Even though a truck at the equator would weigh slightly less, its MASS would be the same so it would take the same amount of fuel to accelerate it. (There would be slightly less rolling resistance due to less tire flexing though. 8^)
Shane, good for you for not muddying the waters by pointing out that centrifugal force is a mathematical convention used to help understand physics but that it doesn't actually exist.
@mastersman1 A curvature of space-time caused by the presence of matter. Any further answer will have to wait until the Higgs boson is detected (which may not be too much longer now!).
@shanedk Well, the show's creators don't make their positions clear on issues like these one way or the other. The reason you're seeing so many clips is, to put it simply, the show is insanely popular amongst adult males; as of right now, it's one of the biggest things on the Internet.
In fact, I highly recommend you watch an episode sometime. You might find that you actually enjoy it. =P
- He doesn't believe in cylindrical orbits for some reason. Even though if you calculate the possible orbits, they turn out to be conic sections.
- He believes the disproven ether theory, where there's an invisible medium everywhere. At least I think he does. Can't really explain what else he means by "the space around the earth is rotating". Unless he's working with really weird local metric tensors o.O
@TakesTwoToTango That can't be. He's not even using any known pseudo science. He's just taking a geocentric view and spinning meaningless words around it. This has got to be the pursuit of biblical veracity. No mere scientific dissension could account for the magnitude of stupid.
While you are absolutely correct in your use of "exponentially" there is no good reason to insult your viewers by implying that they don't understand english (many of us speaking it as a primary language) just because people think that you are making use of the most common definition. Also, exponentially can be directly proportional as it is the special case of the exponent being equal to one. I love your videos but thought this should be addressed as you may inadvertently drive people away.=D
@shanedk Well, you make no allusion as to it being directed at a minority group. That's why I said I understand AND agree with you but still think it's something you should consider. Of course, these are your videos and I know as well as you that it is completely in your purview to put whatever you like in your videos. It really is just a thought. I felt patronized and thought you should know it has had that effect on at least one person. Great video though, don't get the wrong idea. :)
@Sexycosy The saddest/funniest thing about it is . . . drum roll . . . Copernicus was really "Niclas Koppernigk" and he was from, you guessed it, Poland. Poles, like most people, are rather clever but only when educated which this guy is not.
Dear Shane, I agree with almost all of your points, and the one I'm about to make is nothing but a nit-pick, but technically speaking, one CAN see signs of life from orbit. The image you showed of the earth when you said that you couldn't showed the foliage the dusts the continents. If there wasn't life on earth, the continents wouldn't be colored green. Of course, this is a far cry from trying to distinguish life through atmospheric spectronomy over thousands of light years.
@shanedk No need to sigh or get annoyed. As I said, I agree with you. I was trying to point out (in limited space) that seeing greenery from orbit is a far cry from analyzing starlight (with its own spectroscopic signature) as it passes through a planet's atmosphere lightyears away from us. I didn't know that something besides large amounts of foliage would make a continent look green. What would do that? (don't get defensive, I'm honestly asking, not challenging)
I find it interesting that this pawel kolasa is being called an idiot. Of course his stance isn't wise, and he uses the equations in the wrong context to misinterpret his reality. However, his mere interest in trolling people over this through practice of working with the equations could, in my opinion, indicate a talent for proving himself eventually to be more educated than a person who is less inclined to be a stubborn douchebag. IQ score legitimacy can also be exploited through willfulness.
actually i agree with "this stupid guy" 's claim that Atheism is being pushed on people. but he doesn't say that "people" don't want to be moral. that's your misunderstanding shanedk. he says it is done so in order to promote materialism and destroy the faith in God.
morality is of course part of it. we are talking about an immoral elite who wants to pervert society.
but u are just an american. what would u know about morals? stick to your equations. they seem to give u pleasure.
@shanedk the morals are destroyed by a ruthless power-hungry banking elite, through entertainment, crimes, education, destroying of families, and spreading of lies.
i know what verbatim means, so its up to u to show exactly where he says that people don't want to be moral! he talks about the elite, calls them swine's, not the people.
i wasn't accusing others of anything. i know u are immoral, cause u are an american! so u cant really help it.
@CT2507 quote: "actually i agree with "this stupid guy" 's claim that Atheism is being pushed on people."
It sickens me when Creationists, in fact most religious people, claim to have a monopoly on morality. I'm 66yrs old and in my experience, atheists and agnostics that I have met during my life have had a far more developed sense of morality than most christians because it comes from an inner source and not imposed on them by some supernatural Ju-Ju man dishing out punishment for immorality.
@HonestMan395 yes, u are right. most christians dont deserve to be called christians. but we all have to start somewhere and all spiritual paths eventualy lead to the same goal, namely our own immortal self.
i'm not realy a sucker for morality, but truth. i was meerly pointing morality out because it seems to be related to the subject.
true morality, i find, is a natural effect of truth. lower social morality are rules that vary from society to society.
@CT2507 You mentioned you are interested in truth. Wher does this "truth" come from? Surely not the bible. There is no more "truth" in the bible than there is in the Ancient Greek Myths.
Even leaving out all the so-called miraculous events, the bible isn't even historically Accurate.
@HonestMan395 im not saying the bible is historical accurate. but there are traces of higher knowledge in it...comming from men who knew truth. and that is its only value realy, cause we have lost the keys to understand the bible.
there is only one truth, and it is found within our selves. but we need help to discover this. all religions can do is to point a finger in the right direction. the scriptures, of all religions only act as inspirational guidelines.
@CT2507 Quote: "but there are traces of higher knowledge in it...comming from men who knew truth."
These men who "knew the truth" were ignorant, superstitious bronze age peasants who's knowledge of the world was less than a modern day 10yr old school student.
They invented stories to try and explain a very frightening world which they did not understand.
As for the bible not being historically accurate. Most of the Cornerstone events like the Exodus, the flood, etc. are pure legend and myth.
@HonestMan395 hehehe... well u believe what u want to believe. but from where i stand i can see u havent dug very deep. so naturaly u havent found water... so naturaly u are scheptic. but be careful u dont make scheptisism YOUR religion.
but i didnt come here to debate the bible. i find that a tiresome subject realy.
what is interesting though is that regardless weather the bible is genuine or not, we have an elite today who IS pushing atheism on us! why is that u think??
@CT2507 I can assure you that I have dug very deep. I have been researching for over 45 years, all latest research comes to the same conclusion. The bible is not true. But, If you want to bury your head in the superstitious sand, that's up to you. Nobody is pushing atheism, but if you come on places like You-tube, with your magical delusions, you can expect to be challenged. Maybe atheism is growing because people are using their minds instead of just accepting spoon fed fairy stories. Cont'd.
@CT2507 I can always tell when Christians are losing the argument when they start with the "lol's" and "hehehe's"
I think find you find debating the bible tiresome, but solely because it is fantasy.
Let's just take the Exodus. There was no Exodus.
The Israelites were never in Egypt in the first place.
The first mention of Israel is on the Merneptah Stele (C. 1205 BCE), placing them in Canaan, (where they were all the time) long after the supposed time of the exodus.
@HonestMan395 look stupid, im no christian! get it!! what do i have to tell u to convince u, that u are barking up the wrong tree. do i have to tell u to suck my dick?! would a christian tell u to do that?!
this argument never was about the bible. go find such an argument elsewhere. this argument was about weather the elite is pushing people into atheism and if so, why!
do u get it now?!
u are arguing with your self. so what have u won??
the right to lick my salty balls... not much else.
