oh god why did you convince me to watch sunshine? I couldn't finish it but I also can't go to bed because pinbacker is probably right outside my door (right?). I guess he's like the perfect example of a scary religious person. Either way I'm dying to know what happens but I can't because I need to sleep this week.
You know, from 04:10 to 04:35, you need a coronagraph to block out the abomination.
Also by my rough & nasty calculations, Jupiter cannot have 99% of the solar system's angular momentum; Saturn should have about 29% of Jupiter's rotational angular momentum (and a similar proportion of orbital angular momentum); but then I'm modelling them as rigid bodies. So Jupiter alone can't have more than about 71% of the solar system's angular momentum. If I'm wrong on this, I'd love to see calculations!
What has to go wrong in your head that you don't see the problem here? Maybe the earth had 3 moons or 4. Maybe our earth used to be one of Saturn's moons. Maybe our moon is actually another planet. Anything is possible and possibility is reality.
How do these lunatics not see what a joke they are making of science. Theories are like assholes these days. Everyone has one and every atheist has their nose in another's, without question. This unwavering submission to every whim is childish.
You debunk squat here, propose theoretical improbables in opposition to views and launch regular clever but nasty attacks against the people behind the hypothesis, which is the last refuge for the inadequate or threatened. I was hoping for more, considering the potential that 50+ videos have for real scientific observations. Instead your motivation is character assassination, which serves only to highlight your inadequacy in the field you should be specializing in. How sad....
@Kenzofeis Science doesn't claim to know everything, and a theory is open to new, quantifiable, accurate evidence. Creationists say they know everything and stick their fingers in their ears and pretend not to hear the actual scientists when they debunk religion.
Although I wouldn't expect much more from the sort of people who believe a magic sky daddy made light on one day and the Sun later.
@tanmaniac Claiming to "practically know everything" but attempting to balance it with "so many new discoveries to be made" is a bit silly.
The first one I get from the cheauvinism and "vilolence" against "unfitting" views, the second one is where there is always need for more money and excuses to why the theories fails a lot when it comes to prediction.
A magician (mageia) will always do something to divert attention from the essence of his works.
@Kenzofeis I'm not entirely sure what you're saying for the majority of your comment... but theories DO accurately predict MANY physical occurrences. Properly scientific theories do, at least.
And I don't really get the magician thing, sorry :P What are you referring to there?
@tanmaniac The word "many" is little compared to the fleet of overinflated Zeppelins "science" has developed into, unfortunately.
There has been so many examples of skullduggery and battles in science and religion for so long, that they have in many ways become mockeries of themselves. Why?
It should not be that way, there are supposedly only one "god" - but people never agrees.
There should be only one scientific principle and only one way to go in every branch, but people never agrees.
@tanmaniac Regarding the magician, he operates with tricks, illusions, imaginary stuff, splendid shows or small tricks - he always uses smokescreens, mirrors and diversions - to the clue: how can people argue what he does unless they know how it is done, and what if they does'nt even know it is all ... "magic"?
To operate with "non-disprovables" are such trickery, and it is equivalent to religion.
@TheSpliffSmoker: To be a "Creationist Astrophysicist" would indicate a prior commitment to believing in the infallible bible and to make the evidence fit a preconceived idea of how old things are (ie no more than 10,000) and such. Being a Theistic Astrophysicist, "god did it, I'm looking honestly to see how", is an entirely different statement and one that is at least a good start.
@sol3a1 yes but we ALL have pre-concieved ideas right from the get-go so it all depends on which ones are right to begin with.the result of the idea of billions of years is an interpretation put on the facts in the light of evolution.so because of that we NEED billions of years.& thats where the big bang comes in,(that was "discovered" by a catholic priest)the only difference between that & YEC is the fact one is based upon darwinian evolution the other biblical creation.its the same evidence
@TheSpliffSmoker The age of the Earth is based on the constant decay of certain elements. (Geology and Chemistry) Even if evolution never existed the age of the Earth would still be estimated as old as it is. The age of the Solar system is based on complex math and observation (Astrology and Cosmology) that can be tested and would be quickly replaced with a correct theory if it was wrong. But everything everywhere (except your beliefs) is a conspiracy isn't it? Convenient. :)
@esplin227 OLd comment, but NEVER confuse astronomy and "astrology". Astrology is nothing but ancient superstition. Look up in wiki if you want. Cheers!: )
@winterstellar Oh dear god, what have I done... No!!! (Kills self) No but that was a typo that Spell check probably showed and I may have clicked on astrology instead of astronomy not paying attention.
FACT: Many people who believe that evolution is fact or science do so because they refuse to believe in God. The feeling of the light exposing their wickedness, along with their closed-mindedness and dishonesty, keep them stuck with their faith in their evolution religion.
@ednja Liar. Keep promoting lies and propaganda so our children will be as stupid as possible. Please dont make the next generation too stupid to remember to keep thier heart beating and lungs heaving okay? Comprimise
@ednja I guess you dont know that even the pope accepts evolution. And no one can deny his relationship with god. So, you are very misinformed. Please stop the regression of education and shut up
Just start with Darwin's book. You can read it online.
You cannot say that you do not believe in evolution if you do not understand what evolution really tells you. Don't believe sites blindly, go and check the information directly in the book from Darwin himself.
What song is playing at 2:20 - 2:45? I'm pretty sure I have it, but I can't put my finger on it and it's driving me crazy. Also, great videos AndromedasWake. I like your style, I hope you make more. :D
Perhaps you could do a video regarding how creationists say the speed of light isn't consistent, or that the moon is slowly moving away, thus proving that the eart his young, or that Saturn;s rings are too clean to be old.
Twinkle, twiiiinkle, little star. How I wonder what you are. Up above the world so high, like a diamond in the sky.
Twinkle, twiiinkle, little star, I'll have to wait till the evidence comes in if I'm to know what you are. Up above the world so high, I hope it doesn't prove my pet beliefs a lie.
Twinkle, twinkle, little star. How I wonder what you are. Fra-lala-la-la....
@mcfunthomas Yes it has. Although we haven't observed it on relatively complex, long living organisms, we have seen it through the generations of insect, bacteria, and viruses whose lives are very short.
@Michael6504 "we have seen it through the generations of insect, bacteria, and viruses whose lives are very short."
Can you give me an example of an insect, bacteria or a virus which evolved into sth which is no longer the same thing?
Nevertheless, stating that simple organisms mentioned above are evolving (after giving a kinnda proof or evidence) - how does it imply the evolution of all living creatures which supposedly took place in the distant past?
Evolution can inferred because we know genes carry the information that determines traits, & that these must be inherited. You are what you are because of your genes, & you have those genes because you've inherited them. The mechanisms for biological evolution are well understood, & the theory makes sense of our observations. Molecular comparisons show peculiarly patterned distribution of genetic differences among organisms of closely-related clades -- they share genetic markers.
