A quark is a fundamental constituent of matter.Oh up dovvn strange charm top bottom.If you don't vvhat a quark is it don't matter cause you still got them.
Romans 1:18-25 That's all I have to say. God's wisdom and wonder are revealed in creation and you give the glory to 'random chance'. There will be no escape.
Imagine if God was born of the big bang. God was the big bang. Science and Religion are intertwined. Rational on both sides need to centre on what they want to achieve. It seems some scientist's want to get into the realm of religion and some God believers want to get into science. Well it doesn't work. You are like children. Can't you have a bit of both? Agree that you disagree. Saves a lot of trouble.
That sounds like bit of nonsense. One side requires faith while the other side demands evidence. Science doesn't claim why the big bang occurred it merely states how it occurred. How do you substantiate that both sides are rational? Faith by definition is irrational. Faith crumbles upon scrutiny. Science would never agree to disagree, it's not fix and rigid. When new & reliable evidence is present the science is always modified to better describe the phenomenon, what ever that is.
I you guys can't help talking about religion, probably because you are too stupid to understand physics, just mind that Jesus wasn't born yet but the quarks were already there! ;)
i am religious, however i view energy as a manifestation of God. In other words, religion and science come hand in hand. If you say something exists in a theological scope, then it must be proven scientifically. So far we don't have evidence that God exists but we may find out eventually with this space device called LISA which will detect higher dimensional space above our 3 dimensional membrane. Also what are the odds that life is an outcome of a collision of two membranes. it's not likely.
@andyllamanipl Stop babbering about it. I know who Chuck Norris is and how great he was, but... still, um can you break the 'religious' chain, cause it's kinda getting strange... o well D:
@sgrouge thats why hes worthy of all praise, if god was created from quarks then we would be just like him and hes not worthy of anything. quarks is how god created this world and theres so many things that scientists will never prove or achieve and they blame it on "mother nature". things like how its impossible to reach exactly the speed of light or zero kelvin
This info is just flat-out wrong. It states that there can be only two electrons in each shell around the nucleus. The first shell has two, yes, but the second accomodates EIGHT, the third EIGHTEEN, and so on. This is not a minor error. In my view it invalidates any value in this video.
@befuturenow Ya know, that's odd, because the narrator does say that, but the models seem to fit with your information. by the stated info, the model for gold would have 40 layers, and it only had 4 or 5. 3:06 is where all this starts. Maybe the narrator got a script with a typo?
@befuturenow Where did you get your lessons in rationality? By the logic you're proposing, saying something inaccurate would invalidate any value in anything you say after that... Anyway, if you check the information he provides (or remember it from science class) everything he say is true. Except the part where he states that there can be only two electrons in each shell around the nucleus.
To decrease the chances of saying something like that again, visit lesswrong (DOT) com
@befuturenow im sorry but i think i know what you mean n i wanna correct you, the first energy level has one shell which can accomodate 2 electrons, but the 2nd energy level can accomodate 8 n so on n so forth, each energy level grea1ter than one has more than one shell
we cant see god, he is only written in books, and we cant see atoms, they are only in books, so therefore we cant really know either exists. we can only believe. end of story
@eah2119 Not true. X-ray diffraction and various ingenious kinds of electron spectroscopy allow one to visualize atoms. We are able to see in the Angstrom scale (10^-10 m)!
@eah2119 "we cant see god, he is only written in books, and we cant see atoms, they are only in books, "
difference is that there is no evidence for God, but there if undeniable proof for Atoms. And actually, don't be so sure about not being able to see Atoms, they are just really small, not invisible.
i don't know about you, but it seems like these religious people seek out these videos so they can talk about how scientists are wrong and how God created everything and how your going to hell if you believe otherwise.
@AcanLord Yea.. because brainless nature decided all this accidentally. Meanwhile it's hard to believe that a super smart being made all this perfection. You got to be kidding me. Everything you see has specific designs, and their interactions are the same everywhere in nature, and science.
@xamire They arent designs. They are formations. Furthermore, its completely retarded to suggest a man from the bronze age on a tiny forgetable planet in a mediocre galaxy in some far flung part of the cosmos created the entire universe. Also, You are using the word Accident wrong. the word Accident implies a inteligent cause having mistakening done something. Nature can`t make mistakes, everything it does is inevitable according to the laws of physics.
@AcanLord Sounds to me like you just want to be God, hence your name. Pride is a funny thing. Furthermore.. they are designs.. the same designs you see in every aspect of life. I know I'm not wrong.. but if I was.. I would have nothing to lose if you were right. If you were wrong though.. you have everything to lose. I'm sure you don't care though. I mean hey... you're a big man right?
Sorry, nature has no "selective" anything. They follow a set of rules, that's all. Nature is your God.
@xamire Hence my name? wtf are you talking about? And yes you are flat out wrong. Pascals wager is simply a example of Intellectual cowardice. By the way. did you know if you are right about Zeus you have nothing to lose but if you are wrong you have everything to lose? If you roll your eyes at that, then you now know why i roll my eyes at you. And yes, Nature does have selective powers. they are called selection pressures. they filter out what can and what can`t be.
@AcanLord The face that you name yourself a Lord. You like power, and hate to give that up. It's how most people are. And no, it's idiotic to even say that the old roman empire "gods" are real, as they are completely fictional, and can be proven. It was simply works of fiction.
But.. funny enough, Darwin even said there must be a God, because of the fact that nature couldn't possibly make something even as small as the eye, due to it's complexity. Yet this is all an accident.... sure lmfao
@xamire AcanLord is an abbreviation of my full name dumbass. My Handle is Acanthastrea Lordhowensis. It has nothing to do with being power hungry or wanting to be a god. And it would seem you missed my point completely about pascals wager. Its just as ideotic to suggest your god is real as to suggest any roman gods are real. Both are mythology. The Bible is also a work of fiction. man was not created with a golem spell and Plants did not exist for the sun.
@gvektor Well actualy i have a better reason why accident is the wrong word. Accident is the wrong word because it implies An inteligent Agent Mistakenly doing something, or somehow involutarily being involved. However their is no evidence that any Inteligence was ever involved with any system in the universe anywhere outside of man made constructs.
@delaisla777 Basicly all of the comments i have made here are just dealing with creationist bullshit. How can this be construed as childish exactly? do explain... If you can`t then i recommend a big hearty shut the fuck up.
You musn't see it like that, you must see it like "the theory of atoms like planets" is not enough accurate, or more precisely, lets some questions open. That's why they needed another theory to answer those question, it gave the quantum theory.