@CT2507 Ok. I'll accept you are not a christian, but you do have the foul mouth of a Christian or could it just be a lack of education.
As for whether an elite is pushing people into atheism, I say no. No Atheist I've met is into forcing their views on others. Most, including ones like Richard Dawkins have publicly stated and practiced it with their own children that they feel people can believe or not believe anything they want, so long as they keep it to themselves. And, I'm not here to win.
@HonestMan395 who cares what u think on this subject...u dont know what u are talking about. go educate yourself first, then u can have an opinion.
what me and the guy in the video is talking about is a verifiable fact, not a matter of this or that subjective opinion. being 66 in your case is not an advantage it seems. and of course u cant win this one. i wasnt born yesterday.
@CT2507 I think it is a good idea that we end this converstion. I never did enjoy talking to boring paranoid conspiracy theorists any way.
What's with this fixation about winning? I couldn't care less about winning anything. I'm on here to learn and as I'm certain that I could learn nothing from you other than a text book study of paranoia, ending seems a good idea.
u were the one who introduced loosing and winning this discussion. u forgot?! look in your former posts dumbass.
lol... u thought u saw the exposed ass of a religious person, and that gave u an errection huh! :))... thought u could just stick it in and that this would be a free and easy fuck. no consequences huh!? :)
i bet u make this mistake a lot dont u.
go masturbate somwhere else. this ass is not for u... haha!
@CT2507 You really are obsessed with with anal sex aren't you.
Sorry, not my thing, but I suppose anyone as desperate as you would grab at anything, sitting alone in your little room with nobody wanting to talk to you other than on the internet.
@HonestMan395 and u are pathetic at your attempt to get the last word! :))
whats the matter. afraid to look like a looser if u left now? sure u would look bad. u would be a looser at the age of 66, and thats not a nice feeling is it. u would think that by now life would have given u some brains, but in stead u have too leave with your tail between your legs... lol
emotionaly u are at the level of a 10 year old. and thats why u end up in a situation like this one!
@CT2507 No, I'm just having fun with you. I think you are one of the funniest things on You-tube. Are you sure you are old enough to be on? If you want to keep talking I don't mind answering, but it will have to be tomorrow. I have a life and I have other things to do, so till tomorrow. Bye sonny.
...but the argument was that Atheism is being pushed on people... by a scrupulous elite. and quite deliberatly so!. which is in fact just as wrong as pushing a religion on people. in fact its worse because it creates anarchy! the law of the jungle. survival of the fittest. it promotes egotistical living and an unhealthy competition. fear, anger and violence.
@CT2507 And religion is not pushed on people. Where are the atheists churches?
All atheists (including myself) that I know, and I know a lot, came to the realisation that there is no god through their own efforts.
They were not railroaded into it by any organisation as happens with religion.
Religion has has a free run for converting for centuries, but now when people are allowed to question it without the fear of being burned at the stake, the religious start yelling foul.
@CT2507 Quote: "it promotes egotistical living and an unhealthy competition. fear, anger and violence"
There you go again. Claiming the high ground for morality for religion.
Actually if you look at the figures, the most secular countries in the world also have the lowest crime rates.
Even in the Western democracies. the most religious country, America, has the highest crime rates. some American cities have higher murder rates that whole countries. Most Prison inmates are Christians
Except 70% of people are Creationists and they laugh at Evolutionists for their theory that CONTRADICTS IT'S ALL PROPOSALS.
Evolutionists and Atheists therefore CENSOR Creationism in Schools, because those fools wouldn't stand 30 minute presentation debunking Evolution. You would be laughed at, and you already are laughed at. Youtube puts you in the hole where you crawled from.
actually when you run you are in motion, as your legs and arms pump, while your position relative to yourself may not change your body is in motion. But also this clown was not talking about the Earth's motion relative to itself, but its motion relative to the universe.
I have a probably dumb question - why is it that the Universe would appear to be expanding in all directions from wherever you observe it. I can understand that if you observe from a point where you cannot observe the limits of the Universe that everything from your point of view would be expanding at the same rate in all directions.
Would this still be true if you observed from the edges of the Universe or does the Universe have no edges?
@rkyeun That single point WAS everywhere in the universe. Where you are sitting right now is, in a very real sense, where the Big Bang occurred--and so too is every other point in the universe.
Where I am sitting now is some fourteen billion years removed from where the big bang happened. The center is a point in the past. The universe is a spacetime.
I think we're in agreement and arguing semantics from different angles.
Also, I thought
"Based on measurements of the expansion using Type Ia supernovae, measurements of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, and measurements of the correlation function of galaxies, the Universe has a calculated age of 13.73 ± 0.12 billion years."
Has that changed to 50 billion while I wasn't looking?
@rkyeun That's the AGE of the universe, how long ago it happened. When you look out in space, you're looking backwards in time. So when you see a quasar 13 billion light-years away, that means that it WAS 13 billion light-years away 13 billion years ago. Since then, space has expanded, and that quasar--or rather, the galaxy the quasar most likely developed into--is much, much farther away. The radius of the OBSERVABLE universe is more like 50Gly; no one knows how much farther it really goes.
If the universe had a center, it'd be off in hyperspace somewhere, neatly hidden from the sight of human eyes.
Just as you can't walk to the center of the Earth or locate it on a map, as the center exists in a space with a dimensionality beyond what the map or surface encompasses.
That is of course IF the universe has a center. To the best of our ability to measure the shape of the universe, it is flat with no definable center; or alternatively, any point is as valid a center as any other.
The universe does have a center. The center is the big bang. Just like how the center of an inflating balloon isn't any point on its surface, the center of the universe isn't any point in the present.
@rkyeun But the universe doesn't have a center the way a balloon does. Think about the only thing in existence being the surface of the balloon; there's no space inside it for any center to be.
It's an analogy, not a literal homologue. Just as the surface of the balloon is roughly a two-dimensional surface expanding through time, the universe is a three-dimensional surface. The balloon expands as it fills with air, every place stretching as it gets further from the origin. For the universe, this origin is the big bang, and we have already expanded away from it into the future, stretching space everywhere. When the balloon was completely empty, the center was on the surface.
@rkyeun "It's an analogy, not a literal homologue."
Yes, and that's where the analogy breaks down: with a balloon, there's a spatial dimension that will take you to the center of the balloon; with the universe, there's no such dimension.
We didn't "expand away from the Big Bang"--the space that we occupy IS the space that formed in the Big Bang.
Right, it has a center in a different way, because our center is separated in a timelike way from the surface, not a spacelike way like the balloon is.
I'm all for correcting misapplications of physics, BUT..you would have been FAR more effective teaching these concepts for their own sake instead of simply using this as a platform to ridicule an obviously mis/under-informed individual. I could easily belittle you for your statement that gravity increases exponentially as the distance between 2 bodies decrease simply because... its NOT "exponential!" That would be in the form F(r) = A^(-r). Try not only being educated, but not being a prick!
@mignik01 Because titan's acceleration component (g, in the formula W = mg) is much lower. And it may be that a person on Titan would way the same as a mouse does ON EARTH. But you still have the same amount of mass: the mass refers to the amount of matter that makes up you or the mouse. Weight is the force that mass experiences when accelerated by gravity.
Nitpick: the orbit of satellites declines due to friction from trace amounts of atmosphere. If that were not present, they could remain in orbit for a long, long time. If I understand what he's going for, PawelKolasa's argument is instead refuted by the law of inertia, since the satellites are orbiting the Sun, just as the Earth is.