While something like the fossil record can be very illustrative, it is the subtle, molecular differences & similarities which are most compelling, like explaining why distantly-related organisms might share a similar pattern of mutations on a neutral gene, which you wouldn't expect to see had they accumulated randomly, but makes sense if they'd both inherited them from the same ancestral line in the distant past. These things do show up.
@Boy192 As I see same information can be explained in at least two different ways. I've been reading different books on this and both evolutionists and creationists (for example) can explain this according to their theories.
MC, I could also make up a third "theory" to explain it all too. But opinions and arguments aren't evidence in themselves. Evolution is a phenomenon & theory in the scientific sense; ID is neither, in terms of biology to which it's applied. Why's the sky [appear] to be blue? Both "God made it blue, because he wanted it to be blue" and "rayleigh scattering" are a ways of explaining such a phenomenon. It just depends on whether you feel it's necessary to invoke the supernatural or not.
@mcfunthomas Scientists accept that evolution is an observable, documentable phenomenon. And just like with every other scientific field, there's an explanatory framework, supported by evidence & capable of making predictions; this scientists call the "theory of evolution".
If you want to appear sane & rationally consistent, you won't deny the painter. But painting aren't subject to reproduction, inheritence, natural selection, phylogenetics etc. of which LIFE is.
"Can you give me an example of an insect, bacteria or a virus which evolved into sth which is no longer the same thing?"
You clearly need to read a evolution book because this question sounds very silly if you actually know a bit about evolution. The flaw in your logic is that you assume that a complete transition mist be taken place to call evolution but evolution is small incremental changes you barely notices. Just like a river changing it's path over 100 of years.
@obaeyens " The flaw in your logic is that you assume that a complete transition mist be taken place to call evolution"
There are at least 3 definisions of what evolution is. If so, there isn't any flaw in my logic. The flaw I see is when so-called micro-evolution is presented to 'prove' so-called macro-evolution.
Don't tell me that because organisms can adapt to their environment (small changes) 'proves' that we all have the same one-cell ancestor. This is what I call a flaw in logic.
@obaeyens "just read a real evolution, book instead of relying on creationists claims how they think evolution is."
I read both.
---
"or are unable to understand what the evolution books tell you"
If I see a flaw, it doesn't matter who writes it. I can say the same about other ppl. They ridicule ID because they are unable to understand what the ID books tell them.
No you didn't. Your comments clearly show that you have no clue what the evolution book really say. You might have read a page or a few quotes but never read the complete evolution books. It is understandable because you might lose your religion when you read it and really understand what is written.
"LOL. There are scientists who know more than me n you together nstill are Xtian."
Yep you are scared to read the real evolution book!
Because if you read it then you will know that "macro" evolution is impossible according to Darwins evolution. At best you could call it nano-evolution or even pico-evolution. There is only evolution, no macro or micro. Also transitional fossils like half ape and half human is also impossible just like the croco-duck.
"Yep you are scared to read the real evolution book!"
Some time ago I used to read ppl stating that reading "The God Delusion" will change my view on religion. I've had a sack of laugh while reading deluding Dawkins. I put some comments on YT about it as well.
Now you state sth similar. OK. What real evolution book do you recommend. Let it be sth I can buy on amazon on ebay. I have no other better options...as I live in a small town.
Just start with the Darwin one. It is free online. First of all make sure that you actually understand what he writes. Just ignore if it is true or not just read it. By really understand it you will create a credible basis to discuss evolution. At this moment you are just copy catting the same baseless arguments that puts a huge neon sign on your that you never read any evolution book.
@obaeyens " It is understandable because you might lose your religion when you read it and really understand what is written."
When talking about God, I've experienced enough to be sure He exists n is interested in his creation. So leave such stupid comments for those whose faith is dead and don't experience God.
The reason why I know that you never read the real evolution books is that you use standardized reactions to certain questions that has been disproven a million times.
If you actually have read an evolution book then you would come up with new reactions that no one have discovered so far.
Just start with Darwin's book. You can read it online.
You cannot say that you do not believe in evolution if you do not understand what evolution really tells you. Don't believe sites blindly, go and check the information directly in the book from Darwin himself.
Just start with Darwin's book. You can read it online.
You cannot say that you do not believe in evolution if you do not understand what evolution really tells you. Don't believe sites blindly, go and check the information directly in the book from Darwin himself.
MC, since we're talking about a scientific theory, then we need only use the definition which applies to biology, and that is the phenomenon by which allele frequencies among populations change & the divergence of populations. That's biological evolution, so you need only use that definition. Adaptive / microevolutionary changes are a sufficient mechanism for providing genetic changes over a macro timescale. And it is the molecular comparisons that confirm common ancestry most convincingly.
@mcfunthomas What you think doesn't matter. You're utterly ignorant and incapable of criticising scientific theories seriously. What are your opinions on atomic theory or germ theory? What are their flaws? You have no idea.
Genetic changes accumulating over long periods of time to any one lineage is very possible, & it's only extinction that will stop it; speciation has also been documented. The Bible isn't a sufficient factor in rejecting the obvious phenomena of genetic change & inheritence
@Boy192 "You're utterly ignorant and incapable of criticising scientific theories seriously. "
What you think about me doesn't matter.
---
"Genetic changes accumulating ..."
Here we go again. Your belief in this stuff... As you're used to say about creationism supporters that they have "God of the gaps". I react: you have your god called: "Chance of the gaps".
Do you understand how small random changes accumulated can create a fantastic thing?
Look at how big cities grow by small random changes over the period of a few hundred of years. You do not notice the changes in your lifetime unless you look back at the old pictures.
"Random ppl? Random changes? Random houses? -> What do you mean?"
Most cities have random people buy random land and set random houses.
So when you take a snapshot every year you would see small incremental changes shaping the city. You cannot predict how the city will look like in 100 years from now on.
Yes evolution is based on small accumulated random genetic changes over a period of many hundreds or thousands of generations. No one single massive random change.
I understand you now: your body is 36-yo, but it's the hamster in your otherwise empty brain cavity that's controlling the show. Due to its short life, the hamster has to be changed every 5 years, resetting your memory, which is why you're so fucking stupid.
No, you don't, though U think so. Your description of a hamster is so childish that I don't feel like getting down to your IQ level in order to continue this conversation. I find it unpleasant.
---
"I'm done entertaining your twattery. "
Good. Go back to your world of dreams then. There you can find more hamsters, fairies and dudes like U. If anyone wants to know where it is, just type: awdreams dot com.
You react? It's not much of a reaction when it comes a MONTH later. Don't pretend like you have a life. I don't have a god, I'm an atheist, and a non-astrologer and non-stamp collector among other things. I believe in chance, because some things happen by chance. I don't see what relevance any of this has.