And like I say, it's just a theory, a mathematical model that suits reality to a certain point... but I love that :p
Not quite, because unlike gravity, electric charge can be repulsive. The sun's gravity doesn't magically switch off once a planet starts orbiting. It keeps sucking things in, and it does it harder, because there's only positive gravity. But when you put a negative charge with a positive one, they cancel and stop attracting other things. This is why ions have charge numbers smaller than the number of protons and electrons in them.
So no, the electrons won't bind like planets around the sun.
Anti-gravity is not currently supported by science. It isn't speculated to exist, much less to be the mechanism for observed events. Superclustering is an attractive process, and is thus not antigravity anyways. The anti- of gravity is time.
This video was very well assembled. :) Stunning visuals, a comfortable pace, and intriguing subject matter. Excellent job!
I know a lot of time may have been spent on the animated humans at the end(I know it's probably a money saver to not pay actual humans to speak), but they appear really creepy.
The video was presented with soothing background audio and a pleasant speaking voice. The animated figures at the end really hurt the overall value unfortunately.
Thank God he didn't mispronounce the word "nucleus" - as soon as I hear someone "new-Q-Luss" I shudder and they lose all credibility, no matter what they say! Bravo for saying it slowly and clearly.
I would have taken another moment to explain the uncertainty principle (as it seemed to assume no prior knowledge).
Also, electron shells are not layered like onions, as the movie suggests. I understand the need of simplification, but a nod to the shape of various electron distribution shapes would have been cool. At least in the graphics, even if not completely explained.
Because misery loves company. Monotheistic religions are at their core, viruses. In order to survive, they must continue to infect other hosts. They all hate science because it is a very effective inoculant against infection by irrationality.
I really like this video and the narrator is excellent...
...but not every molecule of adenine is completely identical to every other molecule of adenine. There are isotopes to consider. I would think I've got some adenine in my own body with a deuterium or a carbon-13 or a nitrogen-15 somewhere on the molecule...
well, there's something that my chemistry was called rooms where one electron goes one way and one goes the other in a shell,i don't fully understand and it was the only really confusing part in chemistry for me
@PrinceOfDoubt That's the spin. Since two electrons in one orientation[the "box"] cannot be same in all respects, so two electrons in one orientation can be differentiated by the spin. It's not exactly the direction of rotation of electrons but you can think of it that way even though it's wrong in a sense.
@mariah41571 Well they can not have the same spin in the same energy level and there exists only two kinds of spin; up and down. But the expression in the video is not right anyway.
The video isn't very accurate when it comes to electron shells. Each electron shell can contain 2n² electrons, with n being the shell number (K=1, L=2, etc).
As for the subshells - these can be calculated using the 2(2l+1) formula. with l being the azimuthal quantum number (subshell s=0, p=1, etc).
Yeah but't a little unnecessary for the lay reader at this time. It would be a bit bizarre to give the populace of each sub shell without going into the mathematics of it.
Partially true, but someone trying to learn from this video may think neon has 5 shells, considering it has 10 electrons, when it in fact has 2 electrons in its inner shell and 8 in its outer shell. Or to think Palladium has 23 shells, when there's not that many letters in the alphabet starting from K ! (Palladium has 4 shells)
I agree. I did this this in year 1 of my degree, and it does sound like in high school chemistry when they incorrectly teach you about the 2 electron shell, then the 8 electron shells, so I guess to the lay reader it probably sounds misleading.
As for the video series, they are amongst my favourites, but the ones I find to be the most misleading are the Big Bang cosmology ones, but then again that requires a lot of mathematical explanation. Got any good videos to recommend?
For those really interested in seeing the flaws of existence and the logic, science, and mathematics used to understand our very existence, please watch the youtube videos of:
BBC - Dangerous Knowledge
you'll see the flaws of our very understanding of creation. Since knowledge is an extension of our minds, there is a greater knowledge: that is God, our ultimate creator.
Please criticize intellectually without bombardment of barbaric language.
The BBC's documentary "Dangerous Knowledge" is a very interesting and insightfull documentary into the understandings of logic and complexity in science.
But for some reason you seem totally oblivious to its message, is about the limits of logic and certanties and how science, and not god, can help us to make sense of this probabilistic universe in which live.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Interesting you came up with that conclusion.
It is impossible to explain infinities and larger infinities. Secondly, there is a limit to logic. But isn't logic a man-made tinkering tool. Logic has only able to produce computers without emotion.
What of the phenomenon of intuition? There is no logical reason to explain it. Robots/ computers do not have feelings of intuition. Humans do. But who will ever want to figure out something that is inexplicable. Clearly this phenomenon came from God
Intuition? I always thought intuition was based on sensory perceptions and memories that we're not aware of consciously - a sort of instinct that's almost primal. Of course, this is conjecture on my part but the brain is nowhere near being completely understood.
Why do you say intuition clearly came from god? Is the only reason that intuition has not yet been quantified?
Science is not a about absolute certainty, thats the realm of dogma. Because there are limits to logic and certainties, science becomes a game for verisimilitude, where the rules of the game are based on the scientific method. Understanding this gives science a tremendous explanatory power, even the concept on infinity is under its scrutiny, the conclusion might not make sense to us, but science was never about what makes sense to us anyway.
What about it? There is nothing mystical about it, just a parallel unconscious brain process to help us better survive in the complex reality in which we live in, a typical right brain side function. One of the many emergent properties of a complex brain, like consciousness, empathy and so on.
Why came it from God? If it's from *a* god then why not Allah, Zeus, etc.? 'Intuition' is a feeling about something that didn't arise from conscious thought or reason. Just because we can't yet pin it on a certain part of our thought doesn't mean it's from *your* god. It's most likely the subconscious assessing of situations that your brain does constantly. There is an evolutionary advantage that the man has who subconsciously 'notices' a bush rustle and is able to get away from the tiger.
As if science clearly explains descriptive detail of our existence and existence itself. I do speculate the idea of the Big Bang which produced high energy molecular activity forming what is our universe, but science will never explain the primordial creation of the Big Bang itself. If you want to believe in Parallel Universes and membranes of series of big bangs (known as M-Theory, a spin-off from string)--go for it. But still, it will never explain how it came into existence in the 1st place.
at least science tries to figure it out and comes up with many ideas based on reality, while religion says it has all the anwers and without reasonable argument
Still, if theism or deism isnt the answer, then are you saying why try to figure it out at all?
