Love Science!! Thanks to all the big thinkers in the past who came up with the Scientific method and it's distinct ability to take out bias and unsupported opinion. We owe them so much. Truth is out there and it's found through Science.
@tonybeir Its about a producer writer who was able to influence our culture through media and his funding of a space exploration project helped with the discovery of one of the first X-0 planets. Also, I wouldn't doubt that the show influenced generations to want to fund and explore space.
@fertilizerspike though you are correct the gravitation pull from all the planets causes the sun to orbit around a point, primarily due to the size of Jupiter. But, saying that the Sun is not the center anymore than the Earth, is a gross overstatement.
@lazyperfectionist1 You're kinda quite right. The first spy glass (telescope) was called the dutch spyglass and was not created by Galileo. There was a patent pending or about to be on the dutch spyglass and Galileo was tipped off about this. He then quickly went to the best glass blowers in all of Venice and worked out how to create his own spyglass (He had never seen the Dutch spyglass). He beat the Dutch spyglass to the senate in Venice and the rest is history.
At 1:15, your choice of words is a bit misleading so I thought I would add this comment to clarify. Galileo Galilei did introduce the telescope to astronomy, but did not invent it. The telescope already existed, but as a spyglass. Many were using telescopes to scan the horizon out at sea, but he was the first to point it at the sky.
The Greek astronomer and mathematician Aristarchus of Samos was first to suggest a heliocentric model of the solar system, not Copernicus. It was 1800 years before Copernicus. He certainly deserves some credit for his contribution …
@fertilizerspike That's when they orbit each other. They may even collide. If that happens they become *mostly* one mass. Depending on how fast they are coming at each other.
@MilitantPeaceist Actually, ST was Rod idea of a "wagon train to the stars" and said this many, many times. It was also influenced by the book "Guliver's Travels." Asimov's work had nothing to do with it.
@fertilizerspike No. You just claimed that there are Studies that are done in a Peer Reviewed manner about the Peer Reviewing process. Isn't that contradictory and redundant?
@fertilizerspike In physics, an orbit is the gravitationally curved path of one object around a point or another body, for example the gravitational orbit of a planet around a star. If the sun is orbiting us how does it not go smashing into the other planets in the solar system as it orbits us, or if not smashing into them then causing massive temperature changes on their surfaces? The answer - it doesn't
@fertilizerspike no, the sun is the more massive object. The most any of the planets can do to their host star is make it "wobble" as they orbit around it, they do not "revolve around eachother" as you claim however they do exert gravity on eachother (everything with mass does) but for all intents and purposes, we orbit the sun.
I just wanted to clarify that, while he did introduce it to astronomy as the video states, the way the video says it makes it sound as if he invented it, and this is not the case.
@Asiablue I disagree that is was not an influence, no matter how many you list off, Azimov was the 1st the conceptualise inter planetary systems with cultures etc etc etc including interaction, metaforming, the positonic brain, hyperspace all of which IS Star Trek at it's core definitive structure. Take any one of those away & you don't get Star Trek!
@lazyperfectionist1 I thought Galileo was the first to impliment the curved mirror instead of curved optical glass, making the distance and clarity much better then before? If so then he didn't invent it but he did revolutionize it.
@fertilizerspike "The properties of gases are well-known, and they do not include SELF-COMPRESSION, they EXPAND TO FILL THE AVAILABLE SPACE and CONFORM TO THE SHAPE OF ANY CONTAINER." If gases are not subject to gravitational force, then why doesn't all the gas on Earth escape into space?
@fertilizerspike ... That IS checking ones work. If you do a study on something, you're checking on how effective something is. That is what Peer Review is about. Seriously. You need to look these things up.
@fertilizerspike Electromagnetic forces would work differently on different objects. If it was electromagnetism that caused objects to fall then a piece of iron would fall faster than a piece of wood. You can't decide what forces do and don't exist based on whether or not you can easily control them. The theory of gravity is consistent with observations and can be used to make predictions. Your proposal of only an electromagnetic force contradicts the observed universe.
@fertilizerspike: The problem you're having here is that you're using a widely unknown and relatively new idea (the electromagnetic universe) while appearing to debunk currently accepted theory in its entirety. For example, you can argue that gravity is an electromagnetic phenomena, but not that gravity doesn't exist. Also, people seem to have gotten the idea that you're a geocentrist. Not sure what you said to give them that notion, but it doesn't help the rest of your argument.
