this is wrong :( respect Einstein but for me its illogical to think that lightspeed is the fastest ... there are sub particles more faster and etc etc to infinite ...maybe not
@Flor What sub particle goes faster than the speed of light?
If you are talking about the CERN data about neutrinos, that same experiment has been done before resulting in skewed data at another accelerator in America, however that has since been shown to be a mistake in the system. They are doing tests in CERN to see if what they got had a mistake like the one in America.
The only thing horribly wrong with this video is the equation E=mc^2. It's actually E^2=m^2c^4+p^2m^2 with p being momentum.
@Florian00007 lol, so you say that THIS is wrong just because it's illogical to YOU. No...and there is something that travels faster then the speed of light.
However, you might not be able to travel at the speed of light but you can travel slower yet faster than light. This can be shown in a wormhole, when space time is being bent from the density of an object. It is simply because light will still travel around the circumference of the hole while you travel through it...Im in grade 7, I find astronomy so interesting, except for the fact that it collides with religious beliefs.
because of the speed limit the energy cannot be converted into speed, the energy is converted into heat light and even matter instead of speed because of this.
it is similar (but of course not the same) to how our vehicles have limits to their speeds, and when we get close to them our engines begin to overheat and can explode. this is because the engines can only handle a certain strain, and when this limit is reached or approached the energy is converted into other forms.
with normal acceleration most of the energy goes into the desired result speed(some converts to other undesired forms even here(light heat)). As you near light speed more and more of this energy is converted into mass. The higher mass then requires more energy to increase the speed, but at every stage the percentage of energy converted into mass increases. This results in an endless loop where you will never reach the speed of light.
I am assuming you are referring to the recent announcement from CERN? It is great that you are up to date on recent events, but make sure to read more deeply into the articles. First all that has happened is a test where neutrinos were timed to arrive 60,000,000,000ths of a second faster than they should have. this was with a long wavelength neutrino pulse, and Is heavily disputed. Cont.....
They have already begun a second test with a much shorter wave length neutrino pulse. similar to a click rather than a bong. They are still finding the discrepancy, but have in a month only recorded 20 neutrinos. This is in comparison with the 15000 they recorded in the last experiment. The math involved is similar to 20 new planets showing up in our solar system and having to figure out where they came from and why. Cont....
There are not only so many variables with just the twenty bodies themselves, but also their surroundings have infinity more complex effects on them. And these neutrinos are only "verified" to have come from CERN, this simply means we think they did. not that they did. Last of all these videos are talking about not quantum level particles, but spaceships and people. things at the atomic level are shown to behave in strange and unpredictable ways. Cont....
So even if neutrinos CAN travel faster than light, that does not mean that we can. At least not yet. But, more than likely if or when we travel faster than light it will still not be breaking the speed limit, but instead slipping around it in one way or another.
@pogpog28 That would never happen because in order for the immovable object to exist, the irresistible force couldn't and vice versa because if they clashed, they couldn't work without contradicting the title of the other. Also, for the the immovable object to exist, it would have infinite inertia which isn't possible in a finite universe :(((((
If you wish to see GOD particle, Higgs Boson see YOU TUBE VK SONAKIA.FIT-lFuture Imaging tool or Certainty tool technology developed which is GOD Particle in Human body.Based on data in biometric or biosensor of both hands where FITtechnology has blue prints of future diasters like earthquake,nuclear radiation,tsunami,Dam burst ,Hurricane, KATRINA , 9/11 2001 WTC Tragedy, 26/11 2008 mumbai serial blast.scientist welcome to see and test FIT
@Ipsenergud Sudarshan Reddy has theoretically proven the existence of a sub- atomic particle, which can travel at speed greater than that of light, thereby challenging one of the fundamental postulates of the 'Theory of Relativity
@esraretin Yes i mean why did Einstein think that the speed of light was the fastest in the universe when it takes several minutes for it to travel from the sun to earth?
@boxingisbest he thougth its speed of particules of an atom at the same time.thus from kinetic energy formula he calculated e=mc'2. he thougth its speed of reaction so with a car u cant go faster than speed of reaction of burning fuel oil.sorry for my english.apparently particules are faster then ligth so may be energy formula needs to be thougth again..(if its proven). this will only be a more calibrated formula i guess:)
Sure, by the middle of the 21st century we'll be mining on the moon. Just like by year 2000 I was gonna be driving a flying car. Or by the year 2001 I was supposed to be on a space odyssee with a homicidal super computer..... Oh, by the way, we already have flying cars, they're called planes.
started off OK, then started to speak about weight instead of mass and nucular instead of nuclear, didn't really explain much at all, and ended up with that ridiculous animation... OK, I'm being pernickity.
Goto (Google It) GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum and learn how to learn, without beliefs forced on you. Also listen to some good Blues from my band HavenHead.
How is the highest rated comment on this video pure idiocy? It has nothing to do with the pursuit of profit, and everything to do with the preservation of life on earth, and our continued existence. He3 processing is an absolutely amazing source of energy; and we don't have "Infinite potential" on earth, we have large, vast potential, but it's not unlimited, nor is solar energy even unlimited, we'll never see the end of it in our lifetimes, but we won't see the end of fossil fuels either.
@Deveyus It doesn't mean we shouldn't start preparing NOW for alternate energy instead of putting it off for our great great great grandkids to deal with when it suddenly runs out.
I really don't see how or why people think we should just put all our problems off for future generations.
