InnovumTechnology That's not so much as a confirmation so much as a confirmation that HL3 development has not been confirmed to be in hiatus. Which doesn't actually mean anything. It's best to go by the rule of if it hasn't been officially announced, it's not confirmed. Even the most seemingly credible leaks can turn out to miss the mark, if only because plans changed.
Emilie Michel To give you a technical answer, the verb "date" is most often used in everyday society as the context of being in a relationship, rather than the more archaic verb meaning "to assign a date toward." This is especially due to the age group that this video is mainly geared toward, and thus what would be more prevalent on their/our minds. But for the short (and probably more accurate) answer, we're all sickos. We should have assumed that, since this was a SciShow video, it would be about science and not some weird fetish, especially because the thumbnail does not allude to any such actions. But unfortunately I was ignorant of this being a science-y video until after I began watching it. tsk tsk.If you quickly realized that this was science-related and not necrophillic (or didn't even notice the innuendo in the title), good for you!
Cloud Seeker I wasn't, it was a collective statement to all of us who thought it was necrophilia. That's why I said "if you...didn't even notice the innuendo in the title, good for you!" So good for you xD
***** It's a joke. Cause odd and even. You can't even. So therefore you odd >_< Or maybe what you said was to continue the joke, in which case I'm a spud.
I'm going to point out a minor oversight. (Yeah I'm bugged out by small things): At 1:47 Michael says that living things are taking in (the radioactive) carbon *as fast as it decays inside them*. This isn't true, only an insignificant amount of carbon-14 has the time to decay in a living creature's life. This is why the ratio of carbon-14 to all carbon of a short lived creature is practically the same as in the atmosphere. I bet that he meant to say that they take in carbon as fast as they are exhaling and excreting it, as this is true for creatures that don't go up in size too much. (Although the ratio remains the same)
jotoenatehaaen Well, there IS some degree of psychological (kinda falls on medical science, but not really) and social value in studying necrophilia. But yeah, b8 title
Another thing to note is that the about of C14 in living things has varied over time even before the industrial revolution so radiocarbon had to be calibrated against tree rings dates from really old trees and trees in bogs (they never stop giving). Tree rings can give a date to 6 months back as far as the series goes in that region (which is ~11 000 years in one place)
I think it would be interesting to have an episode where, while probably easy to look up, you list all the various different kinds of radiometric dating methods, their accuracy, their useful time spans, etc. just to, hopefully, put the whole 'Young Earth' thing to bed. SCIENCE!
Gilgwath "You can't sing a deaf child to sleep, no matter how sweetly your voice rings." So poetic! (But I edited 'sweet' to 'sweetly'. Hope you don't mind.)
Some plants do, in fact, discriminate against carbon isotopes. Under normal conditions, plants exclude 13C. When plants become stressed (most often because of water) they take up a higher proportion of 13C. We can actually take apart the individual annual growth rings and measure the 13C ratio to determine how stressed the plants were that year.
Ok, so a very technical question: the law of radioactive decay assumes a number of things. One is that atoms don't "age": the chance that an atom undergoes decay does not change with time. And the second is: the total radioactive activity of a sample is directly related to the number of atoms of that sample. Can anyone explain this to me? I'm sure there is an explanation to it, I just haven't found it yet Additional question: how do we find out the half lives of these radioactive isotopes with really long half lives? Uranium-238 (I believe) has a half life of a few million years, but how do we know that?
2:37 Correct me If I am wrong but I am fairly certain that in Mass spectrometry, atoms are bombarded with electrons to become negatively charged ions, and are not bombarded with ions.
Half-Life 3 will come out in 2016. A half-life represents the point at which the sample is decaying. Using conventions, the duration of each half-life should be _shorter_ than the previous half-life. Concerning Half-Life the game, the duration between each subsequent game _should_ be shorter than the duration before it. There were 6 years between the release of Half-Life 1 and the release of Half-Life 2 meaning we should have seen Half-Life 3 released three years later in 2007. Clearly, subsequent half-lifes are getting _longer_, which is backwards to our assumptions, so lets instead consider a half-life as a positive, wherein instead of decay, a half-life represents a gradual building; in Gabe Newell's case: his financial growth into a billionaire. 3 years before Half-Life 1 was released, Gabe Newell was leaving his job with Microsoft to eventually start Valve in 1996. 6 years after that we get Half-Life 2, so following this trend, we _should_ expect to see Half-Life 3 released 12 years after that in 2016. 24 years later in 2040 Gabe Newell will be a trillionaire / de facto ruler of Earth and its dominions.
