Episode 51: Atoms To Quarks - The Mechanical Universe
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 дек 2016
- Episode 51. From Atoms to Quarks: Electron waves attracted to the nucleus of an atom help account for the periodic table of the elements and ultimately lead to the search for quarks.
“The Mechanical Universe,” is a critically-acclaimed series of 52 thirty-minute videos covering the basic topics of an introductory university physics course.
Each program in the series opens and closes with Caltech Professor David Goodstein providing philosophical, historical and often humorous insight into the subject at hand while lecturing to his freshman physics class. The series contains hundreds of computer animation segments, created by Dr. James F. Blinn, as the primary tool of instruction. Dynamic location footage and historical re-creations are also used to stress the fact that science is a human endeavor.
The series was originally produced as a broadcast telecourse in 1985 by Caltech and Intelecom, Inc. with program funding from the Annenberg/CPB Project.
The online version of the series is sponsored by the Information Science and Technology initiative at Caltech. ist.caltech.edu
©1985 California Institute of Technology, The Corporation for Community College Television, and The Annenberg/CPB Project 
Наука
The best Quantum Mechanics explanation I've ever seen. Yet so simple and so precise. Many thanks to everyone involved.
You've ever seen? How is it that you have seen quantum particles when no one has ever seen inside an atom?
What the hell are we talking about here?
Giving thing's names that for all that we know don't even exist!
That’s because at a fundamental level it’s simple laws that give rise to complex behavior
@@PeterMilanovski The reason scientists can say that quantum particles really exist is because we observe things in nature to confirm it. The iron in your blood was created in a supernova explosion billions of years ago. You need the models of QM to see why that's true, and there is plenty of observable evidence to back it up. Someone in the future may come up with a more precise model, but that won't negate what we know today.
@@smithrs it is claimed that the iron in our blood came from a supernova explosion, but can we say for certain that this is where the iron came from? As far as I'm aware, it's a hypothesis that was developed by someone somewhere sometime who didn't bother looking for alternatives to explain the existence of iron!
For all we know, that iron in your blood could have come from the fusion process that takes place every single day naturally around the planet! Laymen call it lightning and don't bother to understand why it happens and what happens when it does happen....
We know from confirmed fusion experiments that even with a single type of gas molecule that is being excited by high voltage, we find various elements that have been fused to the anode that were not present before the experiment...
You might have heard of the sapphire project and there are plenty videos here on RUclips. I would suggest having a good look at what these people have done and pay close attention to what they have found....
Always remember to keep an open mind, question everything even if it appears to go against the current understanding of science because this is exactly how the current understanding of science began life in the first place...
I don't know scientist had seen the atoms or not...but the theories seem to be nonsense
I didn't understand High School Chemistry until I studied the Schrödinger Equation as a Physics Major.
Why i don’t understand both currently how do i get to this level
@@finesse9892 Start with Physics: the Physics of High School Chemistry (electron orbitals, etc.) is more complicated than High School Physics.
Read through "The Feynman Lectures on Physics" to get a good overview of the subject from an undergraduate level. They are still very worthwhile even after all these years.
www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/
Douglas Strother where did you learn logical understanding of math from that seems to be a struggle point for me
@@douglasstrother6584 electron orbitals don't exist! If you can provide imperical evidence that they do, then you would be the only person in the world that knows for sure...
So unless you have something to show, you are wasting your time posting here! It's also possible that what you have been taught is a lie...
@@finesse9892 Good ol' High School Euclidian Geometry turned-in mt Math Light bulb.
The constructions and proofs created my "AHA!" moment.
Mechanical universe is the best educational series on physics. This is one of the best playlist on RUclips and whenever watch these videos I always learn something about physics it takes me deep into the concept so that I can see all those physical theories and effects
This brings back memories. I loved this series. 👍
Great video... needs to watch few more times to get the just of it. Always the old videos are great to gather basics and more. Thank you
There's no need to watch these or any videos regarding this.. The time to take interest into this field is when an actual device is developed that can see inside an atom, to which no one has ever done so yet... This is just junk science at the moment...
@@PeterMilanovski you do know what ur talking about, don't you m8?