Why doesn't anyone connected with nuclear power ever mention that we will be creating highly dangerous waste that we will have to put somewhere for tens of thousands of years? Figure out a way to process the waste so you wouldn't mind having it dumped in your back yard and then come back and talk to us. This idea is right up there with the Republican initiative to sell unpasteurized milk to Minnesota children at farmers markets! PS: I have worked at the Prairie Island Nuke plant in Minnesota.
so much for the law of mass conservation if mass equals to energy.
let me get this straight, if u have to reactants producing a single product, the mass of the product is theoretically less than the mass of the 2 reactants conbimed, due to the release of energy during the reaction.
@260830107 Only during nuclear reactions (eg. fusion/fission), that's why the laws you talk about are still useful for chemists. And only for (generally) atoms lighter than iron. Anything heavier and you will usually get the opposite case, where one thing splits into two, and the two things weigh less combined than the one thing (like in radioactive decay or fission), in this case you also get energy.
@1BustedMyth It is clean from C2O and similar greenhouse gases. If we manage to store away the radioactive material. I agree that there is a huge problem here, but there are plans to use the wast products as fuel for the next generation of nuclear plants. Their wast products would be less dangerous, and for much shorter time.
But that aside, fusion, instead of fission would perhaps be the solution. No radioactivity at all. But we are far from being able to use that yet.
@greyman000 , If you add all the CO2 produced by the minning, refinning, shipping to get it to the reactor, then the shipping, permanent storage under armed guard of the spent fuel rods (at the moment : forever!) then you quickly arrive at what is infact a false economy. that is completely leaving out all of the dangers involved with terrorists who have BIG plans for a single spent rod, let alone a whole station!
@greyman000 , I live now, I'm very tired of the Nuclear industry selling us that line that spent rods will be the next fuel, its BS to overcome resistance from the public.
The real reason is that they can dig it out of the ground, control the land where the deposits are and control how much they produce, is this starting to sound similar to say: Oil !
I have personaly seen viable Solar Thermal powerstation plans get bashed by these people for self interest.
@1BustedMyth I agree that it would be best if we could get all our power without any risk of radioactivity. But at the same time I know the political reality where I live. And the reality is unfortunate that power not generated by nuclear is instead generated by burning coal and oil.
I live at an area where we got enough fuel for nuclear power for the hole world for at least 200 years (this calculation includes rapid increase of usage, and growing population). But I don't want the risks.
02:40 Does anyone else see the Hexagon created with the dust and energy of the explosion? It is very peculiar to keep seeing this shape while talking about atoms and what makes up this 3d universe of ours..
True Free energy devices exist,But the big oil corporations don't want that technology revealed,Get a REAL working magnet motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Be a part of the energy revolution!
Cool video, the one thing I would change is the narration. It sounds like I'm in a planet-arium (sorry, I can't pronounce correctly due to a speech impediment, I have to say it like planet---arium.)
Dunno why everyone doesn't want to mine the moon. I know it has plenty of uses, but digging a small hole in it is better than sucking up all the oil under the sea.
No, it's not, because even a tiny amount of matter removed from the moon will drastically alter it's mass. This will, in turn, drastically alter the tides, etc. etc. It's a huge snowball effect that will only end up harming life on earth.
I am adamantly against mining the moon for resources! Also, the ones in charge of this most likely will use it for negative purposes - more control and power over others, war, etc! YUCK!!!!!!
Am I the only person who realises that nearly all of our energy needs could be solved with a few large geothermal power stations.
Why not start with one on yellowstone national park and stop it going boom! (Due to the supervolcano underneath it). Then iceland and anywhere else where the crust is thin enough to make it easily feasible.
@Bobajobimus Good idea! But the oil companies and the governments that they pay off will ALWAYS prevent that - and anything else that threatens to omit oil and internal-combustion power (i.e. - cars, generators, etc.).
@classiclistener01 Unfortunately there would be no profit in it. Pain and suffering allow for much more profit to be made. That is the way of our twisted species(for the moment). Until we all realise the grand order of the universe (and how small we currently are in it) is more important than our petty quarrels and we should strive to make the world a better place for all humans. Regardless...
Hopefully it will happen in my lifetime... we'll see.
@TheFifthGreatApe: If you filled the space shuttle's cargo w/ one load of Helium 3, that would be enough to for all the energy needs of America for one entire year and is nonpolluting. One cargoload would barely put a dent in the total mass of our moon. I'd rather have that than the billions of ton's of emissions pumped into our atmoshere from a finite supply of fossil fuels, which isn't sustainable anywayz and is doin' untold damage to our Earth...
mass is energy you don't see so, if to see something is to multiply by c (speed of light acting upon something) to not see something is to divide by c ( the thing becomes unseen, abstract numerator, potential) so seeing mass (mc) = not seeing energy (E/c) so mc=E/c the abstract becomes real by multiplication SQUARING the potential becomes realised, becomes perceptible probability waves become matter, decoherence atoms become chemicals etc multiplying = shifting observers perspective outwards
to see something is to understand light acting upon it
hence 'mc/1'
1=you
at this point energy is just an abstraction implied by the dynamic between photons, or 'speed' of light, which is another abstract concept.
hence E/c/1
understanding energy itself is to understand light acting upon light acting upon mass, in other words to percieve light acting upon mass, as opposed to just seeing the mass as previously.
so you 'see mc', or understand mc2
hence, understanding E, or E/1, = understanding mc2
I developed a theory that is better then newton's and einsteins but I lost it somewhere in my trash compacter. I havent had the time or energy to get it out.
I don't think we should fuck with the mass of the moon. Please, don't let the pursuit of profit take us that far, we have almost infinite potential right here in earth.
We need to realize that the reason we are not sustainable and abundant right now is because our social organization is still based on ancient methods. We have to make money every step of the way, hence slowing progress itself.
Efficiency, abundance and sustainability are the enemy's of profit.
