get stupid in your eyes." -- Instant classic.
CoolFire666 1 year ago
"Now it's time to put on your goggles, so you don't get stupid in your eyes." -- Instant classic.
CoolFire666 1 year ago 5
Have you noticed that Bowden's model converts the solar system to a binary system whereby Mercury and Venus orbit the sun as they as a system orbit Earth? It requires a transit by both planets between the Earth and sun once daily, if not more. Funny, I don't remember seeing them going across the face of the sun each day!!!
pontecanis 1 year ago
Ether/Aether is a really cool sounding word though.
Love it when it pops up in science fiction.
Well time to gets me some more reinfroced goggles, yet another pair destroyed due to teh stoopid.
KrazyKupo 1 year ago 2
@KrazyKupo I've never liked the sound of the word, myself.
... *cough*
VonAether 1 year ago
I wonder if the canonical conjugate of "Nothing makes sense except in the light of relativity" is "Nothing makes sense in the light of quantum theory"...
andapar 1 year ago
+1 for wheels. :D
VonAether 1 year ago
Ze goggles! Zhey do nossing!
CoolFire666 1 year ago 2
now its time to put some goggles on so you dont get stupid in your eyes LOL!!!
daftage 1 year ago 2
So, if I'm understanding things correctly.... Bowden and his ilk think that the earth does not spin on its own axis, a motion leading to day/night and the other diurnal motions? Did I miss anything?
squirrelflight 1 year ago
Ze goggles...They do nothing!
ChurbaSilvertongue 1 year ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@klakkaros Well Bowden is referring "aether" but the name maybe misleadin. The theory basically is considered to be a physical medium occupying every point in Space, so please take a closer look at the work of for example John Keely and Nicola Tesla who both were very aware of "aether". AndromedasWake does not seem to understand what aether is because he is willing to deny the existence of it. The movement and behavior of this"aether" i think is best explained by Marco Rodin.
SundayScientist 1 year ago
@SundayScientist : Marco who ??? . . :-D . . . Apparently, you believe in something, and you will dismiss everything that will contradict your belief. This is called faith, and it's Ok, as long as you keep your fantasies to yourself and don't go Jyhad with that... I guess we're all lucky science works differently : You develop a theory, and as long as all experiments confirms it, the theory can be believed as potentially true... Please try to understand the difference between the two processes.
paercebal 1 year ago
@paercebal are you suggesting you have managed to perform some experiment that can proof that aether does not exist? I am amazed how little people know of todays science. I have been working with this "aether" for some time now and the technology really works and has been working for at least a decade.
SundayScientist 1 year ago
@SundayScientist : Aether was expected to have an measurable effect. Morley and Michelson did their famous experiment, and it failed to demonstrate any effect whatsoever. But feel free to continue your technological breakthrough with aether, as long as I can continue to discuss philosophy with my unicorn friend... We both can wait for the day your discovery will earn you a Nobel Prize.
paercebal 1 year ago
I think that it's very important to debunk geocentrism, honestly. In fact, everybody should understand precisely how we know that the earth orbits the sun. Don't just trust the scientists... know how we know!
I think that debunking geocentrism (and those guys who don't believe that we went to the moon) is vital, because it gives the watchers the intellectual tools needed to think critically.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago 41
@FiverBeyond
How do we know? The only thing I've been able to find are sloppy academic articles that neglect to evaluate evidence (other than within piss poor assumptions) and an alarming social condition that makes people spew out phrases like "just trust the experts". I'm not saying geocentrism is correct, but the idea that the earth orbits the sun has it's own set of problems, and you know how those scientists love to neglect anomalies.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision
The sad truth is that, for 90% of modern science, we DO need to trust the experts.
But for the shape of the world there are experiments you can do yourself!
One: watch a tall ship closely (with binoculars) as it sails away from port. You'll notice that the bottom section disappears before the top.