@@PeterMilanovski atleast there is attempt to understand here. Thats the important thing we need to understand while learning. Dr. David Goldstein wants us to think. It is good if theories are proved wrong. But it seems this is the beat explanation about matter at this moment.
So please donot confuse other learners with your baseless criticism!
@@PeterMilanovski you have chosen the most easiest path i.e to reject it. Please read the papers by Max Plank, Einstein, Neils Bohr, De Brogle, Heisenberg and Schrodigner first and later you can say it is junk!
Absolutely well done and definitely keep it up!!! 👍👍👍👍👍
An extremely important explanation....Nabanita Paul
Excellent!
I can't tell if the audio for this is just out of synch or if it's actually the wrong audio track for this episode. I didn't see any other mention of a problem in the comments, so it's possible it's just me. As a point of reference, I can hear Dr. Goodstein start talking at 1:15, but the video is still on the opening credits, just before "THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE" appears.
According to the video, it appears he starts talking around 1:30, so if it's out of synch, it's by 15 seconds.
And the "Annenberg Media" logo animation lasts about 15 seconds at the very beginning, but the audio with the normal music and sound effects starts during that, so maybe that's the problem. If anyone else has any ideas...?
UPDATE: On my iPhone, this same video in the RUclips app has no Annenberg intro animation and everything appears in synch as it should be.
I'm on a PC and the audio is out of sync. It annoys the hell out of me. Wish it could be fixed because these videos are quite good.
PERIODIC TABLE OF THE ELEMENTS:
Potential completion of the Periodic Table of the Elements:
I currently believe that there are 120 chemical elements in this universe. If a person were to look at how electrons fill up the shells in atoms: 2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 18, 8 (seven shells), and realizing that energy could freely flow in this universe if nothing stopped it from doing so, then a natural bell shaped curve might occur. An eighth energy shell might exist with a maximum of two elements in it, chemical element #119 (8s1) and chemical element #120 (8s2).
Chemical Element #119 (8s1):
#119 I put at the bottom of the Hydrogen group on the Periodic Table of the Elements. It only has one electron in it's outer shell with room for only one more electron. Energy might even enter the atom through the missing electron spot and then at least some of the energy might get trapped inside of the atom under the atom's outer shell.
Chemical Element #120 (8s2):
#120 I put at the bottom of the Helium group since it's outer shell is full of electrons. It might have some of the properties of group two, Beryllium group (Alkali Earth Metals group) since it has two electrons in it's outer shell; as well as some of the properties of the Helium group (Noble Gases group) since it's outer shell is full of electrons; and if you look at the step down deflection of the semi-metals and where #120 would be located on the chart, it's possible #120 might even have some semi-metal characteristics. #120 would be the heaviest element in this universe. I believe chemical element #120 could possibly be found inside the center of stars.
When a neutron split inside of this atom, it would give off one proton, one electron, neutrinos and energy. The proton and electron would be ejected outside of the atom since all their respective areas are full. One proton and one electron are basic hydrogen, of which the Sun is primarily made up of, and the Sun certainly gives off neutrinos and energy. And note, it's the neutron that split, not a proton. So even after the split, there are still 120 protons inside of the atom and the atom still exists as element #120. The star would last longer that way.
In addition, if the neutron that split triggered a chain reaction inside of the star, this could possibly be how stars nova, (even if only periodically).
If stars were looked at as if this theoretical idea were true, and found to even be somewhat true, then we might just have a better model of the universe to work with, even if it's not totally 100% true. And if it's all 100% true, then all the better. (Except of course for those who might be in the way of a periodic nova or supernova. They might have a no good, very bad, horrible day.)
from Hippasus of Metapontum till quantum mechanics and to be continued
Kwarki🤔magiczne piękno🙂✋💞📯
What holds the orbit of the nucleius and the mass of the element
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are actually a part of the quarks. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" make sense based on this concept. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons.
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.
If there was a way to completely freeze subatomic particles... even down to the quarks and bosons, what would theoretically happen?
Fermions (half-integer spin) are governed by Fermi-Dirac Statistics:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi%E2%80%93Dirac_statistics
They condense so that only a small fraction of them have available states into which they can be excited. Electrons in a metal is a typical example.
Bosons (integer spin) are governed by Bose-Einstein Statistics:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_statistics
They condense into a single quantum entity.