I say its ok if you have no interest in the question but if you do, i dont see the problem with thinking science can explain even the beginning of this universe
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I believe in both God and Science. However, I do believe God gave us a mind to seek knowledge which in turn created a science to help explain phenomenons.
All religious texts stands on the point of faith. It clearly tells us to seek knowledge. Which we are doing.
But your right, we can't predict what will we will learn in the future. Science is a tool to simply understand God's creation.
Science is flawed in understanding infinities, paradoxes, logically reasoning, and ethical issues.
SHFUTS, All your thinking and soul are just trillions of synapse firing in your brain. It's only electrons. You are nothing but atoms and God is only the imagination of an electron.
Interestingly, I am learning Planck's Constant currently in my modern physics class, but I am confused how it explains nothingness. Although it's interesting to note that energy exist only with discrete values or explicitly in integers as a 1, 2, 3...
But yes, everything and nothing is quite paradoxical. There is only 1 faith-based explanation, that is the universal mind
Planck's Constant has been used to measure how small a wave can get before it disappeared. Since atoms can be waves, it can be measured down until it disappeared out of the Universe. Take this to your professor.
Be careful of your use of the word never here. I wouldn't underestimate the ability of science to find a solution. Never is a long time. A human's life span does not compare to the time scale of "never" yet look at what science has accomplished just in the past 50 years.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
True...NEVER is a looooong time. But God created time in which he does not dwell in. As well as dimension amongst the 3 in which we live and additional dimensions (if there is such).
As I mentioned to -waltermh111-, science is flawed in explaining infinities, paradoxes, cyclic logic, ethics, etc.
Did the Nazis do a right thing in using Jews & minorities to foster their experiments? Ahhh, science, a great, mighty tool, but yet limited.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The popular majority of scientist have not sided with M-theorists. So I assume you believe in "membranes" colliding with one another creating many big bangs with different universes. That's sci-fi for ya. For heaven sake's, String Theory has not been proved.
How you can claim religion will never...bla bla bla. A real seeker of knowledge would read texts and draw up conclusions instead of making radical claims with no knowledge.
God isn't logic. He gave us the minds in which we created logic.
Do you mean a micro black hole similar to the millions of micro black holes that form in the upper atmosphere when high energy gamma rays strike?
Me, I am far more worried about how easy it is for third world nation to do some genetic engineering on micro organisms than I am about micro black holes from the LHC.
The Micros produced by the LHC would almost all possess V, I doubt that any dead on strikes would occur. But that point is moot anyway, the decay rate of a Micro is measured in pico-seconds I believe, duration isn't long when the event horizon in inside it's base mass.
The true threat from any black holes is if we are now entering the time frame where archaic black holes from the big bang are finally decayed far enough to start popping if they haven't been eaten or had a snack lately.
Just did some of this particle stuff in Biology when we reviewed matter and atoms. Can't study chemistry without this info and then life itself and the properties of atoms determinig how molecules behave in nature. If you are in school studying this stuff, don't sleep and make sure you listen carefully. Everything around us follows these rules, including your ass.
I can't get enough of this stuff. That does not mean I have an understanding of it, it just means my mind (unbeknown st to me) had an unquenchable thirst I am unable to explain. I just know it is important for me to continue to have a steady diet of the fundamentals from simple to complex. Perhaps one day I'll find out why.
You are far smarter than you give yourself credit for. This "Thirst" is the hallmark of intelligence, just keep slaking it at every chance, it will never be sated, but you will form an ocean where most only have a puddle.
Or pissing in them MUAHAHAHAHAHA I still get a wicked charge out of playing with the criminally ill informed. Ignorance can be forgiven, deliberate ignorance coupled with pride demands a stomping. I like wearing boots ;-)
you know, when i was a kid, my parents who are both doctors got into alternative medicine & the whole "new age" scene... now that i look back on it, a lot of it was much like religion (ie - absolute crap)... and i think thats what makes it even worse, because it stifles the ability for the stuff that was actually good to be seen as good & worthy of investigation. i did get angry for a while about all the crap i got fed as a kid, but now i am just glad i am out of it & learning what is true
LOL! I have a friend who is as vicious as they get, yet very insightful and totally brilliant. Lud calls it thus...New Age rhymes with Sewage. It is one thing to shake off the strictures of old antiquated ways of looking at things, it is quite another to just go randomly jack ass. Yes, there are forces and ways of doing things we can use as adjuncts to what we now know, but I'll take the Mayo clinic over a shaman every time.....and I am a pagan LMAO!!!!
yeah but i am 38 now, back when i was a kid in the 70s & 80s CHIROPRACTRY was part of the "new age" scene, and so was allergy therapy & nutritional medicine ...seriously, the fraternity of "medical science" was at times more religious than religion... but i think the reason for it was mainly that the only research done was ALL paid for by pharmaceutical companies, &hence they wouldnt accept anything they couldnt fit into a pill & people could get for free. there is merit also in meditation etc
As an aid to modern medicine, I have absolutely no issues and welcome the help in my own healing. But as a first resort I will default to hard science every time.
As for the wonderful folks at big pharma, let us just say I have lit way more than one box of black candles in their honor.
hey i agree with you by the way, i am just saying that there is a lot of stuff in alternative medicine that i am quite confident if it had gotten proper research in the first place, then we would have been thinking of it as "hard science" a long time ago... and i think there is other stuff that still isnt accepted in mainstream medicine which i know works.
...drugs have their place, but i prefer natural prevention (diet, exercise etc) before hard science cure
Black candles are traditionally used to put a curse on someone, a small attempt at humor.
LOL, we are both agreeing then. I too feel there is deep merit in some areas of alternative medicine, but since things are so "cowboy" in that area, I am ill at ease opting for its use as a primary treatment option. But I have seen the astounding efficacy of acupuncture in relief of pain with my own father!
i know what you mean... i wasted a lot of time discovering which was which when i was a teenager.
my dad now does musculo skeletal medicine, plus accupuncture & accupressure, herbal & nutritional medicine... and my mum is more into the mind body spirit thing, meditation hypnotherapy shiatsu etc... i guess they are each taking to something thats either more masculine or feminine as they relate to it.
sometimes i just develop my own ideas & then go to my dad to confirm if my theory is viable
This level of illustration has it's pluses and minuses. To the +, it helps one grasp certain complex ideas that many find thorny. But, on the down side. it locks in mental imagery that may later turn out to be incorrect and it may stifle the ability to imagine and visualize. This is the strength of Einstein and Hawking, they formed images and formulae in their minds that other had to pencil out.