TheJaredtheJaredlong You can kind of make it work if we represent the wait time between Half-Life games by the number of decayed atoms. As time goes on, the it'll take longer for same amount to decay. Although it won't really match the amount released in first half-life period because after the first one it'll take approximately an eternity for the same number of atoms to decay, at least in a perfect world. I can't think of how to calculate the right percentage of original material for this to double the time it takes every time, or even if such amount exists. But it doesn't look like it's going to match with any actual half-life period. Maybe I can think of something better after I get some sleep.
You said that "This decay happens at a fixed rate". Incorrect: if you are talking about a sample of this carbon, the sample will decay at an exponentially decreasing rate- d/dx is decreasing. However, the rate of change (d^2/dx^2) of rate/ further derivatives will be at a steady rate. But still, nuclear decay is completely random so it is likely to vary across a sample of known mass.
The decay happens at a fixed rate - it becomes half as much in 5700 years. By any two points in time the amount of C-14 at the later moment is C * 0.5^(x/5700) where C is the amount of C is the amount of C-14 at the first moment and x the time in years between those points in time. It does not mean that the function is linear, no.
(this is not intended to offend anyone, I just enjoy pettifoggery) While we are amusing ourselfs enjoying the fine art of hair splitting, I'd like to point out that the fact that decay occurs randomly, means it will turn out pretty much even results over a large enough numbers of decaying events. Thats definition of randomness: not predictable, every event contains the same amount of information. If this is true, the decay has to be roughly evenly spread amongst different samples. If your measurement was a 100% accurate you might, in the first few years, be able to detect a difference between two exactly identical sampeles. However this difference would grow smaller and smaller with every decay. When we take into account the error of measurement, I am pretty sure you wont spot the difference between two identical samples.
The _rate_ with which it decreases with is actually given by -8223.36C * e^(-0.000121605 x) where C is the number of atoms from beginning, e = 2.71828128... and x the number of years after the death of the organism.
Will Deary "You said that "This decay happens at a fixed rate". Incorrect" Since when did "fixed rate" ever _have to_ be interpreted as "linear"? I understood it to be "a function of time." "if you are talking about a sample of this carbon, the sample will decay at an exponentially decreasing rate- d/dx is decreasing. However, the rate of change (d^2/dx^2) of rate/ further derivatives will be at a steady rate." I disagree. d^2/dt^2 [N0 * e^(-Lt)] is no more "steady" than N0 * e^(-Lt), because you will always have the e^(-Lt) function in subsequent derivatives, regardless of how many times you differentiate. "But still, nuclear decay is completely random so it is likely to vary across a sample of known mass." Which is probably why scientists use the ± symbol and a number of years beside it: to indicate the variance in error.
Ahhh man! I was hoping to get some advice to help me get a date with the corpse I found buried in my backyard. She is a really good listener, always focusing on my problems and never burdens me with hers.
Because a neutron practically consists of a proton and an electron. So then if you give up an electron from a neutron in the beta decay, then what you've got left is a proton. I hope this simple explanation helped!
A force known as the weak nuclear interaction is responsible for the decay of neutrons. The products are a proton (to conserve baryon number), an electron (to conserve charge) and an electron anti-neutrino (to conserve lepton number). This happens because the decay products are energetically favourable to the neutrons if the neutrons are either free or if there are too many in an atom.
A couple of questions: How do we know the original C12 to C14 ratio when an animal died? How do we know that C14's half-life in the Sahara is the same its half life at the bottom of the sea under Antarctica?
You bring me a Michael Aranda t-shirt with his face and the quote "Dating is hard, especially when what you're dating is dead". In return I will give you cashy money. Shiny?
When I clicked the video, my thought was "move to France, you can legal marry the dead there", but then I read the description and realized this isn't about having romantic and/or sexual relations with a dead person.