Superfluid helium is a traditional example.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate
Classical Physics: mechanics, electromagnetism, thermodynamics & statistical mechanics, and then Schrödinger's equation form the practical basis of "proven laws" because of their application in all fields of engineering. These concepts all seem to "make sense", after some substantial thought and effort.
Relativity (Special & General), Quantum Electrodynamics and Quantum Chromodynamics are far beyond our day-to-day experience, but are the "nutty theories" which describe the physical universe under more general conditions. These three theories would be better examples of implausible concepts which nonetheless agree with experiment.
Douglas Strother it’s
They order of majors in college
I have a serious problem with what he says at the opening. The whole thing about the asymmetry of what can be proven is correct: you cannot absolutely prove a theory is true because you would have to test it at all times and all places in the universe. Just because a scientist or scientists in general say "this is now a fact" doesn't actually make it a fact. It's a shame that some scientists can't grasp the basic philosophy of science.
'The status of fact'!
I am Curious how relevant is this information given recent changes and new discoveries
l je o
@Graafschap 139 Hundreds of thousands of peoples died at the hand of the inquisition, and even though you might claim it was nothing but the medieval trend, let me remind you that well into the 19th Century the Inquisition was still executing people for their beliefs! Let's not brush that aside lightly
@Graafschap 139 I really don't know why you're trying to put here the casualties of the WWs 1 and 2 to the mix... I'm not claiming (nor anybody is) that all deaths, or even the majority of the deaths of history, were caused by the church, I'm just saying that the church had its fair share of ideological killings through the ages, and that should be neither denied nor ignored...
@Graafschap 139 Also I'm curious why you say that my first statement is "very false", care to explain why? I might add that I was born and raised in a country where inquisition was huge and consequently its a very studied and discussed subject, so I'm quite interested to know about your sources
137
So, the Mechanical Universe series is against the belief in a deterministic, mechanical universe. Interesting.
I would love to see very elaborate visualisation of the atom with current technologies - with the same pace of calm and serious language.
Recommendations?
Becouse this is how documentary should be done. What happened? Today's one are like reading yellow news from a newspaper. They can't hold a minute without popping some dumb joke in the mix. It is mostly show business?
Also the visual info here is pretty helpful and I am seeing some of those examples for the first time. Although it seems they haven't discovered the gluons yet in the year making this film.
It's a visualisation because no one has ever seen one! Don't you think that you would have been shown a real video or at least a picture of an atom and what's inside it?
@@PeterMilanovski , did you even watch and listen to the video?
@@JivanPal I did watch and listen... But I was waiting to hear and see the real thing, not a computer generated graphic!
The fact that no one has shown a real image just proves that what we are all being told is nothing more than an idea that someone had for which they have no proof for which is why they need to generate a computer graphic.... And people like you and me look at it and take it as fact... But no one knows for sure!
We take it as fact because we want it to be real.. we all want the next big discovery.. we love to imagine what it is going to bring but so far, quantum science has brought nothing! I have heard that this or that is because of quantum mechanics.... If they really knew that! That would mean that they really understood it and using quantum mechanics to develop the next big discovery in technology should be easy but they don't understand it..
Don't just watch videos like this and believe just because someone tells you to... Be a little more subjective and question it, what are you really being shown and told, did they show you a real image or video? Or was it all just empty words and computer generated graphics?
@@PeterMilanovski , if you listened, then you would've heard very early on in the video that it is _impossible_ to literally see things which are so small, and why. If you want to know more, I suggest you look into how an electron microscope works, and why no better technology exists, at least not currently.
I have studied this stuff at quite a high level, I do not merely take things as gospel.
If I could only ask the professor about a fella named Peter Higgs.
great video! Just can't relate (or understand its purpose on this video) with the initial speech, that some things in science have been proven over and over that they have become facts... I mean, following that line of reasoning one would say in the late 1800s that Classical mechanics was a fact of our cosmos (it had been proven over and over), which we know clearly know it's nothing but an approximation, albeit quite useful, for us to understand the relativistic nature of the cosmos... but certainly not a fact!
Yup. That made me question the validity of his meaning for the word FACT.