@fertilizerspike Object B has a greater Pull on Object A. Whiles Object A does pull on Object B. Object B is the one in charge and thus Object A orbits Object B. It's Not That Hard.
@fertilizerspike Gravity is there whether you believe it or not. Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't show that it is actually There.
@fertilizerspike We've been using a defunct idea to calculate how we lob billion dollar probes around the solar system. I guess that explains why they never reach their destinations. Oh wait.
@fertilizerspike Wait a second. These objective studies. Are there a lot of people doing them? Are they checking they checking the work of other people who check the work of people who are reposing projects and experiments? Isn't that like.. peer reviewing the peer review?
@fertilizerspike I don't know what else to say, everyone has furthered the point that the Sun is much more the center of the system than the Earth, the true center is inside of the mass of the Sun. If you are sitting is a large room, your "body" does not represent your entire "self". You need to account for all of the specks or water vapor that was in your body, the minuscule flakes of skin and the photons that we re-emitted from your skins surface. You are in-fact the size of a large room?
The funniest part is where fertilizerspike claims that gravitational lensing has never been observed. A lensing event was the one of first major verifications of Einsteins contributions to understanding gravity, somewhere in the 1920's. Currently gravitational lenses are used everyday by astronomers to peer further into deep space then otherwise possible. There are many papers out there describing these techniques and the observational results. But they don't exist! LOL
@fertilizerspike Um It can. We've shown this. We can see how the sun bends starlight in a solar eclipse when we compare photographs of that part of the sky to the photograph showing the solar eclipse. A kid with a camera can pwn you.
Sorry but the Astronomy started at Ancient Greece . Aristarchos was the first who discover that the Earth rotate around the Sun ( Very wrong we believe that Copernicus was found it ), I Remind you the Hipparchos , Aristotelis , Plato, Eudoxos , and many many more Greek Astronomers who they establish the science of Astronomy long before the moderns astronomers that we see in that video. A Little respect to those pioneers should be rendered...
@fertilizerspike (cont.) by observing a total eclipse which enabled him to view a star directly behind the sun as its' gravity "bent" the light from behind it. It is also seen in gravitation lensing where astronomers viewed the most distant galaxy ever seen in the gravitational lense created by a massive galaxy. Again I cannot guarantee that our theory of general relativity is 100% correct but all predictions made using the equations are confirmed in observations - I consider this matter closed!
** Gene Roddenbury stole his ideas from the 1st human to think about, & coin the term, hyperspace - Sir Isaac Asimov (irobot) - Star Trek is an adaptation of the "Foundation" series - for all you hard cases out there ;)
@fertilizerspike You are taking a piece of data and co-opting it into your belief system, that's fine, but in the real world, the pioneer anomaly is not evidence for a flawed model of gravity. Course corrections on interplanetary probes are done at intervals of months, more if we're talking about a probe like cassini for the obvious reason that we want it to make particular shots. None of this points to flawed understanding of gravity, we just don't have a complete model of the solar system.
@alien8ted haha alright thanks. but i mean he does have a point, gravity isn't real. how could it be? i mean it doesn't keep us on the ground everyday.
@polyatheist Yes, I agree, please DON'T FEED fertilizerspik! He appears on this channel and spams it with his religious electric universe theory. He is a FANATIC.
@fertilizerspike You're right. You've made so many crackpot claims it's hard to know where to begin! So let's start with your comments on peer review. Then we'll work our way back to everything else that you are claiming.
@alien8ted Yeah, I should know better than to even respond by now. But I just can't help myself, sometimes. On a side note, HOLY SHIT! This guy has posted like 50 comments on here in the last few hours. I like my Youtubing as much as the next guy, but this seems to be an obsession for him.
They wouldn't have been burnt at the stake if they had just submitted their work to peer-reviewed journals. They would, instead, have been hung, drawn and quartered. But I trust my point is clear.
@fertilizerspike Ok, stars are powered by electric discharge (lol), now explain heavy elements. Oh wait, you can't, your faith explains less then conventional evidence based theories, but i guess that doesn't stop a true believer. Also, I have made pictures myself where gravity accounts for bending star/galaxy light. I already know this isn't special since this evidence has been available for at least 90 years, so, should i send them in for review by the nobel comittee under your name?