How to date a dead thing, in 6 easy steps: 1) Find a live rose, and cut it off at the stem. 2) Find a dead thing. 3) Present the recently severed rose to the dead thing and explain, "This rose was recently alive, and is now dead. Thus, it symbolizes the dichotomy between life and death -- that is, between me and you. This is a romantic gesture." 4) Make the sexy time. 5) Smoke a cigarette. 6) Find another dead thing and repeat steps 1 through 5.
Bill Smith "3) Present the recently severed rose to the dead thing and explain, "This rose was recently alive, and is now dead. " A cut rose does not die instantly, as demonstrated by taking a cutting from a plant that can be grafted onto another plant. A picked-fruit, say an apple is also not instantly dead. Death is often not an instantaneous event, although incineration or physical destruction by crushing or explosives would likely be rapid or even very fast, but probably not truly instantaneous.
valar help me, but i briefly envisioned zombies and flowers, and that i didn't find it strange is surely a testament to long years spent trawling through tumblr.
Hey, just wondering if you could talk about a void that's appeared in space, pretty much a hole in space with no light, radiation or trace of anything (?), it seems quiet interesting. [Disregard this if there is already a video about it]
I thought he will say something about dating dead things and for a minute I waited for him to say about something. Eventually I realised the title is misleading.
The next question would be, what happened to a sugar molecule when one of its carbon-14 atom in it decayed. so there's a stray nitrogen atom in the sugar molecule, thus making it not a sugar molecule? curious about this question
i don't see why you need all this equipment to date a dead thing, all i do is bring it some flowers and take it to a nice italian restaurant, that seems to work well for me...
Did anyone else, when they first saw the title, think that the members of Scishow had finally lost it and were going to teach us how to have a relationship and make conversation with dead things?...
At about 1:25 he says that the decay happens at a fixed rate, but at about 3:00 he says that because of the extra carbon in the atmosphere in recent times, they have to use tree ring dating as well as carbon to get a date. So wouldn't that mean that the decay doesn't always happen at fixed rate and that the rate is subject to change? And if it doesn't decay at a fixed rate in all cases, then how can we trust any date we get?
The problem in my mind is how do we know how much carbon is in any individual organism? There are bound to be vast variations from individuals in the same species, so how can it reliably even come close?
Thought this video was going to be about necrophilia, dead disappointed
yup, same here
I'm glad I'm not alone here.
LOL I was thinking the same thing
Lies, you knew it was about radiocarbon dating, it was a dead giveaway.
Blaze it was a "dead" give-away, I see what you did there.
The title was very misleading.
I definitely misread that title too.
huh, there was another title like that before which had me really confused but in case of this one it was crystal clear to me what was meant.
Kram1032 There was one title that went "the secret of your junk" or something like that.
We had some fun in the comments on that one
When I read it, I was slightly mislead, until I read the description.
Looks like i love you have a gorillaz fan here! Am I right?
He stopped at 3 half lives. Half life 3 confirmed.
Lawl.
It sounds like it might be confirmed. This was posted on reddit the other day: i.imgur.com/8VGHSNw.png
InnovumTechnology
That's not so much as a confirmation so much as a confirmation that HL3 development has not been confirmed to be in hiatus. Which doesn't actually mean anything.
It's best to go by the rule of if it hasn't been officially announced, it's not confirmed. Even the most seemingly credible leaks can turn out to miss the mark, if only because plans changed.
Also mass spectrometer?
ANTI MASS SPECTROMETER?
InnovumTechnology
Half-life 3 is surely in development but will it ever be good enough for Valve to be release ?
I had the wrong kind of "dating" in mind when I started the video
Why am I the only one that wasn't thinking about necrophilia?
I think the real question is "why were we all thinking about necrophilia?" haha
Emilie Michel
To give you a technical answer, the verb "date" is most often used in everyday society as the context of being in a relationship, rather than the more archaic verb meaning "to assign a date toward." This is especially due to the age group that this video is mainly geared toward, and thus what would be more prevalent on their/our minds.
But for the short (and probably more accurate) answer, we're all sickos. We should have assumed that, since this was a SciShow video, it would be about science and not some weird fetish, especially because the thumbnail does not allude to any such actions. But unfortunately I was ignorant of this being a science-y video until after I began watching it. tsk tsk.If you quickly realized that this was science-related and not necrophillic (or didn't even notice the innuendo in the title), good for you!
Darticus the Great Hay, do not count me in with you sickos.