I thought Goodstein made his argument clear. We promote certain ideas to the status of facts when they prove themselves to be true over time. Ben Franklin was the first person to stay lightning was caused by electrical charge. The fact that lightning rods did in fact work was convincing evidence. Even though our modern understanding of electrical charge is rooted in QM, we still give Ben Franklin credit for discovering something true about the Universe.
14:48
IN THE INTEREST OF FINDING THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING:
SOME THINGS MODERN SCIENCE DOES NOT APPARENTLY KNOW:
Consider the following:
a. Numbers: Modern science does not even know how numbers and certain mathematical constants exist for math to do what math does. (And nobody as of yet has been able to show me how numbers and certain mathematical constants can come from the Standard Model Of Particle Physics).
b. Space: Modern science does not even know what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually warp and expand.
c. Time: Modern science does not even know what 'time' actually is nor how it could actually warp and vary.
d. Gravity: Modern science does not even know what 'gravity' actually is nor how gravity actually does what it appears to do. And for those who claim that 'gravity' is matter warping the fabric of spacetime, see 'b' and 'c' above.
e. Speed of Light: 'Speed', distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points. But yet, here again, modern science does not even know what space and time actually are that makes up 'speed' and they also claim that space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary, so how could they truly know even what the speed of light actually is that they utilize in many of the formulas? Speed of light should also warp, expand and vary depending upon what space and time it was in. And if the speed of light can warp, expand and vary in space and time, how then do far away astronomical observations actually work that are based upon light and the speed of light that could warp, expand and vary in actual reality?
f. Photons: A photon swirls with the 'e' and 'm' energy fields 90 degrees to each other. A photon is also considered massless. What keeps the 'e' and 'm' energy fields together across the vast universe? And why doesn't the momentum of the 'e' and 'm' energy fields as they swirl about not fling them away from the central area of the photon?
And electricity is electricity and magnetism is magnetism varying possibly only in energy modality, energy density and energy frequency. Why doesn't the 'e' and 'm' of other photons and of matter basically tear apart a photon going across the vast universe?
Also, 'if' a photon actually red shifts, where does the red shifted energy go and why does the photon red shift? And for those who claim space expanding causes a photon to red shift, see 'b' above.
Why does radio 'em' (large 'em' waves) have low energy and gamma 'em' (small 'em' waves) have high energy? And for those who say E = hf; see also 'b' and 'c' above. (f = frequency, cycles per second. But modern science claims space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary. If 'space' warps and expands and/or 'time' warps and varies, what does that do to 'E'? And why doesn't 'E' keep space from expanding and time from varying?).
g. Energy: Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. Hence, energy is either truly a finite amount and eternally existent, or modern science is wrong. First Law Of Thermodynamics: "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed." How exactly is 'energy' eternally existent?
h. Existence and Non-Existence side by side throughout all of eternity. How?
An interesting view: Start with a unit = 10^-36 graviton. Cubed root = 10^-12 proton. Cubed root again = 0.1 mm infrared photon.
wtf that computer she was using looks like a Commodore 64
와
Electrons can't share the same spot, if there is only one!
You are describing the Aether, a hyperboloid surrounded by a torus. Space-Inertial Plane-CounterSpace.
Electrons can't share if they don't exist!
I believed that I can fly.
Spent 2 months in hospital with some broken bones. :)
oh man. shame you didnt have any evidence you could do so before jumping
@@benschmitt7035 There was some theoretical evidence :D
They made in all up, now we are stuck with a model full of 'hidden variables'.
También contemple el profundo film..sobre la Vida de Santa Teresa de Jesús.. el cual se une a Vuestra Ciencia ..con respeto al Espiritu Humano..superadas las invisibles barreras del corazón i los siglos..bello soñar q somos hechos para el Bien i el Conocimiento..
1:37 - 1:43 He just demonstrated why his opening quote is, in fact, likely true. Relativity contradicts its own claim that the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit by the prediction of black holes and apparently QM counters it with quantum entanglement. Other features of relativity also remain in question.
As to evolution, there is not one claim in evolution that has ever been proved true, and the more we learn the less "true" it becomes. All evolution theories have been proved false, but evolution just adjusts by adapting. In fact, species adaptation itself does not prove evolution because of the checks and balances that evolutionists scientists have never been able to violate.