@fertilizerspike how can you explain to people outside the scientific community that the sun is not the center of the solar system? you fail to explain your point clearly and accurately.
@fertilizerspike Only fools blindly follow anything. Even the bible says - Test Everything & Stay true. Bloody well sounds like science to me. I still think we need to have a concensus that is based in things tested as opposed to observed only. Many observations leads to a better understanding of the one thing we see. I do not think we think differently, just differently about the same thing. We are united in our quest to help people through human nature. Facts are facts. Test everything!
@LordBrakensiek Yea, he seems to have trouble with reality when it contradicts his cherished beliefs. Very scientific :P I'm truly amazed at this though, he tries to dismiss the first observation of gravitational lensing as a fraud as if he's completely oblivious to the thousands of observations after that. This guy has the blinders on so tight he doesn't even realise he has them on. Dunning-Kruger effect anyone?
@fertilizerspike That is still peer reviewing the peer reviewing. You seem to be taking the science out of the equation of peer reviewing. At the time the evidence didn't point to a round earth. Least that was the common conception. Then people started getting evidence, actually going out and Testing things. And when these people who went boldly around the world all came back and all their conclusions about the earth being round were independently verified. That was Peer Review.
@fertilizerspike lmao ur information comes straight from wikipedia, i cannot guarantee that our current theory of general relativity is 100% correct, but it is the most likely scenario devised that correctly reflects what we see in space. it is more than likely that sometime in the future our theory of gravity will be revised, but wiping the slate clean would be foolish as our current theory clearly reflects what we observe, the curvature of space was proved as early as 1919 by Eddington by
I've been interested in Giordano Bruno for a very long time.
Excellent video!
I love how our knowledge of the universe seems to be growing exponentially.
This video was very helpful for my presentation on exoplanets, thanks.
Love Science!! Thanks to all the big thinkers in the past who came up with the Scientific method and it's distinct ability to take out bias and unsupported opinion. We owe them so much. Truth is out there and it's found through Science.
Very good presentation. Thank you.
Man, I wish this video could have gone on for another 25 years.
Very interesting, thanks for sharing.
I love this channel.
Thank you. Verry good historic timeline.
@tonybeir Its about a producer writer who was able to influence our culture through media and his funding of a space exploration project helped with the discovery of one of the first X-0 planets. Also, I wouldn't doubt that the show influenced generations to want to fund and explore space.
@MilitantPeaceist Very interesting thoughts. I've read the Foundation series twice over the years and never put it together with Star Trek
@fertilizerspike though you are correct the gravitation pull from all the planets causes the sun to orbit around a point, primarily due to the size of Jupiter. But, saying that the Sun is not the center anymore than the Earth, is a gross overstatement.
@fertilizerspike there could be planetary orbital rings and shells of structure that we can live on.
@lazyperfectionist1 You're kinda quite right. The first spy glass (telescope) was called the dutch spyglass and was not created by Galileo. There was a patent pending or about to be on the dutch spyglass and Galileo was tipped off about this. He then quickly went to the best glass blowers in all of Venice and worked out how to create his own spyglass (He had never seen the Dutch spyglass). He beat the Dutch spyglass to the senate in Venice and the rest is history.
@DrDoe1 I'm pretty sure all he did in terms of the tools he used was to modify a spyglass, but I may be mistaken.
At 1:15, your choice of words is a bit misleading so I thought I would add this comment to clarify. Galileo Galilei did introduce the telescope to astronomy, but did not invent it. The telescope already existed, but as a spyglass. Many were using telescopes to scan the horizon out at sea, but he was the first to point it at the sky.
Thanks for the great video
The Greek astronomer and mathematician Aristarchus of Samos was first to suggest a heliocentric model of the solar system, not Copernicus. It was 1800 years before Copernicus. He certainly deserves some credit for his contribution …
Great Video!!
@amorphousguy He saw some of them, at least, such as the planet orbiting 51 Pegasi as mentioned in this vid.
@fertilizerspike That's when they orbit each other. They may even collide. If that happens they become *mostly* one mass. Depending on how fast they are coming at each other.
@MilitantPeaceist Actually, ST was Rod idea of a "wagon train to the stars" and said this many, many times. It was also influenced by the book "Guliver's Travels." Asimov's work had nothing to do with it.
Love the vibe
@fertilizerspike No. You just claimed that there are Studies that are done in a Peer Reviewed manner about the Peer Reviewing process. Isn't that contradictory and redundant?