Um right, you don't seem to realize the change in mass is inconsequential. What they are proposing is converting Helium3 to Helium. The reaction that causes this converts a Proton to Neutron by converting the mass that makes up the positive charge of the Proton to energy. In the form of heat.
@TheFifthGreatApe "Efficiency, abundance and sustainability are the enemy's of profit."
Nothing could be further from the truth. Nor is our potential here infinite. Moreover, even if it was, it may very well be more efficient to use resources from off-planet to improve our condition.
My statement is based on basic economics. How can you make profit in the long run if your model is not sustainable and inefficient? Conversely, how does it make sense that you want to improve the human condition without profit? The idea that we must choose between a profit-generating model on the one hand and a sustainable model on the other is dangerously naive and a false dichotomy as well.
@LordZentei I don't know what you mean by 'human condition' - that has loads of meanings! If you mean 'how will people better their lives without profit?', well do you really only better your life in pursuit of profit? According to Dan Pink (if you haven't heard of him already), monetary profit actually makes us perform worse. I really don't think you need profit either for incentive or for sustainability :)
@TheFifthGreatApe Eventually it will be impossible for humans to live on Earth and therefore if the human species is going to survive humans will have to move off this planet.
@TheFifthGreatApe Unfortunately, at some time we'll have to figure-out how to make the moon rotate closer to the earth. The moon presently is moving away from earth and this will eventually cause severe problems with weather etc; here on earth. If you wanna make a few bucks? you can figure out how to make the moon come closer.
@TheFifthGreatApe Very well said. I have often thought that a profit seemed more important than progress. Profit should not be a dirty word but there are more important things than making money on every single damn thing, idea, concept.
Technology is being held ransom for the next profit. Why cant we use what we know instead of knowing something and holding back for even more money? It just seems crazy to have great things and not use them till later.
@pumpstations (1,1) i see exactly were you are coming from. but if not profit what does one stand to gain by developing this new technology? what i am trying to point out is that one(meaning the average human) would not be motivated by a simple betterment of humanity. We are naturally greedy. People want personal gain as well as prosperity for all but what do you think they will choose first? It may seem crazy to use but thats the way people are.
@nt7237 You are correct. It just seems with all we pay: taxes, low wages, 90% of the population sees 50% of the money. I think the Bill Gates of the world would do what they do for far less money and still be happy. (I know I'm a commie bastard) < not really!, There is a better way than we have. In fact the way we do have may be closer to the worst way. I have no solution either.
@Nilguiri The figures that I can find. Do not say that, or even remotely close. Even if they were wrong. It would have to be an astronomical mistake. IE The richest 2 percent of adults in the world own more than half the world's wealth, according to a new study released by the Helsinki-based World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations University. The study's authors say their work is the most comprehensive study of personal wealth ever undertaken.
Unfortunatly one of the enemies of progress is allso the thing that drives it........motivation..... and for now it seems that unfortunatly all motovation comes from mony. one may think that new laws would help prevent this but then you would impeed on the writes of the person who made that new peice of technology, and by that i mean that since they made it , it is theyres to profit from. so its not that i dont agree, its just that the world wont work that way.
@nt7237 Yes still agree, sorry about the whole box thing.I agree, get what you can while you can, but jumping Jesus on a pogo stick. some of these profits are insane. We however allow it! I now vote with my feet. If it cost too much, I walk away. If it's a piece of crap. I walk away.
@TheFifthGreatApe fuck you you fucking moron. If there was a fusion fuel on the moon that could solve all the worlds energy problems as well as environmental/pollution problems you bet your ass we should use it. Its this kind of fucktard thinking that is slowing progress. For example we could be getting a lot more of our energy from relatively clean & inexpensive nuclear power right now but ignorant retards like you prevent this with irrational fear.
Please calm down dude and stop applying your bias onto me. I never said any of those things. You're projecting. I do happen to think nuclear isn't the direction anymore (RA waste) especially with and when we have many of sources of GEREN energy like wind, wave, solar, tidal. Not to mention geothermal has been surveyed to have a global, tap-able potential of 2000ZJ. The total energy consumption of the entire planet is 0.5ZJ. You do the math.
What I am trying to point out is that once you understand how it currently works by means of real and artificial scarcity, consumption and profit then compare/contrast that with what I would think would be our mutual goal, hence, efficiency, abundance and sustainability. One will notice that the more you go in one direction the further you get from the other.
This is our cultural paradox and it will be us that has to solve it.
@TheFifthGreatApe you sir, are incompetent. How are you going to argue against the mining of He3 on the moon if you have no idea what the advantages and (near-inexistant) disadvantages are? You just bashed it because you have some unfounded ''hunch'' that ''we should not fuck with the mass of the moon''.
Ps. The mass of the moon has nearly no relevance with the mining of He3.
@gamutman It was hopeful speculation regarding the use of possible fuel sources (Helium 3) for energy production in the future by means of nuclear fusion.
this is wrong :( respect Einstein but for me its illogical to think that lightspeed is the fastest ... there are sub particles more faster and etc etc to infinite ...maybe not
Florian00007 1 month ago
@Flor What sub particle goes faster than the speed of light?
If you are talking about the CERN data about neutrinos, that same experiment has been done before resulting in skewed data at another accelerator in America, however that has since been shown to be a mistake in the system. They are doing tests in CERN to see if what they got had a mistake like the one in America.
The only thing horribly wrong with this video is the equation E=mc^2. It's actually E^2=m^2c^4+p^2m^2 with p being momentum.
pythor2 1 month ago
@pythor2 Sorry, the last part is supposed to be p^2c^2
pythor2 1 month ago
@Florian00007 lol, so you say that THIS is wrong just because it's illogical to YOU. No...and there is something that travels faster then the speed of light.