They still cannot produce a new creature no matter how many cells they force to mutate. The mutations always revert. Thus, they can never, under any circumstances, force evolution to evolve one type of cell or creature from another. It has never been done, even though they have all the tools and knowledge they need. Even their forced mutatiions by recombination get rejected.
All their theories in that regard get disproved. In fact, evolution has not one model that has not been disproved. They are currently looking for new theories, but are in a place of stagnation. They remain, even, to push lies in classrooms, theories that have already been disproved ten and twenty years ago.
So yes, if these are your best examples, then the quote remains to be accurate.
What's your point? All science eventually breaks down into philosophy? He states "they are among the best established facts in human knowledge" at the time this was recorded. So there's two possibilities here. You're saying Dr. Goodstein didn't know what he was talking about and was just wrong or new information has come to show those theories were wrong. I think you're missing the point. F=MA was among the best established facts in human knowledge at the time of Newton and has been proven over and over as fact because it STILL works to this day. That there's a deeper or different understanding with relativity doesn't make F=MA wrong. It means it works within certain limitations or conditions. That some even deeper understanding may come along doesn't make Relativity wrong either. It's been tested, it is an "engineering fact used in the design of machines" as he put it. Maybe I misunderstand your point but your point almost makes it sound like it's impossible to really know anything about anything and facts don't exist because eventually something comes along to negate it. I don't accept that. Even if your philosophy is that there are no absolutes in this universe, there are still facts within certain frames or reference, within points of view. Of course , if there are no facts, then what you just said about relativity or evolution should be taken as.... an opinion.
@@hifiandrew My Relativity comment was just to establish that it cannot be proved right, as per the quote. But my evolution comment was to demonstrate that a theory CAN be proved wrong, as per the quote. Though evolution, as a theory, is easily broadly interpreted and so can never be finally disproved, but the individual experiments done have disproved all theories of specific functions of evolution.
For example, the theory that epigenetics can lead to evolution was proved false when they found that the traits were not inheritable and tended to revert. This disproves his claim that a theory can never be disroved.
But he may have only been speaking of umbrella theories, as Relativity and evolution are, and not more specific satellite theories, like epigenetic evolution (proved false) or the law of rotating bodies (proved true). My point is that his statement can be proved untrue unless he is speaking only of a particular type of theory (umbrella).
You have no idea what you are talking about.
If a single cell divides with a single mutation, that newly divided cell with that single mutation IS a new creature.
Mutations always revert? This is completely bogus.
Most of your post is so vague that it's meaningless.
What checks and balances are you talking about?
Forced mutations by recombination get rejected? How do you explain GMOs? Working with organisms that have been modified in laboratories is common.
"They still cannot produce a new creature no matter how many cells they force to mutate."
You have NO idea what you're talking about. Early methods for genetically modifying organisms go back to the early 1970s.
It seems to me that you don't know the details of what you're talking about, which is probably why you are being so vague. My guess is that you don't want evolution to be true because you believe is some kind of supernatural explanation.
Do not think that Greeks only thought there were four "elements". They believed in four states of matter just as we do today: earth (solid), air (gas), water (liquid), and fire (ionization). Some classified metal as this type of state, just as we include it as a classification of elements along with alkaloids and the other states. They even included aether (what Einstein dubbed "the new ether" and QM calls the quantum field). But make no mistake, they did not think lead and gold were the same thing, but rightly concluded that by a minor change one could be transmuted into the other which was finally done just a few years ago. (The greeks did not think the same could be done between gold and other metals.)
Greeks were not the idiots scientists today make them out to be. Classical mechanics began with Archimedes. Most of the same things they were working on back then they are still trying to work out today.
"As time passed, more and more elements were added ..." This is inaccurate. It was only that some actually started distinguishing and classifying the various elements as distinct from the states of matter.
Why are half the people commenting on this video insane or religious? Go home.
"In a literal sense, no atom will ever be seen." That didn't age well. 😋
If only students knew how much fudging is required in QM.
An atom is a thousand times smaller than the wavelength of light so you are being shown graphic representations of atoms.