A quark is a fundamental constituent of matter.Oh up dovvn strange charm top bottom.If you don't vvhat a quark is it don't matter cause you still got them.
ThatPotterTribute7 2 months ago
Romans 1:18-25 That's all I have to say. God's wisdom and wonder are revealed in creation and you give the glory to 'random chance'. There will be no escape.
dna9995 4 months ago
4:48 the molecule looks kind of like a teddy bear.
kindpotato 5 months ago
Imagine if God was born of the big bang. God was the big bang. Science and Religion are intertwined. Rational on both sides need to centre on what they want to achieve. It seems some scientist's want to get into the realm of religion and some God believers want to get into science. Well it doesn't work. You are like children. Can't you have a bit of both? Agree that you disagree. Saves a lot of trouble.
eddie100 6 months ago
@eddie100
That sounds like bit of nonsense. One side requires faith while the other side demands evidence. Science doesn't claim why the big bang occurred it merely states how it occurred. How do you substantiate that both sides are rational? Faith by definition is irrational. Faith crumbles upon scrutiny. Science would never agree to disagree, it's not fix and rigid. When new & reliable evidence is present the science is always modified to better describe the phenomenon, what ever that is.
82caspar 6 months ago
I you guys can't help talking about religion, probably because you are too stupid to understand physics, just mind that Jesus wasn't born yet but the quarks were already there! ;)
GShock112 7 months ago
THIS IS AWESOME!
TheTigerReturns 9 months ago
i am religious, however i view energy as a manifestation of God. In other words, religion and science come hand in hand. If you say something exists in a theological scope, then it must be proven scientifically. So far we don't have evidence that God exists but we may find out eventually with this space device called LISA which will detect higher dimensional space above our 3 dimensional membrane. Also what are the odds that life is an outcome of a collision of two membranes. it's not likely.
FallofDarkness55 11 months ago
Is god made of quarks?
Can any religious answer that?
If not, what is god created of?
And what created god?
sgrouge 1 year ago 2
@sgrouge Chuck Norris is the answer to all of your questions.
andyllamanipl 1 year ago
@andyllamanipl Stop babbering about it. I know who Chuck Norris is and how great he was, but... still, um can you break the 'religious' chain, cause it's kinda getting strange... o well D:
pooppeeyoupants 5 months ago
@sgrouge thats why hes worthy of all praise, if god was created from quarks then we would be just like him and hes not worthy of anything. quarks is how god created this world and theres so many things that scientists will never prove or achieve and they blame it on "mother nature". things like how its impossible to reach exactly the speed of light or zero kelvin
science can only get you so far
921milanista 9 months ago
This info is just flat-out wrong. It states that there can be only two electrons in each shell around the nucleus. The first shell has two, yes, but the second accomodates EIGHT, the third EIGHTEEN, and so on. This is not a minor error. In my view it invalidates any value in this video.
befuturenow 1 year ago
@befuturenow Ya know, that's odd, because the narrator does say that, but the models seem to fit with your information. by the stated info, the model for gold would have 40 layers, and it only had 4 or 5. 3:06 is where all this starts. Maybe the narrator got a script with a typo?
TruthMovement330 1 year ago
@befuturenow Where did you get your lessons in rationality? By the logic you're proposing, saying something inaccurate would invalidate any value in anything you say after that... Anyway, if you check the information he provides (or remember it from science class) everything he say is true. Except the part where he states that there can be only two electrons in each shell around the nucleus.
To decrease the chances of saying something like that again, visit lesswrong (DOT) com
13eyond13irthday030 11 months ago
@befuturenow im sorry but i think i know what you mean n i wanna correct you, the first energy level has one shell which can accomodate 2 electrons, but the 2nd energy level can accomodate 8 n so on n so forth, each energy level grea1ter than one has more than one shell
hope that helped!
921milanista 9 months ago
couldnt they find a way to explain it so that i could understand?
Zee96969696 1 year ago
GOD BLESS SCIENCE !!
gvektor 1 year ago
can we break a nutron?
dimitris95osfp 1 year ago
oh I'll rate it all right
Zareste 1 year ago
Thank you creepy plastic people..
JaysThoughts 1 year ago
how about if we compare VY canis majoris ( biggest star known in the universe ) and quarks?
Komisa696 1 year ago
He keeps saying "nu-cle-us" very carefully. It's annoying but okay since it could help people not say "nukyulus".
dildace 1 year ago
who the heck would dislike the vedio
baeronautics 1 year ago
@baeronautics Kent Hovind fans
FOOFlGHTERS 1 year ago
@FOOFlGHTERS who is kent hovid fans
baeronautics 1 year ago
@baeronautics kent hovind is a complete retard and leads the way in creation science, search him on youtube
MegaHazzer123 1 year ago
Baby Jesus Ide like to thank you right now for creating all the quarks in the Universe
SuperSharko 1 year ago
God bless Science
Grey13Human 1 year ago
we cant see god, he is only written in books, and we cant see atoms, they are only in books, so therefore we cant really know either exists. we can only believe. end of story
eah2119 1 year ago
@eah2119 Not true. X-ray diffraction and various ingenious kinds of electron spectroscopy allow one to visualize atoms. We are able to see in the Angstrom scale (10^-10 m)!
avedorena 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@eah2119 "we cant see god, he is only written in books, and we cant see atoms, they are only in books, "
difference is that there is no evidence for God, but there if undeniable proof for Atoms. And actually, don't be so sure about not being able to see Atoms, they are just really small, not invisible.
FOOFlGHTERS 1 year ago
@eah2119 You obviously never watched Quincy who would bust out his electron tunnelling microscope at the drop of a hat.
jacksawild 1 year ago
@eah2119
We can't see sounds either.
But we can detect them through ways other than just looking at them with out eyes.
CzarAdam2009 1 year ago
too much reverb on the voice over..
SuperTubbyTube 1 year ago
i don't know about you, but it seems like these religious people seek out these videos so they can talk about how scientists are wrong and how God created everything and how your going to hell if you believe otherwise.
Dirtboy101 1 year ago
excellent explanation
bicnarok 1 year ago
this could be taken further to consider the violation of cp symmetry -- one of the most profound issues available for study
pzmtuthcvpvl 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I find it so amazing when I watch how Jesus created all these things.
iwasborninyourbutt 2 years ago
jesus did not create any of these things.
AcanLord 2 years ago 42
@AcanLord chuck norris did it :)
Hekatonkheirus 1 year ago
@AcanLord even considering the bible to be true, jesus didn't create anything except some serious problems with the roman authorities....