Cloud Seeker
I wasn't, it was a collective statement to all of us who thought it was necrophilia. That's why I said "if you...didn't even notice the innuendo in the title, good for you!" So good for you xD
Everyone misinterpreted the title. Don't deny it.
+Sandhya Ganesan when only reading the title you cant think differently. xD but the videopreviewimage gives some clarification. ;-)
+Sandhya Ganesan yeah i was curious on why would they make a video about dating and dead things :D
+Sandhya Ganesan i so took it the wrong way lmao
Dang it, I wanted to date a corpse. Wait... can we have a corpse dating sim possible?
Guilty. I figured it out before I clicked it though.
Going to make a necrophillia joke.
Realised that everybody else already made one.
Still tempted to do it anyway.
Make sure to reference "Weekend at Bernie's".
We can never have too much necrophilia in our lives.
Well not a joke, I came here to sling dick but it's not about dating the dead. I fuck on first dates.
Me too. By the time I got here.... the joke was dead.
Still uses memes
yes I am a hypocrite
Meme jokes are *DEAD*
#relevancy
3:26 yeah dating is hard but dating dead things is easyer because you can't get rejected
I just go to the cinema with them normally
Zombie movies?
StevieRay9O Warm bodies?
***** So do you odd?
***** It's a joke. Cause odd and even. You can't even. So therefore you odd >_<
Or maybe what you said was to continue the joke, in which case I'm a spud.
***** Oops : >
God I love how thorough these videos are!
Ok a title is a big misleading, telling time of a thing was not the first thing that came to my mind when i read Date a dead thing...
That's your problem not theirs
I'm going to point out a minor oversight. (Yeah I'm bugged out by small things):
At 1:47 Michael says that living things are taking in (the radioactive) carbon *as fast as it decays inside them*.
This isn't true, only an insignificant amount of carbon-14 has the time to decay in a living creature's life. This is why the ratio of carbon-14 to all carbon of a short lived creature is practically the same as in the atmosphere. I bet that he meant to say that they take in carbon as fast as they are exhaling and excreting it, as this is true for creatures that don't go up in size too much. (Although the ratio remains the same)
should be pretty easy to date dead things ... they cant say no muahahahahahahaha
That how i got my gf
@@alonshoval6267 ez dub
Is it bad I thought of necrophilia when I first read the title? O.o
considering this is scishow... :P
jotoenatehaaen Well, there IS some degree of psychological (kinda falls on medical science, but not really) and social value in studying necrophilia. But yeah, b8 title
66 likes we're all going to hell for this!
Hail Satan.
You are not alone.
This is one of the best titles I've seen in a while...
I expected a "Dummies' Guide to Necrophilia" from the title.
That title is on point
"Dating is hard specially when you're dating a dead thing" :|
And I thought this would be a how-to on getting it on with vampires. DISAPPOINTED!
i guess you start by asking it out.
Love how they REFUSE to say carbon-14 is radioactive. I mean they do, they just explain it in a long winded way.
Another thing to note is that the about of C14 in living things has varied over time even before the industrial revolution so radiocarbon had to be calibrated against tree rings dates from really old trees and trees in bogs (they never stop giving). Tree rings can give a date to 6 months back as far as the series goes in that region (which is ~11 000 years in one place)
I think it would be interesting to have an episode where, while probably easy to look up, you list all the various different kinds of radiometric dating methods, their accuracy, their useful time spans, etc. just to, hopefully, put the whole 'Young Earth' thing to bed. SCIENCE!
lol that would be cool
You can't sing a deaf child to sleep, no matter how sweetly your voice rings ;-)
Gilgwath "You can't sing a deaf child to sleep, no matter how sweetly your voice rings."
So poetic! (But I edited 'sweet' to 'sweetly'. Hope you don't mind.)
ssppeellll no, I don't mind. =) English is not my native language. I always enjoy learning something new.
ssppeellll
But like grammatical inconsistencies are a staple of good poetry... well, at least using adjectives as adverbs to cut out a syllable xD
Some plants do, in fact, discriminate against carbon isotopes. Under normal conditions, plants exclude 13C. When plants become stressed (most often because of water) they take up a higher proportion of 13C. We can actually take apart the individual annual growth rings and measure the 13C ratio to determine how stressed the plants were that year.
i was expecting some dating tips for necrophiliacs but this was interesting as well
I saw the title and necrophilia came to mind...