@@dreamdiction You are mistaken. Besides light, we have other means of photographing atoms. The atom was first photographed in the late 90's. (Not graphically depicted.) It was first digitally tracked in 2012, they can watch copper atoms move on its surface. The other month they finally took a photo of the floating atoms in the structure of titanium and how perfectly aligned the atoms are. (Even their orbitals are hinted at.) We cannot see into atoms, but we can definitely photograph them.
We can even follow the path of light. We are beginning to control quarks, so soon we may actually be able to see into nucleons.
@@Dismythed Wow - you really swallowed the science fiction grant funding applications. I was waiting for you to say they had photographed photons haha.
@@dreamdiction I see we have a conspiracy nut. I didn't say we photographed photons. I said we can follow the path of light.
@@Dismythed You obviously know nothing about science if you think falsifying results for continued grant funding is a "conspiracy theory". 73% of scientific papers cannot be replicated because the results were fictitious. This is known as the "replication crisis" and it has been the leading methodological problem in science for over a decade.
"The 'reproducibility crisis' in science has become big news lately, with more and more seemingly trustworthy findings proving difficult or impossible to reproduce. Indeed, a recent Nature survey found that two-thirds of respondents think current levels of reproducibility constitute a “major problem” for science."
Nature Magazine: 25 May 2016
Physics World: 06 Jun 2016
Following the path of light is not difficult, I do that every time I drive at night. If you think light particles called photons exist, tell me what shape they are? and what is their diameter? Don't tell me that photons are wave-shaped because that is the same as saying photons don't exist.
By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. Heb. 11:3
How scientific. "ooga booga"
don't forget to stone you neighbor to death if you see him working on the sabbath...whatever the fuck that is ... I dont have the words to "frame" how idiotic your comment is
We understand the cullender worlds were framed by the word of his noodly appendages. Fsm. 11 : 22
supernatural nonsense has no place in science
David Goodstein (the intro guy) seems to have a horrible misunderstanding of the term "fact".
Claiming, some theories become facts just by using them successfully and frequently under complex conditions, is rediculus and nothing more than stupid propaganda of own awkward philosphical points of view.
Fact is: facts are and remain facts (e.g. certain observations) even when theories about those change over time.
My fact is: a Professor title does not prevent deep stupidity.
Sean Powell You misspelled ridiculous Mr. Smarty Pants.
+Sean Powell Even so-called "facts" may not be so. Don't be a shithead whose thinking is swayed by the limits of our human language to convey meaning.
My fact is: youtube commenters without a professor title have a knack for showing even deeper stupidity.
Evolution is the measure of energy where intent to build "solidity" fades. Energy always vibrates in the NOW. Quarks burst forth from this NOW, then spin as protons and neutrons with intent. The charges associated with subatomic particles are our intents to be here. Waves don't resonate into frequencies without intent. Therefore, we are building these bodies ourselves, the selves connected to these selves that vibrate a whole lot faster. Apparently, existing as holograms means that we vibrate an amazing amount of frequency bands, each one vibrating a different speed. The first intent to be here starts at the 12th frequency band, which could be said to vibrate 12 times faster than the 1st. People vibrate as 4 frequency bands called solidity including our minds, or the one mind that we use. The next 8 frequency bands leave these bodies, or more correct stop resonating as frequencies.
I have read in the "Holographic Universe" where one physicist said that God must be the holographic saturation of waves that we exist within--full of an unlimited amount of frequency bands or dimensions. This would explain how we are holograms because energy vibrates as electrical charges which form images--which is solidity--us.
Nonsense
QUARKS DO NOT MAKE SENSE - or the 3rd quark is REALLY weird.
Proton = 2 up , 1 down quarks. Neutron = 2 down, 1 up quarks.
So the difference between the two is the 3rd quark.
Both the proton and neutron, have one up and one down quark.
That leaves the difference between the proton and neutron as the 3rd quark.
So difference between a proton and neutron is due to whether the 3rd quark is up as in a proton, or down as in a neutron.
So, if that's true then:
The third quark determines these things:
If it has an up quark - proton, then the particle is immortal.
If it has a down quark - neutron, then the particle decays in 10 minutes. EXPLAIN
If it has an up quark - a proton, then the particle has less mass then the neutron.
If it has a down quark - a neutron, then the particle has .1% more mass than the proton.