@LordZentei They could stay up, but they wouldn't be able to remain geosynchronous. You'd have to track the satellite as it drifts, defeating the point.
From what I understood of the clip, he was talking about satellites in general at that point, not geosynchronous satellites. I got the impression that he thought that the Earth would move away from the satellites as it moved through space.
wait... wouldn't the bulge increase gravity, small difference, and I can be COMPLETELY wrong, just curious. Overall this video is great, correct, and funny, but i'm just trying to augment my terrible knowledge of physics.
@WillGo7 No, because gravity is a function of the overall mass of the body, and the distance from the center. Since the mass doesn't change, but you're further from the center, gravity decreases.
FFS, I'm ashamed to be from the same country this guy is. My physics teacher in high school actually made us calculate, how fast the earth would have to spin for people to fall off of it, can't really remember what we came up with, but it was enormous speed. The same teacher made as calculate satellite altitudes and speeds for them to maintain geosynchronous orbits. Either I had a really good teacher or this guy is an exceptional dumbass, I'll let you decide :P
@PawelKolasa Hi Pawel Coward! Where are you hiding? I still challenge you for a 5000 USD bet (read more on it as a comment on your "...motionless... Pt.1" video).
In short again: I will come to Vancouver , buy a precision scale and we´ll exactly record the weight of an item of your choice. Then we travel to the equator and do the same again. By this you´ll see with your own eyes that a weight-loss infact takes place by at least 0,3 %. 2x 5000 USD to be deposited by a notary . Deal or no deal ?
@pelikan88 One suggestion: the measurement should be taken at the same altitude above median sea level both places. According to Pawel, the Earth does not bulge at the equator, so both measurements would be taken the same distance from the Earth's center of gravity; if you and I are right, the second measurement would be further away, yielding a lighter weight. So you wouldn't just be measuring weight; you would, in effect, be measuring the distance from the Earth's center of mass.
@shanedk hard to descern the centrifugal effect from the "bulge effect" by the readout of the scale. You have to mathematically calculate the centrifugal effect applying to a perfect sphere and then substract the result from the readout. But this isn´t pure eye-witness anymore and Pawel would deny the math!
@pelikan88 No, it WOULD be eyewitness. All you'd do is take the measurement of the same object at the same altitude above sea level in both places. If the measurement taken at the equator is lighter, you win, no math needed. Remember, you're not trying to decide HOW MUCH of a bulge there is, but whether a bulge exists at all.
@shanedk By the readout alone you can´t tell if it´s due to centr. force alone or bulge alone or a mix both, I´d say! But it doesn´t matter anyway since Pawel denies both ...
@pelikan88 But your entire challenge is based on the weight differential. All I'm saying is to take the measurement at the same altitude in both places so he can't weasel out of it by saying the altitude made the difference.
You also might want to use the same scale for both measurements, and tare it immediately before both of them.
So typical of atheists.. you also have to be mean and cruel instead of respectful. Even if God did not exist, I'd much rather believe in him then be an atheist.
Why would you bother debunking this guy? You've come down a notch or two in my opinion for wasting your time like this and giving this guy the appearance of being worthy of being debunked.
PawelKolasa is clearly delusional and pathologically ignorant, and his videos deserve to be debunked. But I don't believe the guy deserves to laughed at. He appears to be seriously mentally ill and needs help. Perhaps the worst thing we can do is give him an audience on youtube.
6:35 That's total crap, both the dude in the video and the narrator. Satellites don't all have to have rocket engines, and their operational life certainly doesn't end when they run out of fuel. Satellites DO NOT need engines to keep up with the earth.
If they're referring to the gradual orbit decay due to atmospheric drag, they're certainly not explaining it correctly.
@curea229 It's not just atmospheric drag; they need to compensate for relativistic effects, too. If they don't, then their orbit goes wonky relatively (hah!) quickly. Any satellite without an engine has a VERY limited lifespan.
@shanedk Which relativistic effects are you referring to? Aside from atmospheric drag and solar wind (and nonhomogeneous mass distribution of the earth for lower orbits), there is no force causing orbits to decay. The Vanguard satellite has been orbiting since 1958 and is still orbiting. It functioned for years without any engine thrust, before its solar panels and batteries failed. It's predicted to remain in orbit about another 200 years.
@curea229 Relativistic effects become VERY important at that speed with that level of precision required. Remember that satellites in geosynchronous orbit, at about 26,000 miles from the Earth's center of mass, will be travelling several times faster than people on the surface, 4,000 miles away. That makes a BIG difference.
@thejugglenaut91 The force of gravity doesn't cause orbits to decay. Atmospheric drag does. This is fundamental stuff. g is countered by the satellite's linear momentum, which doesn't decrease due to g but to drag. Satellites don't need to "increase the radius" to remain operational. Saying "a satellite's life ends when it's out of fuel" is an incorrect generalization. Sputnik had no engine during it's operational life, which ended when its batteries failed.
@thejugglenaut91 Using your logic, the moon would need an engine to keep it in orbit around the earth. So would the earth to keep it in orbit around the sun. Study some physics please.
Satellites don't all have to have rocket engines, and their operational life certainly doesn't end when they run out of fuel. Satellites DO NOT need engines to keep up with the earth.
AND THAT PROVES THAT THE SPACE ROTATES AROUND THE EARTH, TAKING THE SATELLITES WITH IT.
@PawelKolasa Then, yet again: what holds up geostationary satellites and keeps them from falling? According to you, the geostationary satellites wouldn't be orbiting, therefore space wouldn't be able to "take them with it," so they should just fall to the ground like any other stationary, unsupported object. Why don't they?
@PawelKolasa Again and again and again: PLEASE then explain the "mystery" of geostationary satellites!! Oh, I forgot: they don´t even exist! Where then are all those sat-TV-dishes aiming at? And where does the signal come from?
@PawelKolasa Wow, and the best part is that everything farther away than Neptune is traveling around us faster than the speed of light. Why, because fuck Einstein, that's why.
Not only does the earth move, it has a wobble. Just as the tilt of the earth's axis gives us summer and winter, the wobble causes climate change over a roughly 26,000 year cycle (Precession of the Equinoxes). Ancient people aligned buildings to the stars (mostly for agricultural purposes) and observed that the stars "fall back" 1 degree in 72 years.
Do the math: 360 degrees times 72 = 25,920 years! We know today that the rate of the wobble is variable. The cycle was divided into 12 ages.
Hey Shane. You make these great debunking vids. Do you happen to have enough astronomic knowledge to debunk "The Star of Bethlehem", watch?v=KRk4ZBCxO3s , where they claim all these astronomical signs prove christianity?
But it doesn't say, for example, if Jupiter really went into retrograde ("stopped") right over Bethlehem on Dec 25 2 BC. Or wether the moon went into eclipse right at 3pm April 3 33 AD, the moment Jesus died.
Well, if anyone knows of some free astronomy software to look stuff like that up, let me know..
1) Jupiter moves so little over the course of one night it doesn't matter if it's in retrograde or not. But you STILL have the rotation of the Earth to contend with; like the stars, it won't be in the same place for a single HOUR because of that.
2) I pulled up Stellarium; there was a PARTIAL lunar eclipse on that day. So what? They happen once every several months. Full ones every year and a half or so. And how do they know that's the exact date?
Well in the vid they portray it as "the magi CALCULATE it's in retrograde then, over Bethlehem", so it wouldn't necessarily have to visibly stop.
They claim to know that's Jesus death date cause it's the only year during Pilate's office time that passover falls on a friday. And the bible says Jesus was put on the cross in the "third hour" (9pm) and died 6 hours later.