@Boy192 "It's not much of a reaction when it comes a MONTH later. "
Better late than never, isn't it? ;-) I don't pretend, I have a life. I happen to have problems with network, with software/system. I even go for holidays.
You say you don't have a god. Well, you believe in chance, but what kind of chance is that? Unbelievable....if U ask me.
MC, better you stop wasting my fucking time, actually. You probably spent the whole month praying to Jebus for your network to function again, before some 5-yo kid pointed out that computers don't run on miracles.
@mc Again, your ignorant opinion is of no value, you have no reason for rejecting it beyond your own personal whims. Francis Collins accepts evolution, and unless you can quote otherwise, he would agree with the molecular evidence regarding evolution.
Conclusions on gods are based on personal bias and are irrelevant to scientific theories. But what it shows is that even an intelligent person (F. Collins) can hold two contradicting ideas in their head, i.e. "I believe in God; I believe in the scientific method."
Junk DNA is out-dated? So the whole genome encodes for proteins? Explain yourself.
What's the difference between "reject" & "not accept" in ANY context?
Two contradicting ideas in F. Collins' head: Science — reason, evidence-based logic; & religion — unsubstantiated faith-based claims. Francis is a biologist, he accepts the laws of phylogenetics; yet he believes in the talking snake of Genesis.
You made the vague assertion on junk DNA, so substantiate & elaborate on it, or go fuck yourself with your own bullshit & stop wasting our time.
@Boy192 "Francis is a biologist, he accepts the laws of phylogenetics; yet he believes in the talking snake of Genesis."
Well, let me use your own words: "you made the vague assertion on this, so substantiate & elaborate on it, or go fuck yourself with your own bullshit & stop wasting our time.
---
"You made the vague assertion on junk DNA, so substantiate & elaborate on it"
I just need some time to get to some sources of info.
Look up the rotation of the solar wind along the sun's magnetic field lines until decoupling at the sun's alfven radius. this can account for a significant amount of lost AM as the radius of decoupling is much larger than Rsun. i did this for a project in my final year astro subject at uni.
Winning the argument at all cost is a tragic hallmark of 'Creationism'... I remember those little comic pamphlets you could find on the bath room floor at high school. What would be presented as a 'major' case for current science; turned into a bunch of tea-cup storm prediction. I watch these folks and wonder,'Why do you even bother debating 'science' when you have no desire for how nature works and what can be projected from a well understood model? the win is not how much snake oil is sold?
I love this series, the pwnage is great, but it's the science that is the best. Learning soooooo much about astrophysics and cosmology! Thanks so much for this series. Between you and DonEx I'm becoming a educated idiot! Nyuk nyuk nyuk.
I don't see why you have to put the music behind you talking. It is only irritating. Are you really expecting me to read what you have printed, listen to you talking and listen to the music?
I have a really dumb question. I heard somewhere (warning bells anyone?) that the images from the Hubble Telescope are actually black and white images and that when they get published they are colored in by artists. Is this true?
Ps. great videos AndromedasWake. Keep up the good work.
Hubble pictures have more than just the visible light wavelenght in them. The pictures also have x-ray and radio wavelenghts in them represented with different colors.
The Hubble images are taken with a combination of filters then combined in their respective colors to make a color image. It's sort of like how a television screen combines red, green and blue pixels to create the illusion of a color image.
The Hubble can image in visible, near infrared and some UV light; not radio or X-rays. If some images from the Hubble are taken in the infrared - a light we cannot see - some false color approximations are made or we wouldn't see it.
I've been a longtime subscriber to your vids. Can't help but admire objective, uncluttered minds. Glad I found your twitter page since I log on to Twitter on a daily basis. Kudos to you and all the defenders of clear thinking out there.
TK, I am watching this video for at least the 6th time, and it's still one of my favorites. It may be my absolute favorite on YT as a matter of fact. Thank you for being part of what inspired me to start making videos, mate!
I was wondering, have you seen Dr. Jason Lisle's video on Star Light? and what you think of the few models he has given? He says something about Time Dilation might be away for creationist to get around the star light problem... if the sun loses 4.5 billion mass a second, should the sun still be here or does the sun have enough mass to sustain itself for 4.5 billions years?
@Eyesonme805 The Sun absolutely does have enough mass. It will lose a fraction of a percent of its mass over its entire main sequence life. During its red giant - white dwarf stage, it'll lose a fairly significant amount of mass.
I believe you are referring to a common creationist appeal to VSL (varying speed of light). I hypothesis with no evidence and not a particularly strong theoretical basis, that proposes light used to travel faster. I'm not aware of any time dilation problem though.
I was watching his video on Star light again... one of the models he proposes is Gravitational Time Dilation, that time might have flowed more slowly on Earth than in the outter Universe, saying the Earth might be in a gravitational well... claiming that it might be possible for light to reach us in 6000 years...I don't know much about Astronomy, only took astronomy 101... I would like your take on this
Bull, the "end times" have been going on since the 1940's, at least. The "end of the world" was supposed to happen any day between May, 1945 and December, 1991...the cold war. Then it was the beginning of the year 2000, and for some reason 2012 now.
It is a bad joke. Life will end, and the planet itself will cease to exist, but that's going to be in about 4 billion years. The sun will destroy the earth.
well we know at least 350 theists have watched this.
redshift40 6 days ago
beautiful
Louiseskybunker 6 days ago
some sweet info here
khijasmith 1 week ago
This is a great video
jayejayeee 1 week ago
awesome vid.... subscribed!!!
SANHEDRIN666 1 month ago
oh god why did you convince me to watch sunshine? I couldn't finish it but I also can't go to bed because pinbacker is probably right outside my door (right?). I guess he's like the perfect example of a scary religious person. Either way I'm dying to know what happens but I can't because I need to sleep this week.
Misp0610 2 months ago
You know, from 04:10 to 04:35, you need a coronagraph to block out the abomination.
Also by my rough & nasty calculations, Jupiter cannot have 99% of the solar system's angular momentum; Saturn should have about 29% of Jupiter's rotational angular momentum (and a similar proportion of orbital angular momentum); but then I'm modelling them as rigid bodies. So Jupiter alone can't have more than about 71% of the solar system's angular momentum. If I'm wrong on this, I'd love to see calculations!
lordrukario 3 months ago
I also knew Earth has two moons - and I also know it because I watch QI
XheraPhine 3 months ago
You showded me teh sun? YOU ARE MY NEW GOD
Primordialfan1 4 months ago
I knew the Earth had two moons! Although I only knew it from watching QI :P
Guttermouth 5 months ago
>Actually, the Earth has two moons. Hands up if you knew that!<
*raises hand*
ianmathwiz7 5 months ago
What has to go wrong in your head that you don't see the problem here? Maybe the earth had 3 moons or 4. Maybe our earth used to be one of Saturn's moons. Maybe our moon is actually another planet. Anything is possible and possibility is reality.