MrFallout72 6 days ago
However, you might not be able to travel at the speed of light but you can travel slower yet faster than light. This can be shown in a wormhole, when space time is being bent from the density of an object. It is simply because light will still travel around the circumference of the hole while you travel through it...Im in grade 7, I find astronomy so interesting, except for the fact that it collides with religious beliefs.
323001024 2 months ago
@323001024 it doesn't collide with Islam, in fact, it increases my faith even more.
TheMuslimPrincess94 1 month ago
Increasing mass... And since you get huge mass, you bending space-time then right? And since you bending space ...
1phoe1 2 months ago
can anybody explain to me how the energy we apply to the particle when its near the speed of light makes it heavier and not faster?
archangel1996j 2 months ago
@archangel1996j
because of the speed limit the energy cannot be converted into speed, the energy is converted into heat light and even matter instead of speed because of this.
it is similar (but of course not the same) to how our vehicles have limits to their speeds, and when we get close to them our engines begin to overheat and can explode. this is because the engines can only handle a certain strain, and when this limit is reached or approached the energy is converted into other forms.
markusariliu 2 months ago
@markusariliu then when we reach light speed the energy is converted to other forms ?
archangel1996j 2 months ago
@archangel1996j
It is "impossible" to reach light speed.
with normal acceleration most of the energy goes into the desired result speed(some converts to other undesired forms even here(light heat)). As you near light speed more and more of this energy is converted into mass. The higher mass then requires more energy to increase the speed, but at every stage the percentage of energy converted into mass increases. This results in an endless loop where you will never reach the speed of light.
markusariliu 2 months ago
@markusariliu neutrino travels faster than light.
TheMuslimPrincess94 1 month ago
@TheMuslimPrincess94
Hello Princess,
I am assuming you are referring to the recent announcement from CERN? It is great that you are up to date on recent events, but make sure to read more deeply into the articles. First all that has happened is a test where neutrinos were timed to arrive 60,000,000,000ths of a second faster than they should have. this was with a long wavelength neutrino pulse, and Is heavily disputed. Cont.....
markusariliu 1 month ago
@TheMuslimPrincess94
They have already begun a second test with a much shorter wave length neutrino pulse. similar to a click rather than a bong. They are still finding the discrepancy, but have in a month only recorded 20 neutrinos. This is in comparison with the 15000 they recorded in the last experiment. The math involved is similar to 20 new planets showing up in our solar system and having to figure out where they came from and why. Cont....
markusariliu 1 month ago
@markusariliu
There are not only so many variables with just the twenty bodies themselves, but also their surroundings have infinity more complex effects on them. And these neutrinos are only "verified" to have come from CERN, this simply means we think they did. not that they did. Last of all these videos are talking about not quantum level particles, but spaceships and people. things at the atomic level are shown to behave in strange and unpredictable ways. Cont....
markusariliu 1 month ago
@markusariliu
So even if neutrinos CAN travel faster than light, that does not mean that we can. At least not yet. But, more than likely if or when we travel faster than light it will still not be breaking the speed limit, but instead slipping around it in one way or another.
markusariliu 1 month ago
Who's the bald guy in the end supposed to be?
ohedd 3 months ago
@ohedd God knows
sarah29172 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Anyone see the face in the mushroom cloud at 3:05 ??? Its just left of the exact middle.
Mizuno6857 4 months ago
Comment removed
Mizuno6857 4 months ago
I liked the video pretty interesting but i dont get why Mr. Clean had to come up in the end?
jose1992mireles 4 months ago 13
@jose1992mireles he had to explain the no dangerous bi product part i guess XD
Cheetree1 3 months ago
@jose1992mireles i loled in real life!! hahahah
btejedor 1 month ago
What happens when the irresistible force meets the immovable object?
pogpog28 4 months ago 2
@pogpog28 That would never happen because in order for the immovable object to exist, the irresistible force couldn't and vice versa because if they clashed, they couldn't work without contradicting the title of the other. Also, for the the immovable object to exist, it would have infinite inertia which isn't possible in a finite universe :(((((
cookiemonsterules 3 months ago
Why is it that Americans never can pronounce the word "nuclear" correctly?
whiterottenrabbit 5 months ago
If you wish to see GOD particle, Higgs Boson see YOU TUBE VK SONAKIA.FIT-lFuture Imaging tool or Certainty tool technology developed which is GOD Particle in Human body.Based on data in biometric or biosensor of both hands where FITtechnology has blue prints of future diasters like earthquake,nuclear radiation,tsunami,Dam burst ,Hurricane, KATRINA , 9/11 2001 WTC Tragedy, 26/11 2008 mumbai serial blast.scientist welcome to see and test FIT
vksonakia@yahoo.co.in
unified field scientist
India
vksonakia 6 months ago
@vksonakia va-what?
Willandacamera 5 months ago
i am 11 and i undrstand most of the things u r saying i hv 2 ook word up in the dictionary though Thank You
TheSniperboy999 6 months ago
Ha ha theory got disproved by an indian kid who discovered a sub-atomic particle, which can travel at speed greater than that of light
boxingisbest 6 months ago
@boxingisbest You know that's a hoax, right?