The amazing thing would be: the moon went into eclipse before it rose, so the ancients wouldn't be able to invent that Jesus..
..died then based on when the eclipse happened, cause they couldn't see when that was. Only today, with software do we see when the moon eclipsed. Of course, if it was only partial, then it wasn't a blood moon, so that would debunk that part. (Is that source online?)
Another claim is that there was a rare Jupiter-Regulus("King") tripple conjunction (Jupiter draws a crown over Regulus) that lasted September 3BC - June 2BC, from Jesus' conception to birth. Then the Jupiter-Venus conjunction.
Okay. But that still leaves us with only the argument: "They knew enough about astronomy back then. The reason the astronomy matches the story of Jesus so perfectly is cause they modelled the story after the astronomy." But I'm quite sure that the story does NOT match the astronomy perfectly. I'm sure someone with enough astronomic knowlegde could point out how it's all coincidence, say "Hey, that phenomenon happens every 3 years!" etc.
How sure are they of Passover? Are they using the CORRECT calender, which would be the Julian for this period? It actually converges to the Gregorian currently in use near this period, but I'm not sure if the dates actually line up in that time or not.
Even though a truck at the equator would weigh slightly less, its MASS would be the same so it would take the same amount of fuel to accelerate it. (There would be slightly less rolling resistance due to less tire flexing though. 8^)
Shane, good for you for not muddying the waters by pointing out that centrifugal force is a mathematical convention used to help understand physics but that it doesn't actually exist.
warren52nz 4 days ago
C'mon. As if any American would have a mass of only 80kg.
ChickenHawk110 5 days ago
@ChickenHawk110 Um, 80kg is 175lbs. Perfectly reasonable.
shanedk 5 days ago
what is gravity?
mastersman1 5 days ago
@mastersman1 A curvature of space-time caused by the presence of matter. Any further answer will have to wait until the Higgs boson is detected (which may not be too much longer now!).
shanedk 5 days ago
Wait a minute, he denies Newtons laws of motion but uses the equation for centripetal force?
I wonder what he put into that equation to get "twice less" weight at the equator?
david52875 1 week ago
This guy also thinks Newtons Third law of motion is incorrect. lol.
david52875 1 week ago
/watch?v=pHHpuRj8z8g < My question for the creationist crowd.
TuxedoClam 1 week ago in playlist More videos from shanedk
@TuxedoClam Is the new version of MLP written by skeptics or something? I see all sorts of clips like that going around nowadays.
shanedk 1 week ago
@shanedk Well, the show's creators don't make their positions clear on issues like these one way or the other. The reason you're seeing so many clips is, to put it simply, the show is insanely popular amongst adult males; as of right now, it's one of the biggest things on the Internet.
In fact, I highly recommend you watch an episode sometime. You might find that you actually enjoy it. =P
TuxedoClam 1 week ago
I don't understand. What is the motivation for his belief of a stationary earth? Is it biblical?
fdasherv 1 month ago in playlist More videos from shanedk
@fdasherv I think he just gave his motivations:
- He doesn't believe in cylindrical orbits for some reason. Even though if you calculate the possible orbits, they turn out to be conic sections.
- He believes the disproven ether theory, where there's an invisible medium everywhere. At least I think he does. Can't really explain what else he means by "the space around the earth is rotating". Unless he's working with really weird local metric tensors o.O
TakesTwoToTango 1 week ago
@TakesTwoToTango That can't be. He's not even using any known pseudo science. He's just taking a geocentric view and spinning meaningless words around it. This has got to be the pursuit of biblical veracity. No mere scientific dissension could account for the magnitude of stupid.
fdasherv 1 week ago
lol knowing that weight and mass are different is something one would learn on the first or second day of an introduction to physics class!
mikebaxtersc5 1 month ago
Couldn't stomach to watch the entire video, does this moron believe that the sun revolves around the earth?
cdhanks 4 months ago
Question, why does a mormon clip almost ALWAYS appear first on the right. Is Yahoo showing favortism to this cult?
cdhanks 4 months ago
Question, if you were standing on the polar axis would you be able to notice the rotation? If not why? You made good and sound arguements, good vid.
aBenDragon 4 months ago
@aBenDragon Because it takes 24 hours to make one rotation. You'd need to look at the stars or a Foucault pendulum to notice it.
shanedk 4 months ago
This sort of stupidity deflates me :)
Baerchenization 5 months ago
While you are absolutely correct in your use of "exponentially" there is no good reason to insult your viewers by implying that they don't understand english (many of us speaking it as a primary language) just because people think that you are making use of the most common definition. Also, exponentially can be directly proportional as it is the special case of the exponent being equal to one. I love your videos but thought this should be addressed as you may inadvertently drive people away.=D
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@wkrepelin That was in response to pedants who kept saying that there was absolutely no condition whatsoever where I could possibly have been right.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk Well, you make no allusion as to it being directed at a minority group. That's why I said I understand AND agree with you but still think it's something you should consider. Of course, these are your videos and I know as well as you that it is completely in your purview to put whatever you like in your videos. It really is just a thought. I felt patronized and thought you should know it has had that effect on at least one person. Great video though, don't get the wrong idea. :)
wkrepelin 5 months ago
andy kaufman's "foreign man" debates the annoying orange.
ArlieWinter 6 months ago
There is no gravity! The earth sucks!
TheOlderangel 6 months ago
@TheOlderangel It's all the creationists.
shanedk 6 months ago
Man, I have so many Polish jokes... none funnier than Pawel himself, tho... LOL
Sexycosy 7 months ago
@Sexycosy The saddest/funniest thing about it is . . . drum roll . . . Copernicus was really "Niclas Koppernigk" and he was from, you guessed it, Poland. Poles, like most people, are rather clever but only when educated which this guy is not.
wkrepelin 5 months ago
CT2507 has been blocked for false accusation of pedophilia.
shanedk 7 months ago
Dear Shane, I agree with almost all of your points, and the one I'm about to make is nothing but a nit-pick, but technically speaking, one CAN see signs of life from orbit. The image you showed of the earth when you said that you couldn't showed the foliage the dusts the continents. If there wasn't life on earth, the continents wouldn't be colored green. Of course, this is a far cry from trying to distinguish life through atmospheric spectronomy over thousands of light years.
Lambrequin 10 months ago
@Lambrequin "If there wasn't life on earth, the continents wouldn't be colored green."
Sigh...see the follow-up. LOTS of things other than foliage are green, and there's no guarantee that foliage on any given planet will be green!
shanedk 10 months ago 4
Comment removed
Lambrequin 10 months ago
@shanedk No need to sigh or get annoyed. As I said, I agree with you. I was trying to point out (in limited space) that seeing greenery from orbit is a far cry from analyzing starlight (with its own spectroscopic signature) as it passes through a planet's atmosphere lightyears away from us. I didn't know that something besides large amounts of foliage would make a continent look green. What would do that? (don't get defensive, I'm honestly asking, not challenging)
Lambrequin 10 months ago
@Lambrequin
He got annoyed because you're like the 300th person to bring that up.
vspqbd 10 months ago
I find it interesting that this pawel kolasa is being called an idiot. Of course his stance isn't wise, and he uses the equations in the wrong context to misinterpret his reality. However, his mere interest in trolling people over this through practice of working with the equations could, in my opinion, indicate a talent for proving himself eventually to be more educated than a person who is less inclined to be a stubborn douchebag. IQ score legitimacy can also be exploited through willfulness.
katsumorymoto 10 months ago
Eppur si muove.
dabigq 11 months ago
actually i agree with "this stupid guy" 's claim that Atheism is being pushed on people. but he doesn't say that "people" don't want to be moral. that's your misunderstanding shanedk. he says it is done so in order to promote materialism and destroy the faith in God.
morality is of course part of it. we are talking about an immoral elite who wants to pervert society.
but u are just an american. what would u know about morals? stick to your equations. they seem to give u pleasure.