How do these lunatics not see what a joke they are making of science. Theories are like assholes these days. Everyone has one and every atheist has their nose in another's, without question. This unwavering submission to every whim is childish.
knowwaie 5 months ago
Daft Punk :D
smellycheeseman1 6 months ago
I hated the movie Sunshine.
Probably because I watched while I was vomiting...
XanderBBo 7 months ago
hell yea Daft Punk
isrealjason 9 months ago
You debunk squat here, propose theoretical improbables in opposition to views and launch regular clever but nasty attacks against the people behind the hypothesis, which is the last refuge for the inadequate or threatened. I was hoping for more, considering the potential that 50+ videos have for real scientific observations. Instead your motivation is character assassination, which serves only to highlight your inadequacy in the field you should be specializing in. How sad....
roodmnt 9 months ago
@roodmnt
Blah blah blah blah blah.
I just translated what you said.
mecher3k 6 months ago
The best sign of a rock solid theory is "We do not know, but it's suggest that .." and "astounding surprise" and "a baffling discovery".
Kenzofeis 10 months ago
@Kenzofeis Science doesn't claim to know everything, and a theory is open to new, quantifiable, accurate evidence. Creationists say they know everything and stick their fingers in their ears and pretend not to hear the actual scientists when they debunk religion.
Although I wouldn't expect much more from the sort of people who believe a magic sky daddy made light on one day and the Sun later.
tanmaniac 10 months ago
@tanmaniac Claiming to "practically know everything" but attempting to balance it with "so many new discoveries to be made" is a bit silly.
The first one I get from the cheauvinism and "vilolence" against "unfitting" views, the second one is where there is always need for more money and excuses to why the theories fails a lot when it comes to prediction.
A magician (mageia) will always do something to divert attention from the essence of his works.
Kenzofeis 10 months ago
@Kenzofeis I'm not entirely sure what you're saying for the majority of your comment... but theories DO accurately predict MANY physical occurrences. Properly scientific theories do, at least.
And I don't really get the magician thing, sorry :P What are you referring to there?
tanmaniac 10 months ago
@tanmaniac The word "many" is little compared to the fleet of overinflated Zeppelins "science" has developed into, unfortunately.
There has been so many examples of skullduggery and battles in science and religion for so long, that they have in many ways become mockeries of themselves. Why?
It should not be that way, there are supposedly only one "god" - but people never agrees.
There should be only one scientific principle and only one way to go in every branch, but people never agrees.
Kenzofeis 10 months ago
@tanmaniac Regarding the magician, he operates with tricks, illusions, imaginary stuff, splendid shows or small tricks - he always uses smokescreens, mirrors and diversions - to the clue: how can people argue what he does unless they know how it is done, and what if they does'nt even know it is all ... "magic"?
To operate with "non-disprovables" are such trickery, and it is equivalent to religion.
Kenzofeis 10 months ago
I think he's getting at:
“Great liars are also great magicians”
TamaThePeck 10 months ago
daft punk, astronomy and debunking bullshit in one video? i came.
1337celiac 11 months ago
whats the song at 2:45?
stefanhasausername 1 year ago
Watching videos like this make me wish I continued with physics at uni
Dahvood 1 year ago
Anyone know the name of the song not named above? It played during the "Mercury" clip from Sunshine
30packetsofketchup 1 year ago
whats the song at 4:30??
crackfe 1 year ago
How can you possibly be a "Creationist Astrophysicist?" Being a creationist makes your supposed "scientific credentials" completely void.
CRISNCHIPS12398 1 year ago
@CRISNCHIPS12398 thats one of the most bigoted statements ive ever seen.
facts are facts,regardless of what interpretations you put on them.
your opinion of things should have no relevance to your scientific aptitude
TheSpliffSmoker 1 year ago
@TheSpliffSmoker: To be a "Creationist Astrophysicist" would indicate a prior commitment to believing in the infallible bible and to make the evidence fit a preconceived idea of how old things are (ie no more than 10,000) and such. Being a Theistic Astrophysicist, "god did it, I'm looking honestly to see how", is an entirely different statement and one that is at least a good start.
sol3a1 1 year ago 8
@sol3a1 yes but we ALL have pre-concieved ideas right from the get-go so it all depends on which ones are right to begin with.the result of the idea of billions of years is an interpretation put on the facts in the light of evolution.so because of that we NEED billions of years.& thats where the big bang comes in,(that was "discovered" by a catholic priest)the only difference between that & YEC is the fact one is based upon darwinian evolution the other biblical creation.its the same evidence
TheSpliffSmoker 1 year ago
@TheSpliffSmoker The age of the Earth is based on the constant decay of certain elements. (Geology and Chemistry) Even if evolution never existed the age of the Earth would still be estimated as old as it is. The age of the Solar system is based on complex math and observation (Astrology and Cosmology) that can be tested and would be quickly replaced with a correct theory if it was wrong. But everything everywhere (except your beliefs) is a conspiracy isn't it? Convenient. :)
esplin227 1 year ago 19
@esplin227 OLd comment, but NEVER confuse astronomy and "astrology". Astrology is nothing but ancient superstition. Look up in wiki if you want. Cheers!: )
winterstellar 1 month ago
@winterstellar Oh dear god, what have I done... No!!! (Kills self) No but that was a typo that Spell check probably showed and I may have clicked on astrology instead of astronomy not paying attention.
esplin227 1 month ago
@esplin227 Yes, from the rest of your comment I kinda figured it had to be a typo, and I should have mentioned that. Cheers!
winterstellar 1 month ago
Great video and sunshine is a fab movie - with an awesome soundtrack.
bagospannerz 1 year ago
Divine. So to speak.
Spherical3 1 year ago
Absolutely love your videos, it's a great attempt to, well, debunk CrAP.
Not to mention you got an awesome taste for music in your videos.
DanielKay06 1 year ago
I went out and bought Sunshine because of this video, and It's the best purchase I have ever made! lol
TheCamaroGuy95 1 year ago
FACT: Many people who believe that evolution is fact or science do so because they refuse to believe in God. The feeling of the light exposing their wickedness, along with their closed-mindedness and dishonesty, keep them stuck with their faith in their evolution religion.
ednja 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ednja you are a liar my friend
backslava 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ednja Liar. Keep promoting lies and propaganda so our children will be as stupid as possible. Please dont make the next generation too stupid to remember to keep thier heart beating and lungs heaving okay? Comprimise
splicedenergy 1 year ago
@ednja I guess you dont know that even the pope accepts evolution. And no one can deny his relationship with god. So, you are very misinformed. Please stop the regression of education and shut up
splicedenergy 1 year ago
hey, just a thought, the planets are receding from the sun slowly, is there a way to determine the temp. of the earth about 600 million years ago
dingo2306 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mcfunthomas
Just start with Darwin's book. You can read it online.