Amazing work. We still might make contact in my life time. Slim but possible.
Danke, hat mir sehr geholfen !!
jupiters bottom bands recently dissapeared is it about to ignite? wouldnt that be a sight
@fertilizerspike In physics, an orbit is the gravitationally curved path of one object around a point or another body, for example the gravitational orbit of a planet around a star.
If the sun is orbiting us how does it not go smashing into the other planets in the solar system as it orbits us, or if not smashing into them then causing massive temperature changes on their surfaces? The answer - it doesn't
Very nice video
Interesting is to see that science has been slowing compared to technology, as Edward Teller commented in a TV interview
haha, im pretty sure this is ELMIFY doing the voice over, haha your sooooooo cool :0)
@fertilizerspike no, the sun is the more massive object. The most any of the planets can do to their host star is make it "wobble" as they orbit around it, they do not "revolve around eachother" as you claim however they do exert gravity on eachother (everything with mass does) but for all intents and purposes, we orbit the sun.
I just wanted to clarify that, while he did introduce it to astronomy as the video states, the way the video says it makes it sound as if he invented it, and this is not the case.
@fertilizerspike That's a really good point !
@LordBrakensiek: Yeah, I was just offering a friendly suggestion as to why he's getting so much hostility. Thanks for clarifying the situation.
@Asiablue
I disagree that is was not an influence, no matter how many you list off, Azimov was the 1st the conceptualise inter planetary systems with cultures etc etc etc including interaction, metaforming, the positonic brain, hyperspace all of which IS Star Trek at it's core definitive structure. Take any one of those away & you don't get Star Trek!
@lazyperfectionist1 I thought Galileo was the first to impliment the curved mirror instead of curved optical glass, making the distance and clarity much better then before? If so then he didn't invent it but he did revolutionize it.
@YourBossHere007 Agree!
Say, this song sounds familiar.
Where's it from?
Wonderful
@acromel Well said friend
magnificent!
@fertilizerspike "The properties of gases are well-known, and they do not include SELF-COMPRESSION, they EXPAND TO FILL THE AVAILABLE SPACE and CONFORM TO THE SHAPE OF ANY CONTAINER."
If gases are not subject to gravitational force, then why doesn't all the gas on Earth escape into space?
Isn't it funny how much more you can teach someone with a simple time line composed of a fact-after-fact structure.
@MewFushisDad Haaaa Foundation :), good choice! Love Isaac Asimov, always with astronomy concepts :D
@fertilizerspike ... That IS checking ones work. If you do a study on something, you're checking on how effective something is. That is what Peer Review is about. Seriously. You need to look these things up.
@EVLWNS I would like to see that in my life time, but one has to be honest.
@fertilizerspike Electromagnetic forces would work differently on different objects. If it was electromagnetism that caused objects to fall then a piece of iron would fall faster than a piece of wood. You can't decide what forces do and don't exist based on whether or not you can easily control them. The theory of gravity is consistent with observations and can be used to make predictions. Your proposal of only an electromagnetic force contradicts the observed universe.
@fertilizerspike Do you even know what peer review IS?
@fertilizerspike: The problem you're having here is that you're using a widely unknown and relatively new idea (the electromagnetic universe) while appearing to debunk currently accepted theory in its entirety. For example, you can argue that gravity is an electromagnetic phenomena, but not that gravity doesn't exist.
Also, people seem to have gotten the idea that you're a geocentrist. Not sure what you said to give them that notion, but it doesn't help the rest of your argument.
@fertilizerspike the 150 year period in which they had very little technology and education on the subject
@fertilizerspike Object B has a greater Pull on Object A. Whiles Object A does pull on Object B. Object B is the one in charge and thus Object A orbits Object B.
It's Not That Hard.
cool!
@fertilizerspike Gravity is there whether you believe it or not. Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't show that it is actually There.
One day this will be an introduction to "History of Interstellar Colonisation 101"
@reuben why would anyone pronounce Betelgeuse in the same way as "beetle-juice"? lol
@fertilizerspike
We've been using a defunct idea to calculate how we lob billion dollar probes around the solar system. I guess that explains why they never reach their destinations.
Oh wait.
It's scary that people like fertilizerspike still exist...
@derman077
Ok :P
@LordBrakensiek
You have to speak to him like he's 5..