CT2507 11 months ago
@CT2507 "actually i agree with "this stupid guy" 's claim that Atheism is being pushed on people."
How and by whom?
"but he doesn't say that "people" don't want to be moral. that's your misunderstanding shanedk."
No, he said that--pretty much verbatim!
And it's ironic that you would accuse others of knowing nothing about morals while acting like a complete self-righteous jerk.
shanedk 11 months ago 7
@shanedk the morals are destroyed by a ruthless power-hungry banking elite, through entertainment, crimes, education, destroying of families, and spreading of lies.
i know what verbatim means, so its up to u to show exactly where he says that people don't want to be moral! he talks about the elite, calls them swine's, not the people.
i wasn't accusing others of anything. i know u are immoral, cause u are an american! so u cant really help it.
cheers shanedick!... :))
CT2507 11 months ago
@CT2507
"i wasn't accusing others of anything." Let's see about that.
"i know u are immoral" Accusation
"cause u are an american!" Ad hom
"so u cant really help it" Accusation
I don't often witness people contradicting themselves so very quickly. Well done.
SeruQuik 10 months ago
@SeruQuik hahaha... well arent u the intellectual wizzard then!... lets see. how can i best reply.
how about u suck my dick, eh!...proposition
my balls are especially salty these days...invitation
no one has to know that u take it from behind...discretion.
i don't often get my nipples hard and pointy on my first date.
well done! :)
CT2507 10 months ago
@shanedk That's morality for the creationist!
naneux 8 months ago
@naneux Indeed.
shanedk 8 months ago
@CT2507 quote: "actually i agree with "this stupid guy" 's claim that Atheism is being pushed on people."
It sickens me when Creationists, in fact most religious people, claim to have a monopoly on morality. I'm 66yrs old and in my experience, atheists and agnostics that I have met during my life have had a far more developed sense of morality than most christians because it comes from an inner source and not imposed on them by some supernatural Ju-Ju man dishing out punishment for immorality.
HonestMan395 7 months ago
@HonestMan395 yes, u are right. most christians dont deserve to be called christians. but we all have to start somewhere and all spiritual paths eventualy lead to the same goal, namely our own immortal self.
i'm not realy a sucker for morality, but truth. i was meerly pointing morality out because it seems to be related to the subject.
true morality, i find, is a natural effect of truth. lower social morality are rules that vary from society to society.
CT2507 7 months ago
@CT2507 You mentioned you are interested in truth. Wher does this "truth" come from? Surely not the bible. There is no more "truth" in the bible than there is in the Ancient Greek Myths.
Even leaving out all the so-called miraculous events, the bible isn't even historically Accurate.
HonestMan395 7 months ago
@HonestMan395 im not saying the bible is historical accurate. but there are traces of higher knowledge in it...comming from men who knew truth. and that is its only value realy, cause we have lost the keys to understand the bible.
there is only one truth, and it is found within our selves. but we need help to discover this. all religions can do is to point a finger in the right direction. the scriptures, of all religions only act as inspirational guidelines.
CT2507 7 months ago
@CT2507 "Traces of higher knowledge"? Like what?
shanedk 7 months ago
Comment removed
HonestMan395 7 months ago
@CT2507 Quote: "but there are traces of higher knowledge in it...comming from men who knew truth."
These men who "knew the truth" were ignorant, superstitious bronze age peasants who's knowledge of the world was less than a modern day 10yr old school student.
They invented stories to try and explain a very frightening world which they did not understand.
As for the bible not being historically accurate. Most of the Cornerstone events like the Exodus, the flood, etc. are pure legend and myth.
HonestMan395 7 months ago
@HonestMan395 hehehe... well u believe what u want to believe. but from where i stand i can see u havent dug very deep. so naturaly u havent found water... so naturaly u are scheptic. but be careful u dont make scheptisism YOUR religion.
but i didnt come here to debate the bible. i find that a tiresome subject realy.
what is interesting though is that regardless weather the bible is genuine or not, we have an elite today who IS pushing atheism on us! why is that u think??
CT2507 7 months ago
@CT2507 I can assure you that I have dug very deep. I have been researching for over 45 years, all latest research comes to the same conclusion. The bible is not true. But, If you want to bury your head in the superstitious sand, that's up to you. Nobody is pushing atheism, but if you come on places like You-tube, with your magical delusions, you can expect to be challenged. Maybe atheism is growing because people are using their minds instead of just accepting spoon fed fairy stories. Cont'd.
HonestMan395 7 months ago
@CT2507 I can always tell when Christians are losing the argument when they start with the "lol's" and "hehehe's"
I think find you find debating the bible tiresome, but solely because it is fantasy.
Let's just take the Exodus. There was no Exodus.
The Israelites were never in Egypt in the first place.
The first mention of Israel is on the Merneptah Stele (C. 1205 BCE), placing them in Canaan, (where they were all the time) long after the supposed time of the exodus.
HonestMan395 7 months ago
@HonestMan395 look stupid, im no christian! get it!! what do i have to tell u to convince u, that u are barking up the wrong tree. do i have to tell u to suck my dick?! would a christian tell u to do that?!
this argument never was about the bible. go find such an argument elsewhere. this argument was about weather the elite is pushing people into atheism and if so, why!
do u get it now?!
u are arguing with your self. so what have u won??
the right to lick my salty balls... not much else.
CT2507 7 months ago
@CT2507 Ok. I'll accept you are not a christian, but you do have the foul mouth of a Christian or could it just be a lack of education.
As for whether an elite is pushing people into atheism, I say no. No Atheist I've met is into forcing their views on others. Most, including ones like Richard Dawkins have publicly stated and practiced it with their own children that they feel people can believe or not believe anything they want, so long as they keep it to themselves. And, I'm not here to win.
HonestMan395 7 months ago
@HonestMan395 who cares what u think on this subject...u dont know what u are talking about. go educate yourself first, then u can have an opinion.
what me and the guy in the video is talking about is a verifiable fact, not a matter of this or that subjective opinion. being 66 in your case is not an advantage it seems. and of course u cant win this one. i wasnt born yesterday.
CT2507 7 months ago
@CT2507 I think it is a good idea that we end this converstion. I never did enjoy talking to boring paranoid conspiracy theorists any way.
What's with this fixation about winning? I couldn't care less about winning anything. I'm on here to learn and as I'm certain that I could learn nothing from you other than a text book study of paranoia, ending seems a good idea.
HonestMan395 7 months ago
@HonestMan395 bla bla bla... :)
u were the one who introduced loosing and winning this discussion. u forgot?! look in your former posts dumbass.
lol... u thought u saw the exposed ass of a religious person, and that gave u an errection huh! :))... thought u could just stick it in and that this would be a free and easy fuck. no consequences huh!? :)
i bet u make this mistake a lot dont u.
go masturbate somwhere else. this ass is not for u... haha!
CT2507 7 months ago
@CT2507 You really are obsessed with with anal sex aren't you.
Sorry, not my thing, but I suppose anyone as desperate as you would grab at anything, sitting alone in your little room with nobody wanting to talk to you other than on the internet.
you really are a pathetic character.