Two: Call your cousin in Mexico while you at at a point directly north of him. Have him measure the shadow of a yardstick, and compare it to the shadow you get.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
I honestly don´t what´s more amazing... the fact that "geocentrists" still exist... or the fact that computers have become so easy to use that geocentrists can figure out how to make video clips and upload them to YouTube.
mdetrano 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
AndromedasWake you are making your self look like an idiot by trying to debunk this on :) No offence but Bowden has a point and clearly he can make it by not attackin you even though you are acting like he pissed your cereals. :)
SundayScientist 2 years ago
@SundayScientist You are making yourself look like an idiot by saying that Bowden has a point. Okay, so Bowden has made several CLAIMS, which are in fact, backed up by no scientific evidence and as a result he has had to dream up his own evidence. He does this by quoting papers which he says contains evidence for his claims. The danger of course is that, as AndromedasWake clearly points out, he contradicts himself when he states that the Aether is moving.
klakkaros 1 year ago 2
I just watched Malcom Bowden's "rebuttals" and.... I'm not sure if I want AW to keep the pwnage up... or if we should just find a way to make the hurting stop...
squirrelflight 2 years ago
Damn, placed my bets on redsky... I'm poor as holy hell =(
seseon 2 years ago
The Yoda of cognitive dissonance and laughingstock of physics known as Malcolm Bowden has a "rebuttal" video featured on the BearenBeacon channel.. it is, of course, hilarious.
SofaKingLoaded 2 years ago 2
This is a great video and series!
An interesting thing to point out is that, as you mentioned, sound has to travel through a medium. Now, if a medium (the aether) existed in space and this was how light traveled through space, then sound could also travel through it.
However, observation has shown us that sound waves cannot travel through space. This is because there is no medium in space (aether or otherwise) for sound waves to travel through.
Pretty neat, eh?
AnemosThrowback 2 years ago
Just goes to show, in the case of people like Malcolm, "Once a tw@t always a tw@t".
SayNo2ClosedMinds 2 years ago
Love these videos. Keep them coming. I can't believe we are still discussing the Aether. It was always one of those things you hear about when reading Poe, or Bronte, or casting a spell in World of Warcraft.
quinndiesel1977 2 years ago
I don't understand this video.I want to see the experimental results and the proof they disagree on the ether argument.What is a stellar aboration?I want to see more information graphed.what do you mean constant 'to all observers' I understand the constant speed of light in a vacuum andchanging in other mediums but I don't understand the language used in parts Maybe Im just stupid but I think these videos should be twice as long and explain any principles used with abit more backround theory.
dangriff12 2 years ago
I like your attitude. You have the makings of a good scientist. I can comment somewhat on "constant, to all observers." Have you ever wondered what you would see if you were traveling in a car at the speed of light and turned on the headlights? Well, very accurate measurements have shown that no matter what perspective you are in (moving in a car, stationary relative to the surface of the Earth, etc) You will measure the speed of light to be the same (186,000 miles per second)
quinndiesel1977 2 years ago
This is what is meant by all observers. Because different observers have a different reference frame. If you are walking to the front of a train, you observe your speed to be about 5 kph. Someone outside the train observes you to be moving at the speed of the train +your walking speed. Thus different reference frames measure different speeds for you. But the same is not true for light. No matter how the observer is, this speed is the same.
quinndiesel1977 2 years ago
If you are on the same train and turn on a flashlight, both you and the observer would measure the speed of the beam of light to be the same speed. Thus, the speed of light is the same in all reference frames. (both the moving train, and the "stationary observer" outside the train. The Aether concept was invented initially, as an "absolute reference frame" of measurement. And we now know that there is no absolute reference frame, and that no Aether need be invoked to explain our observations.
quinndiesel1977 2 years ago
thank you for explaining this.
dangriff12 2 years ago
Great video series! So cerebral and correct. I want to complement you on all of the many *meaningful* facets of your vids...but all I can think to say is "Malcom Bowden...Is also on WHEELS! So he can move about..."
MechanizedFantasy 2 years ago
I wish that guy would get out of the astronomy business. He should just grow his mustache and chinhair back and sell his delicious fried chicken.
MrFumbleoh 2 years ago
I've watched this video a few times, and I just noticed what Einstein was writing on the chalkboard lol.
feralshrew 2 years ago
Malcom has now put some response videos to these ones on his channel. Will you debunk them?
edblaster2000 2 years ago
Wow, cheetah... You are truly a moron of a class that very few may inhabit. Perhaps if you read the book of holes...err holy book... that you so admire you might not speak so often in it's favour.
kenandkids 2 years ago
I'm a little surprised that a fortune teller is trying to pretend there's a problem with any of the debunking of Redsky and the apparently senile Malcolm Bowden.
evensgrey 2 years ago
lol so you don't get stupid in your eyes
happyhappy85 2 years ago
I wonder if Bowden and Redsky have an explanation for this question. If the earth really doesn't rotate, how can satellites maintain a geostationary orbit?