You cannot say that you do not believe in evolution if you do not understand what evolution really tells you. Don't believe sites blindly, go and check the information directly in the book from Darwin himself.
obaeyens 1 year ago
what is the song played at the begenning? tysm
senseirofl 1 year ago
What song is playing at 2:20 - 2:45? I'm pretty sure I have it, but I can't put my finger on it and it's driving me crazy. Also, great videos AndromedasWake. I like your style, I hope you make more. :D
mxmsfuyt 1 year ago
Perhaps you could do a video regarding how creationists say the speed of light isn't consistent, or that the moon is slowly moving away, thus proving that the eart his young, or that Saturn;s rings are too clean to be old.
pandapalace11 1 year ago
this totally blew my fuckin mind. (sorry if that language offends you, pinecone-boy)
mmmmmarcus 1 year ago
Where did you find the pics? They are so cool. :D
Sh1n0kk 1 year ago
@Sh1n0kk I meant the pics of stars and galaxies, not the stupid people. ;D
Sh1n0kk 1 year ago
Twinkle, twiiiinkle, little star. How I wonder what you are. Up above the world so high, like a diamond in the sky.
Twinkle, twiiinkle, little star, I'll have to wait till the evidence comes in if I'm to know what you are. Up above the world so high, I hope it doesn't prove my pet beliefs a lie.
Twinkle, twinkle, little star. How I wonder what you are. Fra-lala-la-la....
Boy192 1 year ago
I love this series, you really do "own" Creationists. But they're pretty easy to own anyway :P
luv4drums1 1 year ago
Lol cue in Penn and Teller to remind us that whatever PCS says is BULLSHIT!!!
Ital21 1 year ago
6:58 - biological evolution observed? U must be joking or your definition of evolution is different from mine. Anyway, fallacy.
mcfunthomas 1 year ago
@mcfunthomas Yes it has. Although we haven't observed it on relatively complex, long living organisms, we have seen it through the generations of insect, bacteria, and viruses whose lives are very short.
Michael6504 1 year ago
@Michael6504 "we have seen it through the generations of insect, bacteria, and viruses whose lives are very short."
Can you give me an example of an insect, bacteria or a virus which evolved into sth which is no longer the same thing?
Nevertheless, stating that simple organisms mentioned above are evolving (after giving a kinnda proof or evidence) - how does it imply the evolution of all living creatures which supposedly took place in the distant past?
mcfunthomas 1 year ago
@mc
Evolution can inferred because we know genes carry the information that determines traits, & that these must be inherited. You are what you are because of your genes, & you have those genes because you've inherited them. The mechanisms for biological evolution are well understood, & the theory makes sense of our observations. Molecular comparisons show peculiarly patterned distribution of genetic differences among organisms of closely-related clades -- they share genetic markers.
Boy192 1 year ago
@mc
While something like the fossil record can be very illustrative, it is the subtle, molecular differences & similarities which are most compelling, like explaining why distantly-related organisms might share a similar pattern of mutations on a neutral gene, which you wouldn't expect to see had they accumulated randomly, but makes sense if they'd both inherited them from the same ancestral line in the distant past. These things do show up.
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192 As I see same information can be explained in at least two different ways. I've been reading different books on this and both evolutionists and creationists (for example) can explain this according to their theories.
Thx for your point of view.
mcfunthomas 1 year ago
@mcfunthomas
There is only one real evolution definition. Just read the book from Darwin that is the basis.
All other definitions are made up by people that have no clue what evolution is. And of course if you read these than it does not make sense.
Evolution is just small incremental random changes over a period of millions of years.
obaeyens 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@obaeyens "There is only one real evolution definition. Just read the book from Darwin that is the basis."
Nowadays there are more definitions or maybe I should write subdefinitions...?
mcfunthomas 1 year ago
MC, I could also make up a third "theory" to explain it all too. But opinions and arguments aren't evidence in themselves. Evolution is a phenomenon & theory in the scientific sense; ID is neither, in terms of biology to which it's applied. Why's the sky [appear] to be blue? Both "God made it blue, because he wanted it to be blue" and "rayleigh scattering" are a ways of explaining such a phenomenon. It just depends on whether you feel it's necessary to invoke the supernatural or not.
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192 "Evolution is a phenomenon & theory in the scientific sense; ID is neither, in terms of biology to which it's applied."
I don't share this opinion.
---
" It just depends on whether you feel it's necessary to invoke the supernatural or not. "
Just like with paintings. You can but don't need to invoke their authors (painters) when analysing them.
mcfunthomas 1 year ago
@mcfunthomas Scientists accept that evolution is an observable, documentable phenomenon. And just like with every other scientific field, there's an explanatory framework, supported by evidence & capable of making predictions; this scientists call the "theory of evolution".
If you want to appear sane & rationally consistent, you won't deny the painter. But painting aren't subject to reproduction, inheritence, natural selection, phylogenetics etc. of which LIFE is.
"I disagree". Grow up.
Boy192 1 year ago
@mcfunthomas
"Can you give me an example of an insect, bacteria or a virus which evolved into sth which is no longer the same thing?"
You clearly need to read a evolution book because this question sounds very silly if you actually know a bit about evolution. The flaw in your logic is that you assume that a complete transition mist be taken place to call evolution but evolution is small incremental changes you barely notices. Just like a river changing it's path over 100 of years.
obaeyens 1 year ago
@obaeyens " The flaw in your logic is that you assume that a complete transition mist be taken place to call evolution"
There are at least 3 definisions of what evolution is. If so, there isn't any flaw in my logic. The flaw I see is when so-called micro-evolution is presented to 'prove' so-called macro-evolution.
Don't tell me that because organisms can adapt to their environment (small changes) 'proves' that we all have the same one-cell ancestor. This is what I call a flaw in logic.
mcfunthomas 1 year ago
@mcfunthomas
There is no flaw in my logic, just read a real evolution, book instead of relying on creationists claims how they think evolution is.
Your comments clearly show that either you did not read a real evolution book or are unable to understand what the evolution books tell you.
You are confusing evolution with only one single cell ancestor for example.
Also micro and macro does not exist in evolution. You only have evolution. These 2 words are invented by creationist.
obaeyens 1 year ago
@obaeyens "just read a real evolution, book instead of relying on creationists claims how they think evolution is."
I read both.
---
"or are unable to understand what the evolution books tell you"
If I see a flaw, it doesn't matter who writes it. I can say the same about other ppl. They ridicule ID because they are unable to understand what the ID books tell them.
mcfunthomas 1 year ago
@mcfunthomas
"I read both."
No you didn't. Your comments clearly show that you have no clue what the evolution book really say. You might have read a page or a few quotes but never read the complete evolution books. It is understandable because you might lose your religion when you read it and really understand what is written.
obaeyens 1 year ago
@obaeyens "you might lose your religion when you read it and really understand what is written."