HonestMan395 7 months ago
@HonestMan395 and u are pathetic at your attempt to get the last word! :))
whats the matter. afraid to look like a looser if u left now? sure u would look bad. u would be a looser at the age of 66, and thats not a nice feeling is it. u would think that by now life would have given u some brains, but in stead u have too leave with your tail between your legs... lol
emotionaly u are at the level of a 10 year old. and thats why u end up in a situation like this one!
cheers friend... :))
CT2507 7 months ago
@CT2507 No, I'm just having fun with you. I think you are one of the funniest things on You-tube. Are you sure you are old enough to be on? If you want to keep talking I don't mind answering, but it will have to be tomorrow. I have a life and I have other things to do, so till tomorrow. Bye sonny.
HonestMan395 7 months ago
@HonestMan395 (cont)
...but the argument was that Atheism is being pushed on people... by a scrupulous elite. and quite deliberatly so!. which is in fact just as wrong as pushing a religion on people. in fact its worse because it creates anarchy! the law of the jungle. survival of the fittest. it promotes egotistical living and an unhealthy competition. fear, anger and violence.
CT2507 7 months ago
@CT2507 And religion is not pushed on people. Where are the atheists churches?
All atheists (including myself) that I know, and I know a lot, came to the realisation that there is no god through their own efforts.
They were not railroaded into it by any organisation as happens with religion.
Religion has has a free run for converting for centuries, but now when people are allowed to question it without the fear of being burned at the stake, the religious start yelling foul.
HonestMan395 7 months ago
@CT2507 Quote: "it promotes egotistical living and an unhealthy competition. fear, anger and violence"
There you go again. Claiming the high ground for morality for religion.
Actually if you look at the figures, the most secular countries in the world also have the lowest crime rates.
Even in the Western democracies. the most religious country, America, has the highest crime rates. some American cities have higher murder rates that whole countries. Most Prison inmates are Christians
HonestMan395 7 months ago
Except 70% of people are Creationists and they laugh at Evolutionists for their theory that CONTRADICTS IT'S ALL PROPOSALS.
Evolutionists and Atheists therefore CENSOR Creationism in Schools, because those fools wouldn't stand 30 minute presentation debunking Evolution. You would be laughed at, and you already are laughed at. Youtube puts you in the hole where you crawled from.
PawelKolasa 11 months ago
@PawelKolasa
actually a judge threw creationism out because its not a science. Nice try bucko.
Dudeamis 11 months ago
@PawelKolasa
and then I realize you're satirical and I feel like a moron.
Dudeamis 11 months ago
@Dudeamis He's not, sadly. He honestly believes this crap.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk
wait, he believes this, yet he has the language skills to speak and type?
Dudeamis 11 months ago
@Dudeamis I know, the special classes where he is must be very good.
shanedk 11 months ago
@PawelKolasa
lolwut?!
mdiem 7 months ago
man that sucks for him
TheLovesoul1 1 year ago
12 people think the universe revolves around them.
Altimadark 1 year ago 2
How does someone with such a flimsy grip on reality actually survive from day to day?
Does he need an adult to remind him that fire is hot and motor-vehicles are dangerous when in motion?
RoadRunnerLaser 1 year ago 12
He is not completely wrong: The earth is motionless relatively to itself.
It's just a question of relativity.
When I run, I'm motionless relatively to myself, and those who don't run move relatively to myself.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked He IS wrong, because he's saying that that's the ONLY proper aspect through which the universe can be viewed.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk are you the guy in the video with the squeaking voice.
TheLovesoul1 1 year ago
@hunchbacked
actually when you run you are in motion, as your legs and arms pump, while your position relative to yourself may not change your body is in motion. But also this clown was not talking about the Earth's motion relative to itself, but its motion relative to the universe.
Dudeamis 11 months ago
@Dudeamis
I know, it was an ironic remark.
hunchbacked 11 months ago
He also didnt say anything about retrograde motion.
bcbole92 1 year ago
@vibit7 LOL, I didn't say "thinking", and yes this guy was dropped repeatedly by his spawners.
joetylerdale 1 year ago
Cut the guy a break, do you know how hard it is to speak another language while doing something else?
joetylerdale 1 year ago
3:35 Wow, I lose more weight by taking a dump in the mornig
LtModigliani 1 year ago
Hahahaha.... This is fun! XD
LtModigliani 1 year ago
3:30 Gosh! I need to move to the equator.
N00bcrunch3r 1 year ago
I have a probably dumb question - why is it that the Universe would appear to be expanding in all directions from wherever you observe it. I can understand that if you observe from a point where you cannot observe the limits of the Universe that everything from your point of view would be expanding at the same rate in all directions.
Would this still be true if you observed from the edges of the Universe or does the Universe have no edges?
trooperJac 1 year ago
@trooperJac Apparently it doesn't have edges. It appears to be finite yet boundless.
shanedk 1 year ago
@trooperJac
Why does a balloon seem to stretch from any point on its surface as you blow it up?
Well it's not. It's inflating from its center, but its center isn't on that surface. It's below it in the air in the middle.
The universe is inflating from the Big Bang. The Big Bang isn't on the surface of space, it's below it in the past.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun The Big Bang isn't a place; it's an event. There is no center; the Big Bang happened at every single point in the universe at the same time.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
The Big Bang happened at the one single point that was in the universe at the beginning of time-- the center from which it expanded into the future.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun That single point WAS everywhere in the universe. Where you are sitting right now is, in a very real sense, where the Big Bang occurred--and so too is every other point in the universe.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Where I am sitting now is some fourteen billion years removed from where the big bang happened. The center is a point in the past. The universe is a spacetime.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun No, it isn't; the place where it happened is just bigger by that much. (And it's actually more like 50 billion, maybe even more.)
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
I think we're in agreement and arguing semantics from different angles.
Also, I thought
"Based on measurements of the expansion using Type Ia supernovae, measurements of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, and measurements of the correlation function of galaxies, the Universe has a calculated age of 13.73 ± 0.12 billion years."
Has that changed to 50 billion while I wasn't looking?
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun That's the AGE of the universe, how long ago it happened. When you look out in space, you're looking backwards in time. So when you see a quasar 13 billion light-years away, that means that it WAS 13 billion light-years away 13 billion years ago. Since then, space has expanded, and that quasar--or rather, the galaxy the quasar most likely developed into--is much, much farther away. The radius of the OBSERVABLE universe is more like 50Gly; no one knows how much farther it really goes.
shanedk 1 year ago
If the universe had a center, it'd be off in hyperspace somewhere, neatly hidden from the sight of human eyes.
Just as you can't walk to the center of the Earth or locate it on a map, as the center exists in a space with a dimensionality beyond what the map or surface encompasses.
That is of course IF the universe has a center. To the best of our ability to measure the shape of the universe, it is flat with no definable center; or alternatively, any point is as valid a center as any other.
smariot 1 year ago
@smariot
The universe does have a center. The center is the big bang. Just like how the center of an inflating balloon isn't any point on its surface, the center of the universe isn't any point in the present.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun But the universe doesn't have a center the way a balloon does. Think about the only thing in existence being the surface of the balloon; there's no space inside it for any center to be.
shanedk 1 year ago
Comment removed
rkyeun 1 year ago
Comment removed
rkyeun 1 year ago
@shanedk
It's an analogy, not a literal homologue. Just as the surface of the balloon is roughly a two-dimensional surface expanding through time, the universe is a three-dimensional surface. The balloon expands as it fills with air, every place stretching as it gets further from the origin. For the universe, this origin is the big bang, and we have already expanded away from it into the future, stretching space everywhere. When the balloon was completely empty, the center was on the surface.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun "It's an analogy, not a literal homologue."