Ipsenergud 6 months ago
@Ipsenergud Sudarshan Reddy has theoretically proven the existence of a sub- atomic particle, which can travel at speed greater than that of light, thereby challenging one of the fundamental postulates of the 'Theory of Relativity
boxingisbest 5 months ago
@Ipsenergud CERN have observed a subatomic particle moving faster than the speed of light ha ha ha in your face bitch
boxingisbest 5 months ago
@boxingisbest yes i saw that too:) i remembered a sentence from einstein but i think it would be -change the theory ,not facts:))
esraretin 5 months ago
@boxingisbest i always felt that something was wrong.:))
esraretin 5 months ago
@esraretin Yes i mean why did Einstein think that the speed of light was the fastest in the universe when it takes several minutes for it to travel from the sun to earth?
boxingisbest 5 months ago
@boxingisbest he thougth its speed of particules of an atom at the same time.thus from kinetic energy formula he calculated e=mc'2. he thougth its speed of reaction so with a car u cant go faster than speed of reaction of burning fuel oil.sorry for my english.apparently particules are faster then ligth so may be energy formula needs to be thougth again..(if its proven). this will only be a more calibrated formula i guess:)
esraretin 5 months ago
If he was still alive..I'd readily become gay to fall in love with him :P
apart from funny side tho, I've always understood the funda of the theory but its somehow hard to grasp Space-Time as a single measurement
chan625 6 months ago
This can be described with one simple word: FASCINATING!!!!!!
Grandecasla 7 months ago
Still unable to believe I heard the word "nukelar" at 3:54...
SIT805 7 months ago
Comment removed
SIT805 7 months ago
e=mc2 is everything
tubestick00 8 months ago
Sure, by the middle of the 21st century we'll be mining on the moon. Just like by year 2000 I was gonna be driving a flying car. Or by the year 2001 I was supposed to be on a space odyssee with a homicidal super computer..... Oh, by the way, we already have flying cars, they're called planes.
FunkafizeProductions 8 months ago
started off OK, then started to speak about weight instead of mass and nucular instead of nuclear, didn't really explain much at all, and ended up with that ridiculous animation... OK, I'm being pernickity.
Nilguiri 9 months ago
give us a listen on the materilization of energy
exelentdude 11 months ago
GoodScienceForYou begs for more visitors to abuse at his forum - here are some of his 'science' quotes, try not to laugh -
-Diamond are no longer carbon, they are diamonds.
-Carbon is the only thing that makes us "carbon" based creatures
-The cause of sickle cell anemia is unknown, dumb ass.
-Photosynthesis is a carbon digesting process.
-There is no answer for the diversity of life. It just is.
-There are only two species of bacteria.
Could anyone learn anything from this clown?
KrokrX 1 year ago
Comment removed
KrokrX 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Goto (Google It) GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum and learn how to learn, without beliefs forced on you. Also listen to some good Blues from my band HavenHead.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
How is the highest rated comment on this video pure idiocy? It has nothing to do with the pursuit of profit, and everything to do with the preservation of life on earth, and our continued existence. He3 processing is an absolutely amazing source of energy; and we don't have "Infinite potential" on earth, we have large, vast potential, but it's not unlimited, nor is solar energy even unlimited, we'll never see the end of it in our lifetimes, but we won't see the end of fossil fuels either.
Deveyus 1 year ago 28
@Deveyus It doesn't mean we shouldn't start preparing NOW for alternate energy instead of putting it off for our great great great grandkids to deal with when it suddenly runs out.
I really don't see how or why people think we should just put all our problems off for future generations.
14sJakeB190 3 months ago
Why doesn't anyone connected with nuclear power ever mention that we will be creating highly dangerous waste that we will have to put somewhere for tens of thousands of years? Figure out a way to process the waste so you wouldn't mind having it dumped in your back yard and then come back and talk to us. This idea is right up there with the Republican initiative to sell unpasteurized milk to Minnesota children at farmers markets! PS: I have worked at the Prairie Island Nuke plant in Minnesota.
1293drive 1 year ago
@1293drive nuclear fission and nuclear fusion are two very different things......
gcat93 11 months ago
quite a visionary!!!
skarmashey 1 year ago
great series thanks for making and posting
meleder 1 year ago
what the fuck was that at the ending
TotalGameMaster 1 year ago
so much for the law of mass conservation if mass equals to energy.
let me get this straight, if u have to reactants producing a single product, the mass of the product is theoretically less than the mass of the 2 reactants conbimed, due to the release of energy during the reaction.
260830107 1 year ago
@260830107 Only during nuclear reactions (eg. fusion/fission), that's why the laws you talk about are still useful for chemists. And only for (generally) atoms lighter than iron. Anything heavier and you will usually get the opposite case, where one thing splits into two, and the two things weigh less combined than the one thing (like in radioactive decay or fission), in this case you also get energy.
Golkarian 1 year ago
Personaly I love Nuclear Physics, but I DO NOT trust humans with the technology.
A nuclear power station is the only type that can completely destroy you if it goes wrong. (or someone wants to blow it up!)
We have many usuable sorces of energy here thanks to that big reactor in the sky called the Sun, with no spent fuel rods or risks.
Nuclear power based on Uranium IS NOT clean and grean as it is promoted to us by the people who sell the tech and the Uranium.
Nuke clean, safe= FAIL
1BustedMyth 1 year ago
@1BustedMyth It is clean from C2O and similar greenhouse gases. If we manage to store away the radioactive material. I agree that there is a huge problem here, but there are plans to use the wast products as fuel for the next generation of nuclear plants. Their wast products would be less dangerous, and for much shorter time.
But that aside, fusion, instead of fission would perhaps be the solution. No radioactivity at all. But we are far from being able to use that yet.
greyman000 1 year ago
@greyman000 , If you add all the CO2 produced by the minning, refinning, shipping to get it to the reactor, then the shipping, permanent storage under armed guard of the spent fuel rods (at the moment : forever!) then you quickly arrive at what is infact a false economy. that is completely leaving out all of the dangers involved with terrorists who have BIG plans for a single spent rod, let alone a whole station!
we are not grown up enough as a species for this.