LOL. There are scientists who know more than me n you together nstill are Xtian.
I can read anything but it won't change my view on my 'religion'. I write 'religion' 'cause Xtianity in not a religion for me.
---
"You might have read a page or a few quotes but never read the complete evolution books."
I haven't read a complete evolution books. Neither ID books.
mcfunthomas 1 year ago
@mcfunthomas
"LOL. There are scientists who know more than me n you together nstill are Xtian."
Yep you are scared to read the real evolution book!
Because if you read it then you will know that "macro" evolution is impossible according to Darwins evolution. At best you could call it nano-evolution or even pico-evolution. There is only evolution, no macro or micro. Also transitional fossils like half ape and half human is also impossible just like the croco-duck.
obaeyens 1 year ago
@obaeyens "Yep you are scared to read the real evolution book!"
You think putting the exclamation mark will convice anybody? If I was scared, I'd shout n put exclamation marks. I'm not like you.
-----------------------------------
"Also transitional fossils like half ape and half human is also impossible just like the croco-duck. "
Pathetic. Moreover. Where there are two evolution supportes there are three opinions.
mcfunthomas 1 year ago
@obaeyens I forgot sth
"Yep you are scared to read the real evolution book!"
Some time ago I used to read ppl stating that reading "The God Delusion" will change my view on religion. I've had a sack of laugh while reading deluding Dawkins. I put some comments on YT about it as well.
Now you state sth similar. OK. What real evolution book do you recommend. Let it be sth I can buy on amazon on ebay. I have no other better options...as I live in a small town.
mcfunthomas 1 year ago
@mcfunthomas
Just start with the Darwin one. It is free online. First of all make sure that you actually understand what he writes. Just ignore if it is true or not just read it. By really understand it you will create a credible basis to discuss evolution. At this moment you are just copy catting the same baseless arguments that puts a huge neon sign on your that you never read any evolution book.
obaeyens 1 year ago
@obaeyens " sure that you actually understand what he writes. Just ignore if it is true or not just read it."
I'm not gonna read fallacies.
---
"At this moment you are just copy catting the same baseless arguments..."
Say what?
mcfunthomas 1 year ago
@obaeyens " It is understandable because you might lose your religion when you read it and really understand what is written."
When talking about God, I've experienced enough to be sure He exists n is interested in his creation. So leave such stupid comments for those whose faith is dead and don't experience God.
mcfunthomas 1 year ago
@mcfunthomas
The reason why I know that you never read the real evolution books is that you use standardized reactions to certain questions that has been disproven a million times.
If you actually have read an evolution book then you would come up with new reactions that no one have discovered so far.
obaeyens 1 year ago
@obaeyens "The reason why I know that you never read the real evolution books is ..."
I've never read a book on evolution, neither on ID.
mcfunthomas 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mcfunthomas
Just start with Darwin's book. You can read it online.
You cannot say that you do not believe in evolution if you do not understand what evolution really tells you. Don't believe sites blindly, go and check the information directly in the book from Darwin himself.
obaeyens 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mcfunthomas
Just start with Darwin's book. You can read it online.
You cannot say that you do not believe in evolution if you do not understand what evolution really tells you. Don't believe sites blindly, go and check the information directly in the book from Darwin himself.
obaeyens 1 year ago
@obaeyens "Also micro and macro does not exist in evolution. You only have evolution. These 2 words are invented by creationist."
As for me it doesn't matter who invented them. They are sound definintions and describe the real world and evolutionary processes.
mcfunthomas 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@obaeyens "Also micro and macro does not exist in evolution. You only have evolution. These 2 words are invented by creationist."
Give me the name. If you can't - refer to wikipedia - for example. There you find him.
mcfunthomas 1 year ago
MC, since we're talking about a scientific theory, then we need only use the definition which applies to biology, and that is the phenomenon by which allele frequencies among populations change & the divergence of populations. That's biological evolution, so you need only use that definition. Adaptive / microevolutionary changes are a sufficient mechanism for providing genetic changes over a macro timescale. And it is the molecular comparisons that confirm common ancestry most convincingly.
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192 "Adaptive / microevolutionary changes are a sufficient mechanism for providing genetic changes over a macro timescale."
I thinkit's the other way round. But who knows...
mcfunthomas 1 year ago
@mcfunthomas What you think doesn't matter. You're utterly ignorant and incapable of criticising scientific theories seriously. What are your opinions on atomic theory or germ theory? What are their flaws? You have no idea.
Genetic changes accumulating over long periods of time to any one lineage is very possible, & it's only extinction that will stop it; speciation has also been documented. The Bible isn't a sufficient factor in rejecting the obvious phenomena of genetic change & inheritence
Boy192 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Boy192 "What you think doesn't matter. You're utterly ignorant and incapable of criticising scientific theories seriously."
What you think doesn't matter. You're utterly fckn asshole incapable of arguing in a normal way.
---
"The Bible isn't a sufficient factor in rejecting"
Who said it is, you stupid moron?
mcfunthomas 1 year ago
@Boy192 "You're utterly ignorant and incapable of criticising scientific theories seriously. "
What you think about me doesn't matter.
---
"Genetic changes accumulating ..."
Here we go again. Your belief in this stuff... As you're used to say about creationism supporters that they have "God of the gaps". I react: you have your god called: "Chance of the gaps".
mcfunthomas 1 year ago
@mcfunthomas
Do you understand how small random changes accumulated can create a fantastic thing?
Look at how big cities grow by small random changes over the period of a few hundred of years. You do not notice the changes in your lifetime unless you look back at the old pictures.
obaeyens 1 year ago
@obaeyens "Look at how big cities grow by small random changes over the period of a few hundred of years."
1. These changes are not random.
2. They need an architect/designer.
3. They are noticeable in general... within my lifetime.
So your example is not very helpful, I'm afraid.
mcfunthomas 1 year ago
@mcfunthomas
1. Cities change randomly. Random people build houses, destroy houses replace houses.
2. There is no designer that generates a city itself! Only random people starting to build random houses.
3. It is noticeable slightly, but you should compare with cities from the year 0 till now.
obaeyens 1 year ago
@obaeyens Ad.1. All according to a plan of a building.
Random ppl? Random changes? Random houses? -> What do you mean?
Ad.2. There are such cities (ref. Latina in Italy). At least there is a group of succesive designers - if we talk about contemporary world.
Ad.3. Depends. But U're right - nowadays cities are different.
Nevertheless, if cities are an illustration - it is valid if n only if the accumulating genetic changes are true. Not the other way round. Do U agree?
mcfunthomas 1 year ago
@mcfunthomas
"Random ppl? Random changes? Random houses? -> What do you mean?"
Most cities have random people buy random land and set random houses.