But as we know that it isn't, we don't have to bother about what other peoples imaginary friends do or don't do...
liquidminds 1 year ago
@liquidminds
Jesus will make anything you want. Fictional beings will do whatever you like if you have a pen. =D
CzarAdam2009 1 year ago
Comment removed
xamire 1 year ago
@AcanLord Yea.. because brainless nature decided all this accidentally. Meanwhile it's hard to believe that a super smart being made all this perfection. You got to be kidding me. Everything you see has specific designs, and their interactions are the same everywhere in nature, and science.
xamire 1 year ago
@xamire They arent designs. They are formations. Furthermore, its completely retarded to suggest a man from the bronze age on a tiny forgetable planet in a mediocre galaxy in some far flung part of the cosmos created the entire universe. Also, You are using the word Accident wrong. the word Accident implies a inteligent cause having mistakening done something. Nature can`t make mistakes, everything it does is inevitable according to the laws of physics.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord Sounds to me like you just want to be God, hence your name. Pride is a funny thing. Furthermore.. they are designs.. the same designs you see in every aspect of life. I know I'm not wrong.. but if I was.. I would have nothing to lose if you were right. If you were wrong though.. you have everything to lose. I'm sure you don't care though. I mean hey... you're a big man right?
Sorry, nature has no "selective" anything. They follow a set of rules, that's all. Nature is your God.
xamire 1 year ago
@xamire so let me get this straight. you think i want to be a god? and yet my God is nature? That makes no fucking sense.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@xamire Hence my name? wtf are you talking about? And yes you are flat out wrong. Pascals wager is simply a example of Intellectual cowardice. By the way. did you know if you are right about Zeus you have nothing to lose but if you are wrong you have everything to lose? If you roll your eyes at that, then you now know why i roll my eyes at you. And yes, Nature does have selective powers. they are called selection pressures. they filter out what can and what can`t be.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord The face that you name yourself a Lord. You like power, and hate to give that up. It's how most people are. And no, it's idiotic to even say that the old roman empire "gods" are real, as they are completely fictional, and can be proven. It was simply works of fiction.
But.. funny enough, Darwin even said there must be a God, because of the fact that nature couldn't possibly make something even as small as the eye, due to it's complexity. Yet this is all an accident.... sure lmfao
xamire 1 year ago
@xamire
Accident is the wrong word.
AcanLord 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xamire AcanLord is an abbreviation of my full name dumbass. My Handle is Acanthastrea Lordhowensis. It has nothing to do with being power hungry or wanting to be a god. And it would seem you missed my point completely about pascals wager. Its just as ideotic to suggest your god is real as to suggest any roman gods are real. Both are mythology. The Bible is also a work of fiction. man was not created with a golem spell and Plants did not exist for the sun.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord yes,WORD ACCIDENT is ABSOLUTELY WRONG, cause according to the law of physics UNIVERSE is PERFECT SYSTEM !
gvektor 1 year ago
@gvektor Well actualy i have a better reason why accident is the wrong word. Accident is the wrong word because it implies An inteligent Agent Mistakenly doing something, or somehow involutarily being involved. However their is no evidence that any Inteligence was ever involved with any system in the universe anywhere outside of man made constructs.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord Tell that to physicists
Orlando2914 1 year ago
@Orlando2914 Would you like me to? i know several who i could ask right now.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord yes. And get back to me on how that goes.
Orlando2914 1 year ago
@Orlando2914 to be clear, which comment are you refering to?
AcanLord 1 year ago
jesus haha ur so cute
delaisla777 1 year ago
@delaisla777 pardon?
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord im sorry i find your ideas cute........childish.....if your didnt get the hint yet im belittling you genius
delaisla777 1 year ago
@delaisla777 Prick?
AcanLord 1 year ago
Comment removed
AcanLord 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@delaisla777 Basicly all of the comments i have made here are just dealing with creationist bullshit. How can this be construed as childish exactly? do explain... If you can`t then i recommend a big hearty shut the fuck up.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord " of course cause Jesus is not scientist ", youre so CUTE
gvektor 1 year ago
@gvektor why the fuck exactly is everyone responding to my response
i gave to a fundie in the comments section? let me guess. you dident read that far back?
AcanLord 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AcanLord: "jesus did not create any of these things"
Agreed The Creator did =)
Rozettados25 1 year ago
@AcanLord jesus isnt god
921milanista 9 months ago
@921milanista i Agree.
AcanLord 9 months ago
@AcanLord YES GOD DID
REHTE1 5 months ago
@REHTE1 which god?
AcanLord 5 months ago
@REHTE1 THE ONE AND ONLY THE ONE HOW CREATED THE UNIVERSE NOT JESSUS
REHTE1 5 months ago
JEZUSUSZ! is good!
PlainsofWar 1 year ago
I don't know... I thought the ending was good. That chic with the low cut shirt really did it for me. HA
TheOriain99 2 years ago
the ending could be done better, never the less 5 stars
TheMrApex 2 years ago 2
You musn't see it like that, you must see it like "the theory of atoms like planets" is not enough accurate, or more precisely, lets some questions open. That's why they needed another theory to answer those question, it gave the quantum theory.
And like I say, it's just a theory, a mathematical model that suits reality to a certain point... but I love that :p
ibizapeanut 2 years ago
How do we know the model of the atom is accurate? with quarks? wouldn't the electrons bind in their shells like the planets around the sun?
b29349 2 years ago
Not quite, because unlike gravity, electric charge can be repulsive. The sun's gravity doesn't magically switch off once a planet starts orbiting. It keeps sucking things in, and it does it harder, because there's only positive gravity. But when you put a negative charge with a positive one, they cancel and stop attracting other things. This is why ions have charge numbers smaller than the number of protons and electrons in them.
So no, the electrons won't bind like planets around the sun.
rkyeun 2 years ago
@rkyeun: anti-gravity has been speculated as an extrpolated mech for super-clustering ....
pzmtuthcvpvl 1 year ago
Anti-gravity is not currently supported by science. It isn't speculated to exist, much less to be the mechanism for observed events. Superclustering is an attractive process, and is thus not antigravity anyways. The anti- of gravity is time.
rkyeun 1 year ago
I love this stuff!
This video was very well assembled. :) Stunning visuals, a comfortable pace, and intriguing subject matter. Excellent job!
I know a lot of time may have been spent on the animated humans at the end(I know it's probably a money saver to not pay actual humans to speak), but they appear really creepy.