This channel needs fewer hipster-guy videos and more nerd-guy videos.
That's exactly what a hipster would say.
JellybellyWaffles
dun dun dun wow what a plot twist
Hipster???? Do u guys know wut that means lmaao? He is defo NOT. Hipster ;)
Dullest hipster of the year award goes too...
Is it not possible for someone (perhaps even Michael) to be both a hipster and a nerd?
Ok, so a very technical question: the law of radioactive decay assumes a number of things. One is that atoms don't "age": the chance that an atom undergoes decay does not change with time. And the second is: the total radioactive activity of a sample is directly related to the number of atoms of that sample. Can anyone explain this to me? I'm sure there is an explanation to it, I just haven't found it yet
Additional question: how do we find out the half lives of these radioactive isotopes with really long half lives? Uranium-238 (I believe) has a half life of a few million years, but how do we know that?
Dating a dead thing might be hard, but I find it goes a lot smoother than trying to date it while it's kicking and screaming. #justsaying
2:37 Correct me If I am wrong but I am fairly certain that in Mass spectrometry, atoms are bombarded with electrons to become negatively charged ions, and are not bombarded with ions.
this isn't necrophilia
No, sorry
:c
Good information. Good puns. Good episode.
okay people you killed the necrophiliia jokes, stop beating a dead horse
wikiwikiwee1 I see what you did there. =)
If You really are serious about dating that horse, better stop beating it, I agree.
mmmm bestiality
2 weeks after I still thought the wrong thing when I looked at the title
Half-Life 3 will come out in 2016.
A half-life represents the point at which the sample is decaying. Using conventions, the duration of each half-life should be _shorter_ than the previous half-life. Concerning Half-Life the game, the duration between each subsequent game _should_ be shorter than the duration before it. There were 6 years between the release of Half-Life 1 and the release of Half-Life 2 meaning we should have seen Half-Life 3 released three years later in 2007. Clearly, subsequent half-lifes are getting _longer_, which is backwards to our assumptions, so lets instead consider a half-life as a positive, wherein instead of decay, a half-life represents a gradual building; in Gabe Newell's case: his financial growth into a billionaire. 3 years before Half-Life 1 was released, Gabe Newell was leaving his job with Microsoft to eventually start Valve in 1996. 6 years after that we get Half-Life 2, so following this trend, we _should_ expect to see Half-Life 3 released 12 years after that in 2016. 24 years later in 2040 Gabe Newell will be a trillionaire / de facto ruler of Earth and its dominions.
Sounds like the type of text style you would see on Wikipedia.
Actually, half-life is always the same, but it takes longer and longer for the same amount of carbon (or another element) to decay.
Timka09 My theory is ruined! But thanks, that's good to know.
TheJaredtheJaredlong You can kind of make it work if we represent the wait time between Half-Life games by the number of decayed atoms. As time goes on, the it'll take longer for same amount to decay. Although it won't really match the amount released in first half-life period because after the first one it'll take approximately an eternity for the same number of atoms to decay, at least in a perfect world. I can't think of how to calculate the right percentage of original material for this to double the time it takes every time, or even if such amount exists. But it doesn't look like it's going to match with any actual half-life period. Maybe I can think of something better after I get some sleep.
A mix of half life 3 and the C(1)4 man could be cool.
There's that cheeky Michael humour again :) nice
You said that "This decay happens at a fixed rate". Incorrect: if you are talking about a sample of this carbon, the sample will decay at an exponentially decreasing rate- d/dx is decreasing. However, the rate of change (d^2/dx^2) of rate/ further derivatives will be at a steady rate. But still, nuclear decay is completely random so it is likely to vary across a sample of known mass.
The decay happens at a fixed rate - it becomes half as much in 5700 years. By any two points in time the amount of C-14 at the later moment is C * 0.5^(x/5700) where C is the amount of C is the amount of C-14 at the first moment and x the time in years between those points in time.
It does not mean that the function is linear, no.
(this is not intended to offend anyone, I just enjoy pettifoggery) While we are amusing ourselfs enjoying the fine art of hair splitting, I'd like to point out that the fact that decay occurs randomly, means it will turn out pretty much even results over a large enough numbers of decaying events. Thats definition of randomness: not predictable, every event contains the same amount of information. If this is true, the decay has to be roughly evenly spread amongst different samples. If your measurement was a 100% accurate you might, in the first few years, be able to detect a difference between two exactly identical sampeles. However this difference would grow smaller and smaller with every decay. When we take into account the error of measurement, I am pretty sure you wont spot the difference between two identical samples.