So when you take a snapshot every year you would see small incremental changes shaping the city. You cannot predict how the city will look like in 100 years from now on.
Yes evolution is based on small accumulated random genetic changes over a period of many hundreds or thousands of generations. No one single massive random change.
obaeyens 1 year ago
@obaeyens Thx for clarification but I can't agree with all you said.
mcfunthomas 1 year ago
@mcfuckwit
I understand you now: your body is 36-yo, but it's the hamster in your otherwise empty brain cavity that's controlling the show. Due to its short life, the hamster has to be changed every 5 years, resetting your memory, which is why you're so fucking stupid.
I'm done entertaining your twattery.
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192 "I understand you now:"
No, you don't, though U think so. Your description of a hamster is so childish that I don't feel like getting down to your IQ level in order to continue this conversation. I find it unpleasant.
---
"I'm done entertaining your twattery. "
Good. Go back to your world of dreams then. There you can find more hamsters, fairies and dudes like U. If anyone wants to know where it is, just type: awdreams dot com.
mcfunthomas 1 year ago
@mc
You react? It's not much of a reaction when it comes a MONTH later. Don't pretend like you have a life. I don't have a god, I'm an atheist, and a non-astrologer and non-stamp collector among other things. I believe in chance, because some things happen by chance. I don't see what relevance any of this has.
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192 "It's not much of a reaction when it comes a MONTH later. "
Better late than never, isn't it? ;-) I don't pretend, I have a life. I happen to have problems with network, with software/system. I even go for holidays.
You say you don't have a god. Well, you believe in chance, but what kind of chance is that? Unbelievable....if U ask me.
mcfunthomas 1 year ago
@mcfunthomas
"Well, you believe in chance, but what kind of chance is that? "
Believe? Why do I need to believe when I can measure it?
obaeyens 1 year ago
@obaeyens "Why do I need to believe when I can measure it?"
How do you do that?
mcfunthomas 1 year ago
MC, better you stop wasting my fucking time, actually. You probably spent the whole month praying to Jebus for your network to function again, before some 5-yo kid pointed out that computers don't run on miracles.
WTF kind of chance? THE ONE & ONLY CHANCE.
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192 "And it is the molecular comparisons that confirm common ancestry most convincingly."
After having read some parts of "The language of God" by F. Collins I can say: I can't agree with you.
mcfunthomas 1 year ago
@mc Again, your ignorant opinion is of no value, you have no reason for rejecting it beyond your own personal whims. Francis Collins accepts evolution, and unless you can quote otherwise, he would agree with the molecular evidence regarding evolution.
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192 "Again, your ignorant opinion is of no value"
So is yours.
"you have no reason for rejecting it"
For me, there is a difference between "reject" and "not accept". I can't accept sth I'm not convicted of.
"Francis Collins accepts evolution..."
But with not Dawkins' conclusions on God.
At least one thing in Collins book is already outdated regarding molecular biology, namely "junk DNA".
But I'm interested in his BioLogos idea. I must read his book, 'The Language of God'.
mcfunthomas 1 year ago
@mc
reject = not accept. Welcome to English!
Conclusions on gods are based on personal bias and are irrelevant to scientific theories. But what it shows is that even an intelligent person (F. Collins) can hold two contradicting ideas in their head, i.e. "I believe in God; I believe in the scientific method."
Junk DNA is out-dated? So the whole genome encodes for proteins? Explain yourself.
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192 "reject = not accept. Welcome to English!"
Not always. Welcome to logic n context.
---
"even an intelligent person (F. Collins) can hold two contradicting ideas in their head"
Can you prove they are contradicting ideas?
---
"Junk DNA is out-dated?" Ask F. Collins for details if you please.
mcfunthomas 1 year ago
MC,
What's the difference between "reject" & "not accept" in ANY context?
Two contradicting ideas in F. Collins' head: Science — reason, evidence-based logic; & religion — unsubstantiated faith-based claims. Francis is a biologist, he accepts the laws of phylogenetics; yet he believes in the talking snake of Genesis.
You made the vague assertion on junk DNA, so substantiate & elaborate on it, or go fuck yourself with your own bullshit & stop wasting our time.
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192 "What's the difference between "reject" & "not accept" in ANY context?"
As an example: Agnostic can't accept the existance of God/a god, but can't reject it either. That's why they are agnostics.
If you don't know if sth is acceptable you can't simply reject it. Rejecting sth should mean you know sth to be unacceptable.
In other way REJECT => NOT ACCEPT but NOT ACCEPT =/=> REJECT.
mcfunthomas 1 year ago
@Boy192 "Francis is a biologist, he accepts the laws of phylogenetics; yet he believes in the talking snake of Genesis."
Well, let me use your own words: "you made the vague assertion on this, so substantiate & elaborate on it, or go fuck yourself with your own bullshit & stop wasting our time.
---
"You made the vague assertion on junk DNA, so substantiate & elaborate on it"
I just need some time to get to some sources of info.
mcfunthomas 1 year ago
@Boy192 "You made the vague assertion on junk DNA, so substantiate & elaborate on it"
All right. Start from Wikipedia n read "Noncoding DNA".
mcfunthomas 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Michael6504 " Yes it has. Although we haven't observed it on relatively complex, long living organisms"
Thus your definition of evolution is different from mine.
mcfunthomas 1 year ago
thumbs up for "sunshine" being the best film ever!! maybe not the best but damn close xD
kacprzak87 1 year ago
good use of sigur ros. svefn-g-englar is awesome star-gazing music
spaceghost1313 1 year ago 14
@spaceghost1313 Thumbs up for that!
KeithUnderneath 1 year ago
*continuously spams the subscribe button.
susideguy 1 year ago
Ok, shawns face really creeps me out. NO joke, its creepy.
repticman123 1 year ago
Whats that wonderful music that starts from ca 2:46 ?
Lilja20 1 year ago
@Lilja20 In case you haven't checked the video description already, it's Veridis Quo by Daft Punk. Great music indeed.
invadercheeze 1 year ago
@invadercheeze Yeah sorry about that i read it like two seconds after i asked. But great pice of music indeed!
Lilja20 1 year ago
Svefn g englar + space facts = smiles
swampyziggy123 1 year ago
Comment removed
swampyziggy123 1 year ago
Space! The final frontier!
FangFiftyFive 1 year ago
b/c a bell curve has two sides!! that pic is awesome.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
Ah, the spiritual successor to Why Do People Laugh At Creationists series!
No pun intended fellow skeptics ;)
Rko180 1 year ago
"......plus he's a huge twat."
Oh that cracked me up.
This was one of the best videos I've seen for a while; great music, fantastic images, complete ownage and recognition of the brilliance of Sunshine!