The video was presented with soothing background audio and a pleasant speaking voice. The animated figures at the end really hurt the overall value unfortunately.
-Peace
cecilcooperrocks 2 years ago
Holy shit... Everything is so infinitly, mind-bogglingly vast and complicated. It's insane.
BeekersSqueakers 2 years ago 3
Thank God he didn't mispronounce the word "nucleus" - as soon as I hear someone "new-Q-Luss" I shudder and they lose all credibility, no matter what they say! Bravo for saying it slowly and clearly.
NJames6490 2 years ago
hahaha i was just thinking about that, kindjujubee!
fatandharry 2 years ago
AHHH THE ENDING IS SO SCARY!
kindjujubee 2 years ago 3
Informative, helpful; well worth watching.
Elwoodium 2 years ago
A very good video. I love stuff like this.
I would have taken another moment to explain the uncertainty principle (as it seemed to assume no prior knowledge).
Also, electron shells are not layered like onions, as the movie suggests. I understand the need of simplification, but a nod to the shape of various electron distribution shapes would have been cool. At least in the graphics, even if not completely explained.
Nonetheless, cool stuff.
ShaedeReshka 2 years ago
Nicely done.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Oh jesus. One video about science and the comments are just full of religion.
Why can't we have anything nice?
devil238 2 years ago 50
Because misery loves company. Monotheistic religions are at their core, viruses. In order to survive, they must continue to infect other hosts. They all hate science because it is a very effective inoculant against infection by irrationality.
Plutonwolf 2 years ago 5
@devil238 People are bound to simple things , because the person themselves can only understand simple things.
While some of these things are whimsical in nature you have to think about the origin of the comment.
THEFLESHMANN1 9 months ago
@devil238 I know right? It's kinda getting annoying -_-
pooppeeyoupants 5 months ago
Where you trying to get a point across by saying "nuCLEUS"? ;)
forger42 2 years ago
I really like this video and the narrator is excellent...
...but not every molecule of adenine is completely identical to every other molecule of adenine. There are isotopes to consider. I would think I've got some adenine in my own body with a deuterium or a carbon-13 or a nitrogen-15 somewhere on the molecule...
TheStephenation 2 years ago
very interesting as always.
ngarbo00 2 years ago
this is pretty damn good
PrinceOfDoubt 2 years ago
"Only two electrons can fit per layer"
No! Thats wrong please correct it.
MelCartman 2 years ago
well, there's something that my chemistry was called rooms where one electron goes one way and one goes the other in a shell,i don't fully understand and it was the only really confusing part in chemistry for me
PrinceOfDoubt 2 years ago
electrons can spin up+ or down-. the spin-orbit interaction splits the atomic energy levels and gives it structure. -Bohr
Dehlila07 2 years ago
@PrinceOfDoubt That's the spin. Since two electrons in one orientation[the "box"] cannot be same in all respects, so two electrons in one orientation can be differentiated by the spin. It's not exactly the direction of rotation of electrons but you can think of it that way even though it's wrong in a sense.
mariah41571 1 year ago
@MelCartman That's actually correct as long as a "layer" is intended to mean an orientation.
mariah41571 1 year ago
@mariah41571 Well they can not have the same spin in the same energy level and there exists only two kinds of spin; up and down. But the expression in the video is not right anyway.
MelCartman 1 year ago
The video isn't very accurate when it comes to electron shells. Each electron shell can contain 2n² electrons, with n being the shell number (K=1, L=2, etc).
As for the subshells - these can be calculated using the 2(2l+1) formula. with l being the azimuthal quantum number (subshell s=0, p=1, etc).
Athaeus 2 years ago
Yeah but't a little unnecessary for the lay reader at this time. It would be a bit bizarre to give the populace of each sub shell without going into the mathematics of it.
FreeInquisition 2 years ago
Partially true, but someone trying to learn from this video may think neon has 5 shells, considering it has 10 electrons, when it in fact has 2 electrons in its inner shell and 8 in its outer shell. Or to think Palladium has 23 shells, when there's not that many letters in the alphabet starting from K ! (Palladium has 4 shells)
I love these videos though, don't get me wrong.
Athaeus 2 years ago 2
I agree. I did this this in year 1 of my degree, and it does sound like in high school chemistry when they incorrectly teach you about the 2 electron shell, then the 8 electron shells, so I guess to the lay reader it probably sounds misleading.
As for the video series, they are amongst my favourites, but the ones I find to be the most misleading are the Big Bang cosmology ones, but then again that requires a lot of mathematical explanation. Got any good videos to recommend?
FreeInquisition 2 years ago
damn it, ill have to watch this like 5 time to fully understand all this, but thanks!
vince19811981 2 years ago
don't feel bad bro.
I have to watch it a bunch of times too.
But hey at least we are challenging ourselves to learn.
Btw read through the comments on these vids. Sometimes ppl have a way of explaining the video that makes it easier to understand.
WhirlingWolves 2 years ago 3
Pause it exactly at 6:37 to see Satan's face
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago
I thought it was Frank the bunny from Donnie Darko.
FreeInquisition 2 years ago
LOL it could be
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago
For those really interested in seeing the flaws of existence and the logic, science, and mathematics used to understand our very existence, please watch the youtube videos of:
BBC - Dangerous Knowledge
you'll see the flaws of our very understanding of creation. Since knowledge is an extension of our minds, there is a greater knowledge: that is God, our ultimate creator.
Please criticize intellectually without bombardment of barbaric language.
persaudchris 2 years ago
The BBC's documentary "Dangerous Knowledge" is a very interesting and insightfull documentary into the understandings of logic and complexity in science.
But for some reason you seem totally oblivious to its message, is about the limits of logic and certanties and how science, and not god, can help us to make sense of this probabilistic universe in which live.
magua73 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Interesting you came up with that conclusion.
It is impossible to explain infinities and larger infinities. Secondly, there is a limit to logic. But isn't logic a man-made tinkering tool. Logic has only able to produce computers without emotion.
What of the phenomenon of intuition? There is no logical reason to explain it. Robots/ computers do not have feelings of intuition. Humans do. But who will ever want to figure out something that is inexplicable. Clearly this phenomenon came from God
persaudchris 2 years ago
Why do you compare an 3-billion year evolved life-form with a primitive tool used by one of the 3-billion year evolved creatures?
I understand there's a limit to logic, but you seem to have thrown away logic altogether. You're really tragic.
Athaeus 2 years ago 2
So because there is not yet an explanation, we must attribute it to a god?