So the down quark weighs .1% more than the up quark. EXPLAIN
Quarks have no measurable physical extension, and seem to exist at points. Yet that single point does all this and more. EXPLAIN
The proton has an up quark, and that magic third quark also determines half of the electromagnetic force in the universe. And it in no way is like the electron, the other half, except in being an opposite charge. EXPLAIN
The electron is one full charge, the magic third quark is 2/3+ charge, but somehow it determines all positive charge (and the 1/3- charge of the neutron's third quark determines all zero charge particles.) EXPLAIN.
When three quarks team up only a small part of the proton's mass comes from the masses of the quarks. Most is binding energy. So that third quark has virtually no mass but can do all these magic things. EXPLAIN.
Quarks interact strongly and link in twos or threes to make particles such as pions, protons, and neutrons. Yet the other half of the charge world, electrons, does none of these things. EXPLAIN
Physics is a science of pairs. For every particle there is an anti-particle. Virtual particles come in pairs. Spin, waves - destructive and constructive interference, etc. In these cases the pairs are virtually identical and or mirror images of each other. So why would electromagnetic charge have electrons and protons so different from each other, and in no way seem built on exact opposites, or mirror image opposites. EXPLAIN!
Particle wave duality includes atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks and gluons.
Now imagine a nucleus of deuterium, that has no particles only waves
that include in the nucleus of the atom, a proton wave, neutron wave,
6 quark waves, plus gluon waves. EXPLAIN.
Proton spin crisis. EXPLAIN.
Mostly, the Inertia Plane. Plato's Aether Field Theory!
There are 1836 positrons in a proton.
Quarks?
Neutron = Proton + e- + Neutrino (Ve) >(Vm and Vt).
I've wondered this 3rd Quark, also.
Up, Up, Down = Space.
Down, Down, Up = CounterSpace.
Space and CounterSpace are opposites.
Is it one Quark changing or is it the entire set flipping?
Just thought of this, thanks.
It doesn't make sense to you. EXPLAIN EXPLAIN EXPLAIN
@@phencyclidine5456 Please see the paper I wrote how all can be explained by photons create electron positron pairs. I've posted it twice but it's been remove. See my RUclips Channel.
Whenever a teacher calls evolution a fact I want to smack him. Evolution as it is currently defined is impossible, as anyone who has a grasp of basic math knows.
This incompetence has eliminated any interest I had in listening to the rest of the lecture.
That you think evolution as currently defined (by whom? you?) is tested true or false by basic math, and that's something you understand but you think a leading physicist in 1985 wouldn't understand, has eliminated any interest I had in listening to anything else you have to say.
Anyone who has a grasp of basic math knows?
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
It's really easy to just say things like that but without explaining it means nothing.
Are you trying to allude to the second law of thermodynamics?
You can't just say something vague like 'basic math proves evolution wrong' and expect anyone with more than half a brain to be convinced of it.
It boggles my mind how idiotic the arguments against evolution get. There's basically no detail in them, just a vague assertion about it being 'obvious.'
You need to do better than that, but my guess is you can't because you don't have a clue about the details.
Fair enough. I am speaking about the improbability problem. The evolution of even a single, small protein, under better than ideal circumstances, is so mind-bogglingly improbable that it is well beyond the improbability threshhold. No adequate solution has ever been proposed. "Deep time" isn't anywhere near deep enough. To better illustrate the point, let me point you to two videos. They're purely informational, and all I am asking you to do is watch.
ruclips.net/video/JQ3hUlU0vR4/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
There's your detail. And I am confident that when you are done, you will understand why I used the word "Obvious".
Or you could remain ignorant. No skin off my nose.
When he said evolution is a fact, he is just repeating a lie. I don't know how much more he will be repeating things other people say.
wow, relativity plus evolution have too many holes in them to be considered fact. this guy intentionally lies and deceives---------
I guess you'll enlighten us with what? A book of fictional stories some ignorant people wrote thousands of years ago about "god?"