1BustedMyth 1 year ago
@greyman000 , I live now, I'm very tired of the Nuclear industry selling us that line that spent rods will be the next fuel, its BS to overcome resistance from the public.
The real reason is that they can dig it out of the ground, control the land where the deposits are and control how much they produce, is this starting to sound similar to say: Oil !
I have personaly seen viable Solar Thermal powerstation plans get bashed by these people for self interest.
leave the Nuke in the sky :)
1BustedMyth 1 year ago
@1BustedMyth I agree that it would be best if we could get all our power without any risk of radioactivity. But at the same time I know the political reality where I live. And the reality is unfortunate that power not generated by nuclear is instead generated by burning coal and oil.
I live at an area where we got enough fuel for nuclear power for the hole world for at least 200 years (this calculation includes rapid increase of usage, and growing population). But I don't want the risks.
greyman000 1 year ago
02:40 Does anyone else see the Hexagon created with the dust and energy of the explosion? It is very peculiar to keep seeing this shape while talking about atoms and what makes up this 3d universe of ours..
joelito101 1 year ago
01:11 Does anyone else see the Hexagon outside the circle? It is very peculiar that they are using this shape. That's really cool.
joelito101 1 year ago
great video
TheJUNGLESURFER 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
True Free energy devices exist,But the big oil corporations don't want that technology revealed,Get a REAL working magnet motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Be a part of the energy revolution!
RanaRene1425 1 year ago
Cool video, the one thing I would change is the narration. It sounds like I'm in a planet-arium (sorry, I can't pronounce correctly due to a speech impediment, I have to say it like planet---arium.)
Thanks
heretic98 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
but you are not saying it, you are typing it
keudbybor 1 year ago
Dunno why everyone doesn't want to mine the moon. I know it has plenty of uses, but digging a small hole in it is better than sucking up all the oil under the sea.
tishwalter 1 year ago 9
@tishwalter
No, it's not, because even a tiny amount of matter removed from the moon will drastically alter it's mass. This will, in turn, drastically alter the tides, etc. etc. It's a huge snowball effect that will only end up harming life on earth.
NarlepoaxIII 4 months ago 4
@NarlepoaxIII exactly.
drc1998 4 months ago
WTF is a Klingon warbird doing in there?
watercup123456 1 year ago
lol... he said nucular.. ITS NUCLEAR!!!
rubantin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rubantin "lol... he said nucular.. ITS NUCLEAR!!!"
That always makes me smile, although my particular fave is when Americans say "Meeeeeer", instead of "MI - RROR".
mandolinic 1 year ago
I am adamantly against mining the moon for resources! Also, the ones in charge of this most likely will use it for negative purposes - more control and power over others, war, etc! YUCK!!!!!!
ayemaya75 1 year ago
3:53- Noo-kyu-lar? Ugh. Very low production value here for a "science" video.
ArxVirtus 1 year ago
@ArxVirtus : HA AHA AHA AAHA
poiuzttrewq 1 year ago
CORRECTION: At 1:43 he says "The faster it goes, the heavier it gets."
To be specific he should have said, "The faster it goes, the more massive it gets."
He makes the same mistake a few seconds later.
ArxVirtus 1 year ago
Am I the only person who realises that nearly all of our energy needs could be solved with a few large geothermal power stations.
Why not start with one on yellowstone national park and stop it going boom! (Due to the supervolcano underneath it). Then iceland and anywhere else where the crust is thin enough to make it easily feasible.
Two problems one simple solution.
Bobajobimus 1 year ago
@Bobajobimus Good idea! But the oil companies and the governments that they pay off will ALWAYS prevent that - and anything else that threatens to omit oil and internal-combustion power (i.e. - cars, generators, etc.).
classiclistener01 1 year ago
@classiclistener01 Unfortunately there would be no profit in it. Pain and suffering allow for much more profit to be made. That is the way of our twisted species(for the moment). Until we all realise the grand order of the universe (and how small we currently are in it) is more important than our petty quarrels and we should strive to make the world a better place for all humans. Regardless...
Hopefully it will happen in my lifetime... we'll see.
Bobajobimus 1 year ago
@Bobajobimus
There would need to be HUGE changes in the ones who are currently in control and power for that to happen.
ayemaya75 1 year ago
Comment removed
Bidmartinlo 1 year ago
Comment removed
tiestoboi 1 year ago
@TheFifthGreatApe: If you filled the space shuttle's cargo w/ one load of Helium 3, that would be enough to for all the energy needs of America for one entire year and is nonpolluting. One cargoload would barely put a dent in the total mass of our moon. I'd rather have that than the billions of ton's of emissions pumped into our atmoshere from a finite supply of fossil fuels, which isn't sustainable anywayz and is doin' untold damage to our Earth...
tiestoboi 1 year ago
Comment removed
ayemaya75 1 year ago
@tiestoboi
There are MANY other choices for efficient energy other than mining the moon. Also, sustainable ones.
ayemaya75 1 year ago
Comment removed
tiestoboi 1 year ago 2
4:22 hahaha what the heck is that?
KoolKidKarl2k8 1 year ago
lol wen he said there is more to E=mc2 than atomic bombs... thumbs up if u were dissappointed
MrJARHEAD1996 1 year ago
nonono you got the facts wrong, E = mcVagina
TheBeeFart 1 year ago
I was thinking about using this video to promote science to my friends until I heard "nucular" at 3:54.
Please use the correct pronunciation for the word "nuclear" especially for a science education video.
It's "Nu-Cle-Ar" NOT "Nu-Cu-Lar".
Other that that, awesome video. Thank you.