DyfnalltDH 2 years ago 3
Intuition? I always thought intuition was based on sensory perceptions and memories that we're not aware of consciously - a sort of instinct that's almost primal. Of course, this is conjecture on my part but the brain is nowhere near being completely understood.
Why do you say intuition clearly came from god? Is the only reason that intuition has not yet been quantified?
BlueStarFlower 2 years ago 2
@persaudchris
1
Science is not a about absolute certainty, thats the realm of dogma. Because there are limits to logic and certainties, science becomes a game for verisimilitude, where the rules of the game are based on the scientific method. Understanding this gives science a tremendous explanatory power, even the concept on infinity is under its scrutiny, the conclusion might not make sense to us, but science was never about what makes sense to us anyway.
magua73 2 years ago 2
@persaudchris
2
What of the phenomenon of intuition?
What about it? There is nothing mystical about it, just a parallel unconscious brain process to help us better survive in the complex reality in which we live in, a typical right brain side function. One of the many emergent properties of a complex brain, like consciousness, empathy and so on.
magua73 2 years ago 3
Why came it from God? If it's from *a* god then why not Allah, Zeus, etc.? 'Intuition' is a feeling about something that didn't arise from conscious thought or reason. Just because we can't yet pin it on a certain part of our thought doesn't mean it's from *your* god. It's most likely the subconscious assessing of situations that your brain does constantly. There is an evolutionary advantage that the man has who subconsciously 'notices' a bush rustle and is able to get away from the tiger.
anglaismoyen 2 years ago 6
@persaudchris I agree. 101%. God created science, it's as simple as that :D
mariah41571 1 year ago
Truth is more wonderful than the fictional fairy tales of Gods and demons.
shoa31 2 years ago 7
As if science clearly explains descriptive detail of our existence and existence itself. I do speculate the idea of the Big Bang which produced high energy molecular activity forming what is our universe, but science will never explain the primordial creation of the Big Bang itself. If you want to believe in Parallel Universes and membranes of series of big bangs (known as M-Theory, a spin-off from string)--go for it. But still, it will never explain how it came into existence in the 1st place.
persaudchris 2 years ago
religion either
at least science tries to figure it out and comes up with many ideas based on reality, while religion says it has all the anwers and without reasonable argument
Still, if theism or deism isnt the answer, then are you saying why try to figure it out at all?
I say its ok if you have no interest in the question but if you do, i dont see the problem with thinking science can explain even the beginning of this universe
You cant predict what we will learn in th future
waltermh111 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I believe in both God and Science. However, I do believe God gave us a mind to seek knowledge which in turn created a science to help explain phenomenons.
All religious texts stands on the point of faith. It clearly tells us to seek knowledge. Which we are doing.
But your right, we can't predict what will we will learn in the future. Science is a tool to simply understand God's creation.
Science is flawed in understanding infinities, paradoxes, logically reasoning, and ethical issues.
persaudchris 2 years ago
"Science is flawed in understanding infinities, paradoxes, logically reasoning, and ethical issues."
LOL!!! /fail
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago 7
I think you meant to type FAIL!
Zombiefisting 2 years ago
persaudchris, If you take a look at Planck's Constant, it tells us that we are nothing at all. Our existence are actually, imaginary.
shoa31 2 years ago
i think therefore i am nigga existence cant be imaginary cause somthing has to exist to imagine it
SHFUTS 2 years ago
SHFUTS, All your thinking and soul are just trillions of synapse firing in your brain. It's only electrons. You are nothing but atoms and God is only the imagination of an electron.
shoa31 2 years ago 5
Interestingly, I am learning Planck's Constant currently in my modern physics class, but I am confused how it explains nothingness. Although it's interesting to note that energy exist only with discrete values or explicitly in integers as a 1, 2, 3...
But yes, everything and nothing is quite paradoxical. There is only 1 faith-based explanation, that is the universal mind
persaudchris 2 years ago
persaudchris,
Planck's Constant has been used to measure how small a wave can get before it disappeared. Since atoms can be waves, it can be measured down until it disappeared out of the Universe. Take this to your professor.
shoa31 2 years ago
Be careful of your use of the word never here. I wouldn't underestimate the ability of science to find a solution. Never is a long time. A human's life span does not compare to the time scale of "never" yet look at what science has accomplished just in the past 50 years.
DFCDude 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
True...NEVER is a looooong time. But God created time in which he does not dwell in. As well as dimension amongst the 3 in which we live and additional dimensions (if there is such).
As I mentioned to -waltermh111-, science is flawed in explaining infinities, paradoxes, cyclic logic, ethics, etc.
Did the Nazis do a right thing in using Jews & minorities to foster their experiments? Ahhh, science, a great, mighty tool, but yet limited.
persaudchris 2 years ago
Godwin's Law... that didn't take you long.
DFCDude 2 years ago 6
Lol.
FreeInquisition 2 years ago
I think you'll find that's Allah.
FreeInquisition 2 years ago
Science has already explained pre-big bang with M Theory!
Religion is still claiming God instantly magicked everything out of his holy butt. LOL!!!
Religion will never be able to coherently define God...
Religion will Never be able to explain anything that exists in reality correctly.
Religion is a primitive flawed pseudo science that doesn't use reasoning or logic, but appeals to ones personal emotional state.
Religion is the unchanging Ape banging the rock against rock for eternity.
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The popular majority of scientist have not sided with M-theorists. So I assume you believe in "membranes" colliding with one another creating many big bangs with different universes. That's sci-fi for ya. For heaven sake's, String Theory has not been proved.
How you can claim religion will never...bla bla bla. A real seeker of knowledge would read texts and draw up conclusions instead of making radical claims with no knowledge.
God isn't logic. He gave us the minds in which we created logic.
persaudchris 2 years ago
@persaudchris
What makes you think science will never provide an explaination for that?
CzarAdam2009 1 year ago
great video
HairyGamer 2 years ago
'kay...i need to back up.i am familiar with the term quark, but i have NO idea what they are....
practicalmagic9 2 years ago
This video is incurrect, it is using Bohr's model which is NOT the currect model.
daiitokumyouou899 2 years ago 2
I noticed that too, was wondering why it's not talking about electron shells.
wretcherwretch 2 years ago 2
The audio is a little weird on this one...
1RadicalOne 2 years ago
Well, like I said, the chances are virtually zero but, the decay, via 'Hawkin Radiation' has never been proven.
Much anticipation awaits the LHC 'results', if any.
Topdoginuk 2 years ago
One wonders what new dimensions may be revealed as a result once the LHC (Large hadron Collider) particle accelerator gets into full swing!