@@phencyclidine5456 You're Amazing. To quote Voddie,
“The Bible is a very reliable collection of historical documents, written by eyewitnesses to the events, while other eyewitnesses were still alive. The events which the authors wrote about was divine, rather than human in origin, and were guided by the Spirit of God (Voddie Baucham, Why you can believe the Bible, Sept 11, 2104)
First, “The Bible is a very reliable collection of historical documents….” The Bible consists of 66 books, written by 400 separate authors over 1500 years. The collection of documents that we now know as the Bible has been and remains, without a doubt, the most accurate source of historical evidentiary documents in the history of humanity. No other single document comes even close. Every single archaeological dig in the Middle Eastern world has confirmed the historical accuracy of the Bible. For example, up until 30 years ago, there was some debate as to the historical fact of Pontius Pilate. However, an archaeological dig in Lebanon uncovered proof that Pontius Pilate was indeed the governor of Judea during the time of Christ. The Bible has been carefully written and rewritten several thousand times, and yet there are only about 60 words in the entire Bible that have been questionably translated for more than 2000 years. No other historical document known to humanity has that kind of accuracy.
Moving on, the Bible was written by authors who were “eyewitnesses to the events, while other eyewitnesses were still alive.” This is notable for two important reasons. First, as Peter said:
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (2 Peter 1:16, KJV)
The authors of the Bible were not making up a “cunningly devised fable” but were eyewitnesses to the events that they wrote about, or they were interviewing eyewitnesses to the events. Peter reaffirms his eyewitness encounter to the events of Christ, his life and ministry, his crucifixion on the cross, his death and his resurrection. In Corinthians, Paul outlines the number of people that Christ personally appeared to and put the count at over 500. We have many other places throughout the Bible that discuss eyewitness accounts. Luke, for example, interviews many of these eyewitnesses to ensure that there are historical documents (which we know is the books of Luke and Acts) that would give testimony to these eyewitness accounts throughout the ages.
Not only are these eyewitness accounts, but the authors wrote these accounts while other eyewitnesses to the same events were still alive.
That’s important because it is noteworthy that we can find no historical evidence that other eyewitnesses disputed any of these eyewitness accounts.
This can and often does occur in a court of law when the judge and jury are trying to find the truth. But in case of the Biblical eyewitness accounts, again, we have no evidence of any contradiction among the eyewitnesses to these events.
Finally, let us take note that the events that these authors wrote about were not merely human events; instead, they chronicled divine events. Clearly, the authors knew what they were writing about were “acts of God”, not merely chronicling some human story, although humans certainly were involved. But first and foremost, the authors of the Bible knew they were chronicling divine events and were guided in what they wrote by the Holy Spirit; the Spirit of God.
He called evolution a fact... Thats a failed grade.. Next!
It is observed and verified repeatedly. That biological evolution happens _is_ a fact. The theory of evolution explains that fact.
If you somehow (likely through religious brainwashing) don't believe that evolution is a fact, then you are simply wrong.
Well you're invited to REFUTE that theory with FACTS.
Evolution is "The Ebner Effect." Read and weep!
Electromagnetic Field, Aether Field.
NO Sir, evolution is still a theory and it is still in crisis. The Quran is the best book, otherwise, Read Dr. Micheal Denton's books
the Bible and Koran are what led to people being burned at the stake in the first place.
@@hifiandrew Forget about being burned at the stake, they will be dumped in hell too, so what?
@@hassandiallo5326 combating made up beliefs and superstitions like your imaginary hell is partly what enlightenment is about via science. That's 'so what'
@@hifiandrew you are so enlightened, a man can have sex with another man, well done
nonsense
how did u get that confidence that the evolution is the best established fact.
even there is no one evidence or experiment to prove
as a scientist you should be aware of each word !!!
Watch it:
www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/evolution-and-natural-selection/v/evidence-for-evolution
Although I suggest you watch the whole playlist as a starter, then look for other references, texts, articles and other videos to fill in whatever it is you don't understand. You don't seem to be familiar to what the Theory of Evolution means you can fix that if that's what you like.
"Theory", and a mental capacity exceeding that of a chipmunk.
Evolution is basically trial and error in nature. Whatever doesn't die gets to potentially pass on its genes. That's all evolution really is.
@@BobBob-kv4si Exactly. Evolution is a passive editing process, rather than a forward-looking process of design. Scientists often use teleological explanations when talking about evolution, but those explanations really don't illustrate how evolution works.
you don't know what you're talking about