The _rate_ with which it decreases with is actually given by -8223.36C * e^(-0.000121605 x) where C is the number of atoms from beginning, e = 2.71828128... and x the number of years after the death of the organism.
Will Deary
"You said that "This decay happens at a fixed rate". Incorrect"
Since when did "fixed rate" ever _have to_ be interpreted as "linear"? I understood it to be "a function of time."
"if you are talking about a sample of this carbon, the sample will decay at an exponentially decreasing rate- d/dx is decreasing. However, the rate of change (d^2/dx^2) of rate/ further derivatives will be at a steady rate."
I disagree. d^2/dt^2 [N0 * e^(-Lt)] is no more "steady" than N0 * e^(-Lt), because you will always have the e^(-Lt) function in subsequent derivatives, regardless of how many times you differentiate.
"But still, nuclear decay is completely random so it is likely to vary across a sample of known mass."
Which is probably why scientists use the ± symbol and a number of years beside it: to indicate the variance in error.
It does, carbon 14 has a fixed half life. That is what he meant
Ahhh man! I was hoping to get some advice to help me get a date with the corpse I found buried in my backyard. She is a really good listener, always focusing on my problems and never burdens me with hers.
Not gonna lie I thought I would be able to go out for lunch with a mammoth with this tutorial. But I am sad to say that I was DEAD wrong! BADUM TSSS
Pivoteer51 tusk tusk...
Huehuehuehue :)
That was ivory bad joke.
No, I don't care that the last reply was a year ago.
I figured it would be owning a cemetery, but I guess your way is much more sanitary.
1:43 Half-Life 3 confirmed?
huehuehuehue
I requested this one! Thanks for helping me get smarter, SciShow. :)
Prepare for Creationist comments!
Like living snails being dated at 30,000 years
cfltheman Source please!
lol ikr those idiots that think they know more than a person doing it everyday for their whole lives is amusing.
TheLeftLibertarianAtheist
I never said I believe it but that is one you'll hear.
cfltheman Can you take that one more time, in English please?
Thanks for the dating advice!
'Turns a neutron into a proton'
Can somebody explain how the f*** that is possible.
_Science_
Because a neutron practically consists of a proton and an electron. So then if you give up an electron from a neutron in the beta decay, then what you've got left is a proton. I hope this simple explanation helped!
A force known as the weak nuclear interaction is responsible for the decay of neutrons. The products are a proton (to conserve baryon number), an electron (to conserve charge) and an electron anti-neutrino (to conserve lepton number). This happens because the decay products are energetically favourable to the neutrons if the neutrons are either free or if there are too many in an atom.
Natasha Taylor This was way more in-depth, thanks!
Basically, once you get smaller than Protons, and Neutrons, science gets gay.
This title. Is one of my favorites.
Now you're advocating necrophilia? I'm really getting sick of this channel.
Damn, I'm really late to make that joke.
I did. But thanks, I suppose.
Looks like the title is on its way to becoming the next SciShow meme.
best youtube vid on carbon dating by far
The title would fit anything +HowToBasic uploads :)
Oh, I thought this about a different kind of dating ;).
Thanks for the video.
omg i looked at the title and thought this was like dating advice for a second
A couple of questions:
How do we know the original C12 to C14 ratio when an animal died?
How do we know that C14's half-life in the Sahara is the same its half life at the bottom of the sea under Antarctica?
I am truly relieved this isn't about necrophilia.
Well, it's always a good idea to get her mummy's approval.
huh. title was misleading.
HAH! I love wordplays, excellent job Michael & co =)
"I know! I'll make a joke about the title suggesting necrophilia! I bet no one thought of that!"
Interesting info!!!
You bring me a Michael Aranda t-shirt with his face and the quote "Dating is hard, especially when what you're dating is dead". In return I will give you cashy money. Shiny?
When I clicked the video, my thought was "move to France, you can legal marry the dead there", but then I read the description and realized this isn't about having romantic and/or sexual relations with a dead person.
Awesome video!!!