Higgs? Gareth Lisis' ToE and Hawkins Nobel Prize etc?
The wonders of the subatomic world & its interactions for life give the greatest challenges & teasings!
Topdoginuk 2 years ago 4
yeah but when they have a problem it take more than 6months to cool it down :D so we'll have to be very patient
sigurd83 2 years ago
Well, some may say it's an extra 6 months before a 'Mini Black Hole' engulfs the Earth!
Yeah, the proccess of the cooling is a bug but, needed in order that the accelertor works proper.
Topdoginuk 2 years ago
Do you mean a micro black hole similar to the millions of micro black holes that form in the upper atmosphere when high energy gamma rays strike?
Me, I am far more worried about how easy it is for third world nation to do some genetic engineering on micro organisms than I am about micro black holes from the LHC.
Plutonwolf 2 years ago 5
Yeah, but these are not static as those that maybe produced as a result of LHC.
Chances are virtualy zero but, the arrogance perpertrated by the scientific freternity adds little. One should never say never!
Yes you are correct in the notion of deliberate genetic mutions posing a great threat but, global population growth is doing just fine!
Topdoginuk 2 years ago
The Micros produced by the LHC would almost all possess V, I doubt that any dead on strikes would occur. But that point is moot anyway, the decay rate of a Micro is measured in pico-seconds I believe, duration isn't long when the event horizon in inside it's base mass.
The true threat from any black holes is if we are now entering the time frame where archaic black holes from the big bang are finally decayed far enough to start popping if they haven't been eaten or had a snack lately.
Plutonwolf 2 years ago 2
Did you see those electrons go : )
IC1101 2 years ago
Just did some of this particle stuff in Biology when we reviewed matter and atoms. Can't study chemistry without this info and then life itself and the properties of atoms determinig how molecules behave in nature. If you are in school studying this stuff, don't sleep and make sure you listen carefully. Everything around us follows these rules, including your ass.
saxmanchiro 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
those little colorful lights are god.
EatAmerica 2 years ago
Comment removed
CropDuster33 2 years ago
no they're quarks.
CropDuster33 2 years ago 2
I can't get enough of this stuff. That does not mean I have an understanding of it, it just means my mind (unbeknown st to me) had an unquenchable thirst I am unable to explain. I just know it is important for me to continue to have a steady diet of the fundamentals from simple to complex. Perhaps one day I'll find out why.
Snowflake70 2 years ago 3
You are far smarter than you give yourself credit for. This "Thirst" is the hallmark of intelligence, just keep slaking it at every chance, it will never be sated, but you will form an ocean where most only have a puddle.
Plutonwolf 2 years ago
...which is why its fun jumping puddles ;-) LOL
tarose71 2 years ago
Or pissing in them MUAHAHAHAHAHA I still get a wicked charge out of playing with the criminally ill informed. Ignorance can be forgiven, deliberate ignorance coupled with pride demands a stomping. I like wearing boots ;-)
Plutonwolf 2 years ago 3
you know, when i was a kid, my parents who are both doctors got into alternative medicine & the whole "new age" scene... now that i look back on it, a lot of it was much like religion (ie - absolute crap)... and i think thats what makes it even worse, because it stifles the ability for the stuff that was actually good to be seen as good & worthy of investigation. i did get angry for a while about all the crap i got fed as a kid, but now i am just glad i am out of it & learning what is true
tarose71 2 years ago
LOL! I have a friend who is as vicious as they get, yet very insightful and totally brilliant. Lud calls it thus...New Age rhymes with Sewage. It is one thing to shake off the strictures of old antiquated ways of looking at things, it is quite another to just go randomly jack ass. Yes, there are forces and ways of doing things we can use as adjuncts to what we now know, but I'll take the Mayo clinic over a shaman every time.....and I am a pagan LMAO!!!!
Plutonwolf 2 years ago
yeah but i am 38 now, back when i was a kid in the 70s & 80s CHIROPRACTRY was part of the "new age" scene, and so was allergy therapy & nutritional medicine ...seriously, the fraternity of "medical science" was at times more religious than religion... but i think the reason for it was mainly that the only research done was ALL paid for by pharmaceutical companies, &hence they wouldnt accept anything they couldnt fit into a pill & people could get for free. there is merit also in meditation etc
tarose71 2 years ago
As an aid to modern medicine, I have absolutely no issues and welcome the help in my own healing. But as a first resort I will default to hard science every time.
As for the wonderful folks at big pharma, let us just say I have lit way more than one box of black candles in their honor.
Plutonwolf 2 years ago
what do you mean by black candles?
hey i agree with you by the way, i am just saying that there is a lot of stuff in alternative medicine that i am quite confident if it had gotten proper research in the first place, then we would have been thinking of it as "hard science" a long time ago... and i think there is other stuff that still isnt accepted in mainstream medicine which i know works.
...drugs have their place, but i prefer natural prevention (diet, exercise etc) before hard science cure
tarose71 2 years ago
Black candles are traditionally used to put a curse on someone, a small attempt at humor.
LOL, we are both agreeing then. I too feel there is deep merit in some areas of alternative medicine, but since things are so "cowboy" in that area, I am ill at ease opting for its use as a primary treatment option. But I have seen the astounding efficacy of acupuncture in relief of pain with my own father!
Plutonwolf 2 years ago
i know what you mean... i wasted a lot of time discovering which was which when i was a teenager.
my dad now does musculo skeletal medicine, plus accupuncture & accupressure, herbal & nutritional medicine... and my mum is more into the mind body spirit thing, meditation hypnotherapy shiatsu etc... i guess they are each taking to something thats either more masculine or feminine as they relate to it.
sometimes i just develop my own ideas & then go to my dad to confirm if my theory is viable
tarose71 2 years ago
I wish chemistry teaching had been this visual when I was at school.
Marchawc 2 years ago 8
I agree. I think school could have been much more hands on too. I learn 4 times faster when I learn through physical teaching.
defect530 2 years ago 2
This level of illustration has it's pluses and minuses. To the +, it helps one grasp certain complex ideas that many find thorny. But, on the down side. it locks in mental imagery that may later turn out to be incorrect and it may stifle the ability to imagine and visualize. This is the strength of Einstein and Hawking, they formed images and formulae in their minds that other had to pencil out.
Plutonwolf 2 years ago 5
Is this the origin of life ?
MrHeavydose 2 years ago
Yea....the futher up you go , organic molecules will be formed form them.
Xeonophon 2 years ago