Yes, and that's where the analogy breaks down: with a balloon, there's a spatial dimension that will take you to the center of the balloon; with the universe, there's no such dimension.
We didn't "expand away from the Big Bang"--the space that we occupy IS the space that formed in the Big Bang.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Right, it has a center in a different way, because our center is separated in a timelike way from the surface, not a spacelike way like the balloon is.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun Yes, but that's a question of when, not where. When was back then; if you want to know where, then the answer is, everywhere.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Can we agree that everywhere now maps to the center 14 billion years ago along a radius that is the timeline? :)
rkyeun 1 year ago
"There are millions of lifeforms on Earth" Hey! He got something right!
mandolinic 1 year ago
I'm all for correcting misapplications of physics, BUT..you would have been FAR more effective teaching these concepts for their own sake instead of simply using this as a platform to ridicule an obviously mis/under-informed individual. I could easily belittle you for your statement that gravity increases exponentially as the distance between 2 bodies decrease simply because... its NOT "exponential!" That would be in the form F(r) = A^(-r). Try not only being educated, but not being a prick!
eyeammi 1 year ago
shane i have a problem with the video. when we say that we weigh 80 kilograms, i think that is the weight, not the mass.
mignik01 1 year ago
@mignik01 No, 80kg is mass. The weight (on Earth) would be 80kg * 9.8m/s^2, or 784N.
If you're on the moon, you'd still weigh 80kg, but your weight would be 80kg * 1.6m/s^2, or 128N.
shanedk 1 year ago
@mignik01 then y is that in titan, they say we would weigh as much as a mouse.
mignik01 1 year ago
@mignik01 Because titan's acceleration component (g, in the formula W = mg) is much lower. And it may be that a person on Titan would way the same as a mouse does ON EARTH. But you still have the same amount of mass: the mass refers to the amount of matter that makes up you or the mouse. Weight is the force that mass experiences when accelerated by gravity.
shanedk 1 year ago
hahahaha let me guess this shank guy was paid for by nist- the same fools who dont know nothin about physics or gravity
swu880 1 year ago
6:30
Nitpick: the orbit of satellites declines due to friction from trace amounts of atmosphere. If that were not present, they could remain in orbit for a long, long time. If I understand what he's going for, PawelKolasa's argument is instead refuted by the law of inertia, since the satellites are orbiting the Sun, just as the Earth is.
LordZentei 1 year ago
@LordZentei They could stay up, but they wouldn't be able to remain geosynchronous. You'd have to track the satellite as it drifts, defeating the point.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
From what I understood of the clip, he was talking about satellites in general at that point, not geosynchronous satellites. I got the impression that he thought that the Earth would move away from the satellites as it moved through space.
LordZentei 1 year ago
@LordZentei To be honest, his points were so disjointed and poorly thought out I had trouble keeping track of what he was saying at any given time.
shanedk 1 year ago
wait... wouldn't the bulge increase gravity, small difference, and I can be COMPLETELY wrong, just curious. Overall this video is great, correct, and funny, but i'm just trying to augment my terrible knowledge of physics.
WillGo7 1 year ago
@WillGo7 No, because gravity is a function of the overall mass of the body, and the distance from the center. Since the mass doesn't change, but you're further from the center, gravity decreases.
shanedk 1 year ago
FFS, I'm ashamed to be from the same country this guy is. My physics teacher in high school actually made us calculate, how fast the earth would have to spin for people to fall off of it, can't really remember what we came up with, but it was enormous speed. The same teacher made as calculate satellite altitudes and speeds for them to maintain geosynchronous orbits. Either I had a really good teacher or this guy is an exceptional dumbass, I'll let you decide :P
inhumator 1 year ago
The Earth doesn't "bulge" at the equator, dumb ass. IF it did, the centrifugal force would be even MORE and therefore more DETECTABLE.
Every person would be able to feel it when TRAVELING.
The idea the Earth "bulges" was outdated for like... hundred years.
PawelKolasa 1 year ago
@PawelKolasa It's been MEASURED, Pawel.
shanedk 1 year ago
@PawelKolasa Hi Pawel Coward! Where are you hiding? I still challenge you for a 5000 USD bet (read more on it as a comment on your "...motionless... Pt.1" video).
In short again: I will come to Vancouver , buy a precision scale and we´ll exactly record the weight of an item of your choice. Then we travel to the equator and do the same again. By this you´ll see with your own eyes that a weight-loss infact takes place by at least 0,3 %. 2x 5000 USD to be deposited by a notary . Deal or no deal ?
pelikan88 1 year ago
@pelikan88 One suggestion: the measurement should be taken at the same altitude above median sea level both places. According to Pawel, the Earth does not bulge at the equator, so both measurements would be taken the same distance from the Earth's center of gravity; if you and I are right, the second measurement would be further away, yielding a lighter weight. So you wouldn't just be measuring weight; you would, in effect, be measuring the distance from the Earth's center of mass.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk hard to descern the centrifugal effect from the "bulge effect" by the readout of the scale. You have to mathematically calculate the centrifugal effect applying to a perfect sphere and then substract the result from the readout. But this isn´t pure eye-witness anymore and Pawel would deny the math!
pelikan88 1 year ago
@pelikan88 No, it WOULD be eyewitness. All you'd do is take the measurement of the same object at the same altitude above sea level in both places. If the measurement taken at the equator is lighter, you win, no math needed. Remember, you're not trying to decide HOW MUCH of a bulge there is, but whether a bulge exists at all.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk By the readout alone you can´t tell if it´s due to centr. force alone or bulge alone or a mix both, I´d say! But it doesn´t matter anyway since Pawel denies both ...
pelikan88 1 year ago
@pelikan88 But your entire challenge is based on the weight differential. All I'm saying is to take the measurement at the same altitude in both places so he can't weasel out of it by saying the altitude made the difference.
You also might want to use the same scale for both measurements, and tare it immediately before both of them.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
to knock him out: not only the same altitude - also the same moon phase and position at the sky ;-)
pelikan88 1 year ago
@pelikan88 Sure: take it at high tide, and the right one to have the moon in the same position. Leave him NO room to maneuver.
shanedk 1 year ago
Ownage LOL
drherbalst 1 year ago
Oh yeah I am working in graduate school to be as amoral as possible. Wait until I get a pHD! WOO HOO!
darkwhitedirewolf 1 year ago
So typical of atheists.. you also have to be mean and cruel instead of respectful. Even if God did not exist, I'd much rather believe in him then be an atheist.
picklesloveslight 1 year ago
@picklesloveslight Why? Your statement makes no sense.
mamassage 1 year ago
@picklesloveslight so you'd rather be ignorant, rather than accept reality. Are you 4 years old?
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
so called science is usually proven wrong and the next generation will find us dumb.
picklesloveslight 1 year ago
Why would you bother debunking this guy? You've come down a notch or two in my opinion for wasting your time like this and giving this guy the appearance of being worthy of being debunked.
TheQRabbit 1 year ago
PawelKolasa is clearly delusional and pathologically ignorant, and his videos deserve to be debunked. But I don't believe the guy deserves to laughed at. He appears to be seriously mentally ill and needs help. Perhaps the worst thing we can do is give him an audience on youtube.