ZShogan 2 years ago
Newton's 1st Law....an object at rest tends to remain at rest. The satellites are launched and positioned with small energy bursts to a stationary position. I ask you a question. When you toss a ball perfectly straight up, why does it land on the spot directly under which you tossed it from? (Ignoring wind) If the earth is rotating a thousand miles per hour (at the equator) why does the ball not lose some inertia (not ignoring wind) and fall behind the earth's rotation?
silvercheetahcat 2 years ago
Newton's 1st law also says that an object in motion remains in motion unless affected by an external force. As the satellite starts off with earth's movement/rotation (due to starting on earth) and ADDS the movement required to fly up into space and move into orbit what external force are you expecting to cause this falling behind?
mrdarkevilme 2 years ago 4
Uhhh....they call them little rockets....small boosters to position the satellite. Ever notice how that ball thrown up in the air comes to a stop just before it falls? Get it high enough and earth gravity is balanced with all the forces of gravity in the universe which act on earth. The falling behind was about the ball being thrown up. Gee....can't you separate concepts?
silvercheetahcat 2 years ago
No, satellites can only maintain a geostationary orbit if there rate of rotation around the earth is equal to the rate of rotation of the earth. They must go around the earth to generate the centrifugal force needed to cancel out gravity. As for your ball, Newton's 1st.
ZShogan 2 years ago
That's a bad way to describe it, because it uses fictitious forces, that is, forces that exist only because you've done the modeling in a non-inertial frame.
A better approach is to look at what the satellite is doing: It's falling down as it moves ahead. An object in (circular) orbit falls the same distance down per unit time that the Earth's surface drops below it due to the curvature of the Earth.
evensgrey 2 years ago
Actually evensgrey, since you seem to be a genuinely intelligent and reasonable fellow...if you check you will see that NASA (in launching ALL rockets) uses the SAME numbers and SAME calculations and SAME results regardless if one uses a rotational earth/stationary universe or stationary earth/rotational universe construct. Absolutely true. Now if you can start thinking outside the so-called "modern" science box, you may be surprised to find Copernicus had no proof because there is none.
silvercheetahcat 2 years ago
Well, if you assume magic as you advocate then there can be no science.
evensgrey 2 years ago
No magic...the calculations are the same and Copernicus had no proof and there is still no proof. It's a shame. I thought you would at least examine the facts about launch calculations but I guess I was wrong. Intelligent? Don't know but do know you're not a reasonable person....just a naive, kool-aid drinker. Go ahead....believe what they tell you...whatever they say and don't by any means think for yourself. It might hurt.
silvercheetahcat 2 years ago
Telling such obvious lies as you are is truly stupid, but then, you've already demonstrated that you're truly stupid.
The most obvious difference between the universe we live in and the magical universe of rotating ether (other than the fact it requires light to do things that light doesn't do) is that it certainly DOES matter that the Earth rotates when rockets are launched. Those of us familiar with physics are aware that launching east adds the Earth's tangential velocity to the rocket.
evensgrey 2 years ago
Then why are the calculations the same? Perhaps because the velocity launching east adds the rotating universe velocity pulling? Go and shake your head but the calculations are the same. In the rotating universe model, the coriolis effect is real, not apparent.... and objects really do deviate. In a closed system (the universe), any point in that system can be made a fixed reference, thus if one holds the earth to be motionless, the universe rotates...all calculations remain the same.
silvercheetahcat 2 years ago
Except that they stop being physics,and become magic, since there can be no coherent and consistent mechanisms producing any of the effects.
evensgrey 2 years ago
What's "they"? The calculations for rocket launches? The coriolis effects? The physics is the same....same laws...same calculations....same results. The only thing different is your perspective.
silvercheetahcat 2 years ago
Yes, you can recognize that the Earth is not a preferred rest frame and use physics, or shift your perspective to pure magic and pretend that it is.
evensgrey 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You're afraid of what others think. You follow the crowd. FYI, the majority is almost (virtually) always wrong. You're also limiting your powers of observation and conception, just like the hypnotized masses who do what they're told. The bible described the currents in the oceans thousands of yrs. before science "discovered" them. Google "Matthew Fontaine Maury" who was a devout Christian whose belief in SPECIFIC scriptures in the bible led him to his discovery. (Psalm 8:8, Ecclesiastes 1:7)
silvercheetahcat 2 years ago
Perhaps you could explain how you get from meaningless and incorrect verses to the observation that the fact whales are mammals means that they can ONLY live in waters that DON'T freeze over? The basis of Maury's research was the fact that the presence of whales REQUIRES constantly open water, not any ancient horror stories.
evensgrey 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Lieutenant Maury published his Wind and Current Chart of the North Atlantic, which showed sailors how to use the ocean's currents and winds to their advantage and drastically reduced the length of ocean voyages;" The "paths in the seas" reference Maury learned from the bible long before "science" discovered it. That was THE point, the only point and you ignored it because you are stubborn and stiffnecked. You think you can "win" this discussion. You already lost when you closed your mind.
silvercheetahcat 2 years ago
So you admit you never had a point, since it was only your own assumption that you had a point.