KKM121 1 year ago
@KKM121 I heard nuclear.
People will being pronouncing words differently until time itself ends. As they say, too-may-to, too-mar-tow.
Azated2 1 year ago
@Azated2 That doesn't, of course, change correct pronunciations.
fratboyfrat 1 year ago
@Azated2 He did say "nucular".
autumnsylver 1 year ago
I just watched a movie about mining helium3 on the moon. . . I didn't know that was a serious thing. :o
Rinji 1 year ago
Interesting sublime image @ 3:18 LOL
MicrosoftsourceCode 1 year ago
natmanprime 1 year ago
to see something is to understand light acting upon it
hence 'mc/1'
1=you
at this point energy is just an abstraction implied by the dynamic between photons, or 'speed' of light, which is another abstract concept.
hence E/c/1
understanding energy itself is to understand light acting upon light acting upon mass, in other words to percieve light acting upon mass, as opposed to just seeing the mass as previously.
so you 'see mc', or understand mc2
hence, understanding E, or E/1, = understanding mc2
natmanprime 1 year ago
google and verizon
jugeteable 1 year ago
I developed a theory that is better then newton's and einsteins but I lost it somewhere in my trash compacter. I havent had the time or energy to get it out.
napalm4sd 1 year ago
the reverb on the voice is kind of annoying. other than that, great videos.
imgdumpprep 1 year ago 2
Now that gives all of you neophytes enough information to actually know what causes mass. :-)
MsWanderer1 1 year ago
i want to get this 100%!!!!!xD but it explains nicely
csguitarsk8dude 1 year ago
In the future, all men will be bald and will appear ethnically neutral.
Wha' the hell, man??
ajr5086 1 year ago 2
I don't think we should fuck with the mass of the moon. Please, don't let the pursuit of profit take us that far, we have almost infinite potential right here in earth.
We need to realize that the reason we are not sustainable and abundant right now is because our social organization is still based on ancient methods. We have to make money every step of the way, hence slowing progress itself.
Efficiency, abundance and sustainability are the enemy's of profit.
TheFifthGreatApe 1 year ago 47
@TheFifthGreatApe Yes, you magnificent man
You...Understand.
Look up Venus Project, it could be right up your alley
natmanprime 1 year ago
@TheFifthGreatApe
Um right, you don't seem to realize the change in mass is inconsequential. What they are proposing is converting Helium3 to Helium. The reaction that causes this converts a Proton to Neutron by converting the mass that makes up the positive charge of the Proton to energy. In the form of heat.
JamesThWilliams 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheFifthGreatApe "I don't think we should fuck with the mass of the moon." Ok, are you serious here or just trolling?
imorio 1 year ago
@TheFifthGreatApe did u watch "time machine" and are scared of it cracking? i bet u are.
Max10192 1 year ago
@Max10192 You posed a question then assumed an answer, now you think you know something about me?
TheFifthGreatApe 1 year ago
@TheFifthGreatApe someones a little cranky! chillax dude
Max10192 1 year ago
@Max10192 I corrected your assumption and asked a question, and that means I'm cranky? Do you know what a Freudian admission is?
Are you done redirecting or should I start?
example of redirecting: "So, when did you stop beating your wife?"
Do you see the problem? Do you see why your approach is flawed?
Here are some more questions, feel free to keep projecting my emotional state instead of dealing with my arguments, which actually weren't.
Peace.
TheFifthGreatApe 1 year ago
@TheFifthGreatApe lol ur rly serious XD i was only jokin gabout the time machine thing.....(i still think u watched the movie though)
Max10192 1 year ago
@TheFifthGreatApe "Efficiency, abundance and sustainability are the enemy's of profit."
Nothing could be further from the truth. Nor is our potential here infinite. Moreover, even if it was, it may very well be more efficient to use resources from off-planet to improve our condition.
LordZentei 1 year ago
@LordZentei
Strongly disagree!
ayemaya75 1 year ago
@LordZentei How is TheFifthGreatApe's claim far from the truth? That's quite a remarkable and unfounded statement.
georgemc25 1 year ago
@georgemc25
My statement is based on basic economics. How can you make profit in the long run if your model is not sustainable and inefficient? Conversely, how does it make sense that you want to improve the human condition without profit? The idea that we must choose between a profit-generating model on the one hand and a sustainable model on the other is dangerously naive and a false dichotomy as well.
LordZentei 1 year ago
@LordZentei I don't know what you mean by 'human condition' - that has loads of meanings! If you mean 'how will people better their lives without profit?', well do you really only better your life in pursuit of profit? According to Dan Pink (if you haven't heard of him already), monetary profit actually makes us perform worse. I really don't think you need profit either for incentive or for sustainability :)
georgemc25 1 year ago
@georgemc25
That is not what "profit" means in economics. I have no idea who "Dan Pink" is, but he sounds like an ignoramus, and so do you.
LordZentei 1 year ago
@LordZentei Well thanks for that. Watch his talk on TED if you can.
georgemc25 1 year ago
@TheFifthGreatApe Eventually it will be impossible for humans to live on Earth and therefore if the human species is going to survive humans will have to move off this planet.
cheddyrod 1 year ago
@TheFifthGreatApe
Strongly agree!!!!!!
ayemaya75 1 year ago
@TheFifthGreatApe Unfortunately, at some time we'll have to figure-out how to make the moon rotate closer to the earth. The moon presently is moving away from earth and this will eventually cause severe problems with weather etc; here on earth. If you wanna make a few bucks? you can figure out how to make the moon come closer.
spactick 1 year ago
@TheFifthGreatApe Very well said. I have often thought that a profit seemed more important than progress. Profit should not be a dirty word but there are more important things than making money on every single damn thing, idea, concept.