Cheers,
MojoPin07 1 year ago
AWake,
Look up the rotation of the solar wind along the sun's magnetic field lines until decoupling at the sun's alfven radius. this can account for a significant amount of lost AM as the radius of decoupling is much larger than Rsun. i did this for a project in my final year astro subject at uni.
great vid btw, keep it up
TheRooDog123 1 year ago
INTERESING OVERDOSE!
mortenlu 1 year ago
you say lift we say elevator you say lorry we say truck you say twat we say duchebag that guy looks like a real duchbag
thanksforthemessdick 1 year ago 3
DAFT PUNK!
dandashem 1 year ago
Sigur Ros!!! I love that song... I had a similar experience in both South Africa and Botswana... breathtaking...
akpiano27 1 year ago
Sigur Ros!
gavinplaysbass 1 year ago
Thats no moon...
(its a quasi-satellite)
tipoomaster 1 year ago
1:02 - truly an amazing picture .
slLLyhumans 1 year ago
can anyone tell me what song is that in the moment he puts those slides of the sun?
mauriciohavok 1 year ago
Winning the argument at all cost is a tragic hallmark of 'Creationism'... I remember those little comic pamphlets you could find on the bath room floor at high school. What would be presented as a 'major' case for current science; turned into a bunch of tea-cup storm prediction. I watch these folks and wonder,'Why do you even bother debating 'science' when you have no desire for how nature works and what can be projected from a well understood model? the win is not how much snake oil is sold?
darla1aeryn1fan 1 year ago
Comment removed
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 1 year ago
"not square root of 'minus one' complex" LOL!! This has just made my day!! I am a math major and I started laughing when I saw this! xD
mikerodeman 1 year ago
Huh, the bible doesn't say anything about Lunar and Solar astrophysics.
CHAOSoriginal 1 year ago
347 creations watched thus.
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 1 year ago
I love sunshine. Great film.
GodofChaos45 1 year ago
Use of Daft Punk music (starting at 9:50 ) = win.
Use of Humor in Slides = win
Use of Logic/Science to Defeat the forces of Stupid = win to the nth power
You, sir, are what I consider "made of win".
thesmallestinsanity 1 year ago
@thesmallestinsanity
starting at 2:47, I do apologize.
thesmallestinsanity 1 year ago
I love this series, the pwnage is great, but it's the science that is the best. Learning soooooo much about astrophysics and cosmology! Thanks so much for this series. Between you and DonEx I'm becoming a educated idiot! Nyuk nyuk nyuk.
disrxt 1 year ago
your debunking videos are great
emcce69 1 year ago
I don't see why you have to put the music behind you talking. It is only irritating. Are you really expecting me to read what you have printed, listen to you talking and listen to the music?
prisha91755 1 year ago
Why is it, that everyone who makes these videos has a great voice?
pandapalace11 1 year ago 2
I have a really dumb question. I heard somewhere (warning bells anyone?) that the images from the Hubble Telescope are actually black and white images and that when they get published they are colored in by artists. Is this true?
Ps. great videos AndromedasWake. Keep up the good work.
MrJmm999 1 year ago
Hubble pictures have more than just the visible light wavelenght in them. The pictures also have x-ray and radio wavelenghts in them represented with different colors.
That is my understanding.
BlizBob 1 year ago
Thanks
MrJmm999 1 year ago
@MrJmm999 and @BlizBob
The Hubble images are taken with a combination of filters then combined in their respective colors to make a color image. It's sort of like how a television screen combines red, green and blue pixels to create the illusion of a color image.
The Hubble can image in visible, near infrared and some UV light; not radio or X-rays. If some images from the Hubble are taken in the infrared - a light we cannot see - some false color approximations are made or we wouldn't see it.
KWalzar 1 year ago
I get euphoria watching your videos. I'm not trying to blow sunshine up your ass or anything, but you are definitely up there with Carl Sagan.
PaperSoapy 1 year ago
Great video, great song.
BassAceReturns 2 years ago 2
Great video. I love creationists getting owned. :D
I like the background music too.
Starbat88 2 years ago
I've been a longtime subscriber to your vids. Can't help but admire objective, uncluttered minds. Glad I found your twitter page since I log on to Twitter on a daily basis. Kudos to you and all the defenders of clear thinking out there.
mde227 2 years ago
I heard Kunt Horvind likes to drop his soap a lot in prison.
LaingGod 2 years ago
ahhh i keep getting lost because i'm trying to read one thing and listen to you saying another at the same time :(
agoule01 2 years ago
TK, I am watching this video for at least the 6th time, and it's still one of my favorites. It may be my absolute favorite on YT as a matter of fact. Thank you for being part of what inspired me to start making videos, mate!
-Modias
InModiasWeTrust 2 years ago 2
Anyone know the name of the track starting @ 2:18 ?
30packetsofketchup 2 years ago
I'd like to know that too
Perspektyva 1 year ago
Is that the music from Heroes of Might and Magic 2 at 2:46?
I got totally distracted for 2 min and had to rewind.
Crioca 2 years ago
So THATS what it is!!
patq911 2 years ago
Actually its "Veridis Quo - Daft Punk"
patq911 2 years ago
I was wondering, have you seen Dr. Jason Lisle's video on Star Light? and what you think of the few models he has given? He says something about Time Dilation might be away for creationist to get around the star light problem... if the sun loses 4.5 billion mass a second, should the sun still be here or does the sun have enough mass to sustain itself for 4.5 billions years?
Eyesonme805 2 years ago
@Eyesonme805 The Sun absolutely does have enough mass. It will lose a fraction of a percent of its mass over its entire main sequence life. During its red giant - white dwarf stage, it'll lose a fairly significant amount of mass.
I believe you are referring to a common creationist appeal to VSL (varying speed of light). I hypothesis with no evidence and not a particularly strong theoretical basis, that proposes light used to travel faster. I'm not aware of any time dilation problem though.
AndromedasWake 2 years ago 2
I was watching his video on Star light again... one of the models he proposes is Gravitational Time Dilation, that time might have flowed more slowly on Earth than in the outter Universe, saying the Earth might be in a gravitational well... claiming that it might be possible for light to reach us in 6000 years...I don't know much about Astronomy, only took astronomy 101... I would like your take on this
Eyesonme805 2 years ago
2:00 whats "* onyxguapo"?
patq911 2 years ago
@patq911
Black guapo?
Pirwzwhomper 2 years ago
What?
patq911 2 years ago
In the begining there was Sigur Ros, inspiring :) well done... I'm subscribing
ScaredCrows 2 years ago 2
@ScaredCrows I noticed that too, great song choice for the topic he's talking about.
iowacub1 2 years ago
Bull, the "end times" have been going on since the 1940's, at least. The "end of the world" was supposed to happen any day between May, 1945 and December, 1991...the cold war. Then it was the beginning of the year 2000, and for some reason 2012 now.
It is a bad joke. Life will end, and the planet itself will cease to exist, but that's going to be in about 4 billion years. The sun will destroy the earth.