Demanding that your bronze age horror stories contains facts of any importance is homicidal delusion.
evensgrey 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Again you ignore the facts and try to divert the discussion. You'll never get it. You lost...you are a loser....BIG "L". Kool-Aid drinker....lemming...of the unwashed....lacking in sense....a stooge....sucker...pigeon...rube.....a glorious and shining example of the masses submissive of the ivory tower elite, who love to look down on you while laughing and sipping Starbucks overpriced latte's. Post once more so you can have the last word, if that means anything to you. I am, you're not. End.
silvercheetahcat 2 years ago
If you could present something that comes from reality, rather than your favorite bronze-age genocidal monster story book.
evensgrey 2 years ago
Your saying that no one knew the oceans had currents in a time of sea-faring? The fact that the bible mentions these things does not give one once of credit to the book's veracity.
The bible also mentions female menstrual cycles before they were well understood by medical science. The evidence just keeps piling up doesn't it?
jessemaurais 2 years ago
This is just physics dude. Just read a basic physics book.
UncomfortableSilence 2 years ago
someone, even.
zzames6502 2 years ago
@silvercheetahcat and erm, somone else ('us') wondering if I was a fool before I posted?
zzames6502 2 years ago
Sweet Control Freak Fuckery - you've made baby Jesus cry you filthy sinners!
Follow all the laws in Leviticus do you? No, didn't think so.
Grandstanding prick
zzames6502 2 years ago
zzames6502....your family must be so proud....but you wouldn't care about that. No one your age who is emotionally about eleven would likely have any manners. Am I supposed to be impressed by your vulgarity? You only bewray your being a fool. Better had you kept silent and left us wondering than to have made such a comment and removed all doubt.
silvercheetahcat 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
C is not a constant. You speak of observable science, yet C has been observed to be slowing. But more important than that is your disrespect for Mr. Bowden evidenced by discoloring his persona and making derisive remarks. You should have just respectfully presented an argument You should not sin so against God. Yes, you have sinned against God. Lev:19:32: "Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man, and fear thy God: I am the LORD." Shame, shame on you.
silvercheetahcat 2 years ago
@silvercheetahcat "C is not a constant. You speak of observable science, yet C has been observed to be slowing."
[citation needed]
Just because Malcolm is an old man doesn't mean he automatically deserves respect. Respect is earned, not given. And if you wish to earn the respect of an astronomer, the least you could do is get your facts straight about the history of astronomy.
AndromedasWake 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"citation needed"? I would think a man as learned as yourself would have heard of Barry Setterfield's work.
"Respect is earned, not given." What a sad and cruel world you live in that common decency cannot be shown. I find your lack of good manners toward Mr. Bowden especially disconcerting considering you are an Englishman.
What facts about the history of astronomy did I present? Are you misdirecting and eluding even the comments on you videos? Is your position that weak? Yes, it is.
silvercheetahcat 2 years ago
@silvercheetahcat You didn't present any. Bowden misrepresented the findings of several experiments based on his own bias. He also claimed that Lorentz contraction was a convenient last-minute invention to fudge relativity and do away with the ether. This is inaccurate.
Setterfield's light decay holds no weight among learned people, so why should I beware of it? Does it take into account the stringent constraints on the variability of the fine structure constant?...
AndromedasWake 2 years ago 11
@silvercheetahcat ... because a cursory glance at Google indicates that Setterfield's work allows things to appear distant in a 6000 year old Universe, and even the maximum variability of the fine structure constant would not permit anywhere near this much decay in the speed of light.
The fact is, VSL is purely hypothetical. There have been no observations confirming that the speed of light is changing by reference to hypothesis. Indeed, theories of this sort have a long way to go.
AndromedasWake 2 years ago 12
@silvercheetahcat By the way, common decency has nothing to do with how one chooses to refute a man who would willingly lie to children to protect and propagate his own asinine religious beliefs. And if someone wants their ideas to be respected, it's up to them to present those ideas convincingly and earn the respect they desire.