Technology is being held ransom for the next profit. Why cant we use what we know instead of knowing something and holding back for even more money? It just seems crazy to have great things and not use them till later.
pumpstations 1 year ago
@pumpstations (1,1) i see exactly were you are coming from. but if not profit what does one stand to gain by developing this new technology? what i am trying to point out is that one(meaning the average human) would not be motivated by a simple betterment of humanity. We are naturally greedy. People want personal gain as well as prosperity for all but what do you think they will choose first? It may seem crazy to use but thats the way people are.
nt7237 1 year ago
@nt7237 You are correct. It just seems with all we pay: taxes, low wages, 90% of the population sees 50% of the money. I think the Bill Gates of the world would do what they do for far less money and still be happy. (I know I'm a commie bastard) < not really!, There is a better way than we have. In fact the way we do have may be closer to the worst way. I have no solution either.
Sorry, Off the soap box. Thanks!
pumpstations 1 year ago
@pumpstations
90% of the population sees 50% of the money? really? I doubt it!
I don't have the correct figures, but I would be surprised if it wasn't more like 5% of the population seeing 90% of the money.
Nilguiri 9 months ago
@Nilguiri The figures that I can find. Do not say that, or even remotely close. Even if they were wrong. It would have to be an astronomical mistake. IE The richest 2 percent of adults in the world own more than half the world's wealth, according to a new study released by the Helsinki-based World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations University. The study's authors say their work is the most comprehensive study of personal wealth ever undertaken.
pumpstations 9 months ago
@pumpstations
So, basically, you are agreeing with me then?
Your original figure said 90% of the population has 50% of the money.
That is the exact opposite of opposite of 2% having 50%.
Anyway, whatever the actual figure, I agree with your general sentiment. ;)
Nilguiri 9 months ago
@Nilguiri Oops, That was a typo at first. Almost as big as what it was describing. Thanks for the correction. Yes we are in agreement.
۞¨`*•.¸۩ஜ¸.•peace •.¸ஜ۩¸.•*´¨۞
pumpstations 9 months ago
@pumpstations (2,2)
Unfortunatly one of the enemies of progress is allso the thing that drives it........motivation..... and for now it seems that unfortunatly all motovation comes from mony. one may think that new laws would help prevent this but then you would impeed on the writes of the person who made that new peice of technology, and by that i mean that since they made it , it is theyres to profit from. so its not that i dont agree, its just that the world wont work that way.
nt7237 1 year ago
@nt7237 Yes still agree, sorry about the whole box thing.I agree, get what you can while you can, but jumping Jesus on a pogo stick. some of these profits are insane. We however allow it! I now vote with my feet. If it cost too much, I walk away. If it's a piece of crap. I walk away.
pumpstations 1 year ago
@pumpstations we will see what the future will hold. hopefuly something better.
nt7237 1 year ago
@TheFifthGreatApe I don't suppose you've heard the Zeitgeist Movement or The Venus Project before have you?
georgemc25 1 year ago
@TheFifthGreatApe
One of the most ignorant statements ever.
ButterflyDragon9 1 year ago
@ButterflyDragon9
One of the most ironical statements ever.
TheFifthGreatApe 1 year ago
@TheFifthGreatApe sounds like zeitgeist :P
ericon52168 1 year ago
@TheFifthGreatApe fuck you you fucking moron. If there was a fusion fuel on the moon that could solve all the worlds energy problems as well as environmental/pollution problems you bet your ass we should use it. Its this kind of fucktard thinking that is slowing progress. For example we could be getting a lot more of our energy from relatively clean & inexpensive nuclear power right now but ignorant retards like you prevent this with irrational fear.
hac1m 1 year ago
@hac1m (1of2)
Please calm down dude and stop applying your bias onto me. I never said any of those things. You're projecting. I do happen to think nuclear isn't the direction anymore (RA waste) especially with and when we have many of sources of GEREN energy like wind, wave, solar, tidal. Not to mention geothermal has been surveyed to have a global, tap-able potential of 2000ZJ. The total energy consumption of the entire planet is 0.5ZJ. You do the math.
Please re-read my original comment.
TheFifthGreatApe 1 year ago
@hac1m (2of2)
What I am trying to point out is that once you understand how it currently works by means of real and artificial scarcity, consumption and profit then compare/contrast that with what I would think would be our mutual goal, hence, efficiency, abundance and sustainability. One will notice that the more you go in one direction the further you get from the other.
This is our cultural paradox and it will be us that has to solve it.
TheFifthGreatApe 1 year ago
You sir, should be president...of Earth.
DenitheGreat 8 months ago
@TheFifthGreatApe you sir, are incompetent. How are you going to argue against the mining of He3 on the moon if you have no idea what the advantages and (near-inexistant) disadvantages are? You just bashed it because you have some unfounded ''hunch'' that ''we should not fuck with the mass of the moon''.
Ps. The mass of the moon has nearly no relevance with the mining of He3.
potatohead93 8 months ago
hope to see more of this kind of stuff, well done
mortuus8 1 year ago
WTF was that last part?
gamutman 1 year ago 41
@gamutman It was hopeful speculation regarding the use of possible fuel sources (Helium 3) for energy production in the future by means of nuclear fusion.
Rafterman123 1 year ago
@gamutman And why is ScienceTV pronouncing nuclear like that asshat W?
Saalyg 1 year ago
@gamutman
Oh, that was just Lex Luther.
grausammesser 1 year ago
Very cool
jacewolf301 1 year ago
Cool
galimor00 1 year ago
"nucular" power plants? Yeesh.
PlasteredDragon 1 year ago 3
first!
mattmar826 1 year ago