That joke at the end was top notch.
How to date a dead thing, in 6 easy steps:
1) Find a live rose, and cut it off at the stem.
2) Find a dead thing.
3) Present the recently severed rose to the dead thing and explain, "This rose was recently alive, and is now dead. Thus, it symbolizes the dichotomy between life and death -- that is, between me and you. This is a romantic gesture."
4) Make the sexy time.
5) Smoke a cigarette.
6) Find another dead thing and repeat steps 1 through 5.
Bill Smith
"3) Present the recently severed rose to the dead thing and explain, "This rose was recently alive, and is now dead. "
A cut rose does not die instantly, as demonstrated by taking a cutting from a plant that can be grafted onto another plant. A picked-fruit, say an apple is also not instantly dead.
Death is often not an instantaneous event, although incineration or physical destruction by crushing or explosives would likely be rapid or even very fast, but probably not truly instantaneous.
Amusing method to determine the length of existence for atomic structures.
I didn't know there could be three Half-Lives... Valve definitely hasn't shown us...
+Blaze Firestar Why does this not have more thumbs up
Clever joke at the end there lol
1:34
Are you saying i'm gonna have to wait another 5700 years for half life 3?
valar help me, but i briefly envisioned zombies and flowers, and that i didn't find it strange is surely a testament to long years spent trawling through tumblr.
I found the title of this video misleading
Hey, just wondering if you could talk about a void that's appeared in space, pretty much a hole in space with no light, radiation or trace of anything (?), it seems quiet interesting.
[Disregard this if there is already a video about it]
I hate how people misunderstand the meaning of something being dead as something which is not alive, while it is actually something which has died.
I thought this video was going to be interesting, but then I read the description.
I thought he will say something about dating dead things and for a minute I waited for him to say about something. Eventually I realised the title is misleading.
It's very hard, because they can't say yes or no, so you have to get a medium to contact their spirit and hope they're not fucking with you . . .
love this show
I just woke up so reading the title of this video I had a very different idea of what this video was gonna be about
The last line killed me!
Well yeah, but the wedding might be a bit weird
I thought the title meant something completely different....
Not the dating I was expecting. That's slightly relieving.
He made a necrophilia joke at the end. Half life 3 confirmed.
i understod the title completely wrong at first.
The next question would be, what happened to a sugar molecule when one of its carbon-14 atom in it decayed. so there's a stray nitrogen atom in the sugar molecule, thus making it not a sugar molecule? curious about this question
i don't see why you need all this equipment to date a dead thing, all i do is bring it some flowers and take it to a nice italian restaurant, that seems to work well for me...
I totally expected a death pun. Not disappointed.
For a second there I thought you guys were doing an episode on necrophilia....haha dating tips for necrophiliacs haha
Oh, dating as in figuring out the date it was created. Clever!!!!
What a relief ... radiocarbon dating. They might want to rename the title; I assumed it was related to necrophilia.
Did anyone else, when they first saw the title, think that the members of Scishow
had finally lost it and were going to teach us how to have a relationship and make conversation with dead things?...
The necrophilia joke has been cleverly put into the title of this video to distract people from arguing about creationism.
Next: How do you date a living thing
At about 1:25 he says that the decay happens at a fixed rate, but at about 3:00 he says that because of the extra carbon in the atmosphere in recent times, they have to use tree ring dating as well as carbon to get a date. So wouldn't that mean that the decay doesn't always happen at fixed rate and that the rate is subject to change? And if it doesn't decay at a fixed rate in all cases, then how can we trust any date we get?
My wife died 3 weeks ago in her sleep.
She's still wrapped up in the bedroom, I sleep on couch.
Can't bring myself to call anyone...
I like the name of this video. "How to Date a Dead Thing"
...Date... Like... Go on a date with a dead thing. LOL
Love it. Hilarious.
Here i thought i was gonna find out how to enter an intimate relationship with corpses.
The problem in my mind is how do we know how much carbon is in any individual organism? There are bound to be vast variations from individuals in the same species, so how can it reliably even come close?
Damn, I came here for advice for dating my zombie boyfriend. :(
Learning this in geology class right now
Damn... Thought this was gonna tell me how to never be lonely again..
The final joke earned you a thumb up haha
When I read the title I thought someone had got into a relationship with a dead thing