Malcolm Bowden is either willingly ignorant or a liar. Being elderly doesn't grant him immunity from ridicule.
AndromedasWake 2 years ago 47
On the contrary, being an elder does grant Mr. Bowden immunity from ridicule. You may ridicule his argument but not his person. Your disrespect is an old trick called ad hominem. You lower yourself in using it. On the other hand, if you are just insulting the man because you are an hater, then the worse for you. BTW, doesn't quantum entanglement prove aether?
silvercheetahcat 2 years ago
@silvercheetacat
How does it feel to get all your arguments destroyed??
About the satelites...hahhahahha!
Wow, you come here debating on astronomy while you dont even know basic physics, good GOD ;-)
Please dont leave, come debate some more. This is pure comedy, thanks for that! :)
perfectdonk 2 years ago
Nothing was destroyed except the dignity (if you possess any) of you fools who can't listen. Read the response to mrdarkevilme.
silvercheetahcat 2 years ago
@silvercheetahcat bowden is a clown. and he is willing to show the world that fact. the same goes for nepilimfree, venomfangx, shockofgod and all the rest. people who ignore science, and broadcast the fact, are at the mercy of people like AndromedasWake, me and anyone else who wants to put them on the whipping post. case closed.
peace, lardo.
lardo444 1 year ago
Best opening to a debunking video i heard so far.
MarcusCardiff 2 years ago
more CrAP please!!!!
satansaysdie 2 years ago
all hail lord duck!!!!
chilleffect 2 years ago
Maybe I'm a little lost here, but what the hell does it matter if one or two idiots think the universe is geocentric?
aPenguin09 2 years ago
LOL !
8:46 Einstein says it best !
XD
I love how u make these videos informative, bashing stupidity and adding a dash of humor too.
AW + common sense + humor = WIN
:D
mancamiatipoola 2 years ago 2
"Michael Bowden is also on... wheels so it can move about"
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !
LMAO !
XD
Awesome stuff mate, keep sticking it to the cretinoists !
mancamiatipoola 2 years ago
Are there any Flat-Earth believers on youtube? I'd love to hear what kind of bullshit they're spouting.
aozf05 2 years ago 2
I wear glasses, so I had a bit of stupid shield, at least the corrosive activity of stupid is slow enough to wash off
Teirusu155 2 years ago
Again i love these videos. I also find it baffling of people so willing to flaunt their ignorance. If these people actually took the time to check their "facts" before they started spewing bull shit i think they`d find they need to do more research, experiments and more research to stay current... Which would make them scientists.
Cheers to idiots. It`s great entertainment and i like hearing about current scientific progress in a nutshell. Off to read about Europa.
bboykumo 2 years ago
scientific method is not "truth" its just a method to conduct experiments. experimentation comes from observation.
everything from dark matter to heaviest mass correspond to strata layers of matter. and matter is setted one over the other in universe and its emanations also are stratared. so there you go science
soulmony 2 years ago
if u r asking me Im not interested at all in testing it cuz Im not a sicentist. Im still sure I can make a device to ride on layers of matter starting from water, air, magnetic layers, and more. Also it is possible to create a surfing field around a particular object in order to ride on topo of desired matter layers so it looks as if defeating gravity.
After all in the whole universe there no such as thing as emptiness or only gravity force in space.Universe is full of strata layers of matter
soulmony 2 years ago
"Im not interested at all in testing it"
Ah, so you prefer to reject the scientific method and simply spout whatever senseless bullshit you make up in your head.
Onithyr 2 years ago 4
My eyes....
the goggles, they do nothing!!!
ThetaOmega 2 years ago 4
Awesome spaceduck Andromeda!
LeafHuntress 2 years ago
Hahahaha... "put on your goggles so you don't get stupid in your eye."
Nice.
IaoGawd 2 years ago 4
You are made of WIN because you pwned geocentardism again! Also props on the reference to "1984" with the term 'doublethink' which I think should be used more in creationist debunking as it is the most apt word for their nonsense i have come across.
rjswolfman 2 years ago
IDiocy is only promoted by IDiots...
transtlantic 2 years ago
I'd love to see geocentrists try to explain Coriolis effect on the earth.
yhan4 2 years ago
I think they will start to "disprove" the Coriolis effect, by doing a bathtub draining experiment. Popular media claims that water rotates clockwise on the northern hemisphere and counterclockwise on the southern hemisphere due to the Coriolis effect.
Which is true, if the Coriolis wasn't that weak.