157626 1 year ago
I wish he was a flat earhtist as well because they are really hard to find these days.
mrphoo67 1 year ago
6:35 That's total crap, both the dude in the video and the narrator. Satellites don't all have to have rocket engines, and their operational life certainly doesn't end when they run out of fuel. Satellites DO NOT need engines to keep up with the earth.
If they're referring to the gradual orbit decay due to atmospheric drag, they're certainly not explaining it correctly.
Sheesh!
curea229 1 year ago
@curea229 It's not just atmospheric drag; they need to compensate for relativistic effects, too. If they don't, then their orbit goes wonky relatively (hah!) quickly. Any satellite without an engine has a VERY limited lifespan.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Which relativistic effects are you referring to? Aside from atmospheric drag and solar wind (and nonhomogeneous mass distribution of the earth for lower orbits), there is no force causing orbits to decay. The Vanguard satellite has been orbiting since 1958 and is still orbiting. It functioned for years without any engine thrust, before its solar panels and batteries failed. It's predicted to remain in orbit about another 200 years.
curea229 1 year ago
@curea229 Relativistic effects become VERY important at that speed with that level of precision required. Remember that satellites in geosynchronous orbit, at about 26,000 miles from the Earth's center of mass, will be travelling several times faster than people on the surface, 4,000 miles away. That makes a BIG difference.
shanedk 1 year ago
Comment removed
thejugglenaut91 1 year ago
Comment removed
thejugglenaut91 1 year ago
@thejugglenaut91 The force of gravity doesn't cause orbits to decay. Atmospheric drag does. This is fundamental stuff. g is countered by the satellite's linear momentum, which doesn't decrease due to g but to drag. Satellites don't need to "increase the radius" to remain operational. Saying "a satellite's life ends when it's out of fuel" is an incorrect generalization. Sputnik had no engine during it's operational life, which ended when its batteries failed.
curea229 1 year ago
@thejugglenaut91 Using your logic, the moon would need an engine to keep it in orbit around the earth. So would the earth to keep it in orbit around the sun. Study some physics please.
TheQRabbit 1 year ago
@curea229
Satellites don't all have to have rocket engines, and their operational life certainly doesn't end when they run out of fuel. Satellites DO NOT need engines to keep up with the earth.
AND THAT PROVES THAT THE SPACE ROTATES AROUND THE EARTH, TAKING THE SATELLITES WITH IT.
PawelKolasa 1 year ago
@PawelKolasa Then, yet again: what holds up geostationary satellites and keeps them from falling? According to you, the geostationary satellites wouldn't be orbiting, therefore space wouldn't be able to "take them with it," so they should just fall to the ground like any other stationary, unsupported object. Why don't they?
shanedk 1 year ago
@PawelKolasa
Cool story, bro.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@PawelKolasa Again and again and again: PLEASE then explain the "mystery" of geostationary satellites!! Oh, I forgot: they don´t even exist! Where then are all those sat-TV-dishes aiming at? And where does the signal come from?
pelikan88 1 year ago
@PawelKolasa Wow, and the best part is that everything farther away than Neptune is traveling around us faster than the speed of light. Why, because fuck Einstein, that's why.
johnrainrules 1 year ago
You can see the forests form orbit.
adamkyler 1 year ago
@adamkyler Covered to death. Have a video on it.
shanedk 1 year ago
wow!!!! poor pawel... what a waste of brain matter...
Paxmax 1 year ago
Wow. How does someone come up with this kind of garbage?
teqwc 1 year ago
Not only does the earth move, it has a wobble. Just as the tilt of the earth's axis gives us summer and winter, the wobble causes climate change over a roughly 26,000 year cycle (Precession of the Equinoxes). Ancient people aligned buildings to the stars (mostly for agricultural purposes) and observed that the stars "fall back" 1 degree in 72 years.
Do the math: 360 degrees times 72 = 25,920 years! We know today that the rate of the wobble is variable. The cycle was divided into 12 ages.
AcePilot2009 1 year ago
Was that a toupee?
2eelShmeal 1 year ago
Was what a toupee?
shanedk 1 year ago
Talking about the creationist dude...aka rocket scientist...lol
2eelShmeal 1 year ago
your videos are really great!
but this guy is a moron lol
Ilikenuman 2 years ago
Great vid as usual. 5 stars. (I don't know why I haven't seen this until now.)
ThisClownis2in1 2 years ago 2
So, if I weighed "twice less" than what I do now, would I weigh -176 pounds? That's what that means, right?
ThisClownis2in1 2 years ago
PawelKolasa's understanding of physics is abysmal.
Have you seen his video on Newton's 3rd Law?
I face-palmed throughout the entire video.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
I laughed the entire time
AndromedaLorring 1 year ago
Notice how MasterGhostKnight has not provided a video about your politics. Interesting...
I'm glad he changed his user pic. His use of V was a disgrace.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Hey Shane. You make these great debunking vids. Do you happen to have enough astronomic knowledge to debunk "The Star of Bethlehem", watch?v=KRk4ZBCxO3s , where they claim all these astronomical signs prove christianity?
Mithcoriel 2 years ago
The Bad Astronomy blog has debunkings of a lot of those.
shanedk 2 years ago
Hm, it has a few mentions, if I googled right.
But it doesn't say, for example, if Jupiter really went into retrograde ("stopped") right over Bethlehem on Dec 25 2 BC. Or wether the moon went into eclipse right at 3pm April 3 33 AD, the moment Jesus died.
Well, if anyone knows of some free astronomy software to look stuff like that up, let me know..
Mithcoriel 2 years ago
1) Jupiter moves so little over the course of one night it doesn't matter if it's in retrograde or not. But you STILL have the rotation of the Earth to contend with; like the stars, it won't be in the same place for a single HOUR because of that.
2) I pulled up Stellarium; there was a PARTIAL lunar eclipse on that day. So what? They happen once every several months. Full ones every year and a half or so. And how do they know that's the exact date?
shanedk 2 years ago
Well in the vid they portray it as "the magi CALCULATE it's in retrograde then, over Bethlehem", so it wouldn't necessarily have to visibly stop.
They claim to know that's Jesus death date cause it's the only year during Pilate's office time that passover falls on a friday. And the bible says Jesus was put on the cross in the "third hour" (9pm) and died 6 hours later.
The amazing thing would be: the moon went into eclipse before it rose, so the ancients wouldn't be able to invent that Jesus..
Mithcoriel 2 years ago
..died then based on when the eclipse happened, cause they couldn't see when that was. Only today, with software do we see when the moon eclipsed. Of course, if it was only partial, then it wasn't a blood moon, so that would debunk that part. (Is that source online?)
Another claim is that there was a rare Jupiter-Regulus("King") tripple conjunction (Jupiter draws a crown over Regulus) that lasted September 3BC - June 2BC, from Jesus' conception to birth. Then the Jupiter-Venus conjunction.
Mithcoriel 2 years ago
They knew about lunar eclipses. The Greeks had been able to predict them for centuries by that point.
shanedk 2 years ago
Okay. But that still leaves us with only the argument: "They knew enough about astronomy back then. The reason the astronomy matches the story of Jesus so perfectly is cause they modelled the story after the astronomy." But I'm quite sure that the story does NOT match the astronomy perfectly. I'm sure someone with enough astronomic knowlegde could point out how it's all coincidence, say "Hey, that phenomenon happens every 3 years!" etc.
Mithcoriel 1 year ago
How sure are they of Passover? Are they using the CORRECT calender, which would be the Julian for this period? It actually converges to the Gregorian currently in use near this period, but I'm not sure if the dates actually line up in that time or not.
evensgrey 1 year ago