DoggySpew 2 years ago
couldn't the ether or aether be dark matter?
Thrashaero 2 years ago
I don't think so, dark matter is supposed to be regular matter that isn't it up (like planets or asteroids) I think.
ktc0754 2 years ago
ktc0754, your about halfway there, dark matter is a theoretical subsance which produces gravity like regular matter, but can't be detected by its radiation(radio waves, light, X-rays...) and therefor hasn't been directly observed, but it is inffered to exist from its gravitational effects on visible matter.
rjswolfman 2 years ago
ether doesn't exist or rather, the vacuum of space is the ether (Einstein), it's not a medium or substance.
And dark matter is hypothetical matter that is not detectable because it doesn't emit radiation.
didjabringadidjalong 2 years ago
dark matter is not undectable because it doesn't /emit/ radiation, its because it doesnt interact with anything except gravity.
narutojinrasengan 2 years ago
yes, that's what I mean, no interaction therefore no radiation that can be detected or observed directly, hence 'dark matter'.
didjabringadidjalong 2 years ago
Since its nature is unknown, we cannot confirm that dark matter does not have any weak interactions; in fact, some of dark matter may be neutrinos (or similar particles, so-called WIMPs), which do in fact have weak interactions (if they did not interact with the weak force, we would have no way of directly observing them at all). In fact, some dark matter is probably baryonic (i.e., composed of atoms. This would likely be in the form of non-luminous gases and brown dwarf stars, called MACHOs).
EebstertheGreat 2 years ago
no, as dark matter is described as having different properties than aether, some of which are in direct contradiction.
rjswolfman 2 years ago
8:47
LMAO!
garytheagnostic 2 years ago
It isn't belief in a "God" that causes the problem. Its the enforcement of doctrinal bullshit called religion that is the problem, which if you really take a look actually has little to do with a god at all and has everything to do with people oppressing and killing each other in the NAME of a god.
Poeticnuisance 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
Poeticnuisance 2 years ago
10/10 for production quality as always.
Jacko86plus5 2 years ago
Such class. I love it.
XxshogunxX 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
also gravity is just layers and layers and more layers of diferent types of matter at different vibrational states pushing us ..so we fall lol. if you take this plus the fact that since the big bang all types of matter exploded drawing deifferent types of centripedal and centrifugue forces (motions) we have a universe with all this matter layers pushing and pulling us giving as result the universal Gravitational theory !!!!
soulmony 2 years ago
What are you talking about? I understand that English may not be your first language, but I cannnot make any scientific or rational sense out of this post.
EebstertheGreat 2 years ago
LOL I wrote that comment just 2 weeks ago? I thought I did like a month ago oO
Well its just that , gravity is not a sot of magnetic force that pulls towards the center of a planet, sun etc.
Gravity is layers of matter in diferent vibrational states (ie Atmospheres) that Push our bodies agains the next solid piece of matter (ie Ground) .
The whole Universe since the BigBang is composed by Layes of matter in diferent vibrational states pulling and pushing making the effect of gravity.
soulmony 2 years ago
That makes literally no sense. If you understood even basic physics, especially particle physics, you would understand how little sense that makes.
Why does it just so happen that all bodies behave as though attracted to all other bodies with a force approximately proportional to the product of the two bodies' masses and inversely proportional of the square of the distance between them?
Alnd I really don't understand your post; can you link me to a site that gives a more detailed explanation?
EebstertheGreat 2 years ago
Imagine the Bigbang as a gas explotion, now take a look in slow motion to the spiral centrifuge and centripedal movements inside the explotion itself. This is your Model of the universe. Now ad to this all range of ever possible vibrational strata of matter from dark matter to the most heavy mass, all overlaped. The push you see is not about the size of an object but about the Mass as a "particular Vibrational strata layer"
This makes no sense to you cuz physics dont know what gravit is XD
soulmony 2 years ago
1. The Big Bang is nothing remotely comparable to a gas explosion.
2. it is true that angular momentum of the universe is conserved, but this cannot exert a force, per se. I don't see how this is relevant.
3. Atoms vibrate and spin, and we call it thermal energy. This is well understood and analyzed, and has been known for one hundred years.
4. What you are saying would (and does) lead to expansion, not attraction, and would be unrelated to the mass.
EebstertheGreat 2 years ago
Physics and the Universe works in perfect analogies, if you cannot understand this then forget about this type os studes/analisis.
MR.. Mass is nothing but energy "compressed" in specific vibrational
soulmony 2 years ago