He's a little slow, in case you haven't noticed..
@fertilizerspike Wait a second. These objective studies. Are there a lot of people doing them? Are they checking they checking the work of other people who check the work of people who are reposing projects and experiments?
Isn't that like.. peer reviewing the peer review?
everyone in twitter getting a crash course to understand the new comeback
Exoplanet count soon to be 1000+ with new Kepler data. As an aside, spellcheck should learn that "exoplanet" is a word!
@fertilizerspike I don't know what else to say, everyone has furthered the point that the Sun is much more the center of the system than the Earth, the true center is inside of the mass of the Sun.
If you are sitting is a large room, your "body" does not represent your entire "self". You need to account for all of the specks or water vapor that was in your body, the minuscule flakes of skin and the photons that we re-emitted from your skins surface. You are in-fact the size of a large room?
The funniest part is where fertilizerspike claims that gravitational lensing has never been observed. A lensing event was the one of first major verifications of Einsteins contributions to understanding gravity, somewhere in the 1920's.
Currently gravitational lenses are used everyday by astronomers to peer further into deep space then otherwise possible. There are many papers out there describing these techniques and the observational results.
But they don't exist! LOL
stupidest comment on YT.... childish and ignorant fool
@fertilizerspike Uh. Yes it has. All you need is a solar eclipse, a camera, and a star chart.
@fertilizerspike Um It can. We've shown this. We can see how the sun bends starlight in a solar eclipse when we compare photographs of that part of the sky to the photograph showing the solar eclipse.
A kid with a camera can pwn you.
Sorry but the Astronomy started at Ancient Greece . Aristarchos was the first who discover that the Earth rotate around the Sun ( Very wrong we believe that Copernicus was found it ), I Remind you the Hipparchos , Aristotelis , Plato, Eudoxos , and many many more Greek Astronomers who they establish the science of Astronomy long before the moderns astronomers that we see in that video. A Little respect to those pioneers should be rendered...
@fertilizerspike (cont.) by observing a total eclipse which enabled him to view a star directly behind the sun as its' gravity "bent" the light from behind it. It is also seen in gravitation lensing where astronomers viewed the most distant galaxy ever seen in the gravitational lense created by a massive galaxy. Again I cannot guarantee that our theory of general relativity is 100% correct but all predictions made using the equations are confirmed in observations - I consider this matter closed!
@amorphousguy He'd love it.
@UFOHunter1690
NO! there's only one solar system!!
@evo2029 BC = Before Cash
@fertilizerspike So we orbit around the moon? no, because we are larger
@LordBrakensiek In that case.. Friends?
@fertilizerspike You're getting more hilarious by the day.
** Gene Roddenbury stole his ideas from the 1st human to think about, & coin the term, hyperspace - Sir Isaac Asimov (irobot) - Star Trek is an adaptation of the "Foundation" series - for all you hard cases out there ;)
@greycloud24
I get ya now. All good 8)))
@bengacris
I know there's only one solar system
because there's only one Sol.
@fertilizerspike
You are taking a piece of data and co-opting it into your belief system, that's fine, but in the real world, the pioneer anomaly is not evidence for a flawed model of gravity.
Course corrections on interplanetary probes are done at intervals of months, more if we're talking about a probe like cassini for the obvious reason that we want it to make particular shots.
None of this points to flawed understanding of gravity, we just don't have a complete model of the solar system.
@alien8ted haha alright thanks. but i mean he does have a point, gravity isn't real. how could it be? i mean it doesn't keep us on the ground everyday.
@neolegionar Nope, but the Moon isn't a planet nor an exoplanet ;)
@polyatheist Yes, I agree, please DON'T FEED fertilizerspik! He appears on this channel and spams it with his religious electric universe theory. He is a FANATIC.
He's just going to say that he isn't arguing, he's trying to educate people.. lolz..
@fertilizerspike You're right. You've made so many crackpot claims it's hard to know where to begin!
So let's start with your comments on peer review. Then we'll work our way back to everything else that you are claiming.
@SuperAtheist You really think that there's only one solar system or you'r just trolling?
@YashinNashi I thought creationists were bad with their views on Evolution...
fertilizer spike is trolling HARD.
FUCKING MIRACLES MAN!
I'm fascinated by astronomical findings, yet our oceans become neglected due to current government expenditures.
@xajik3 just saying ass face, this is awesome.
@alien8ted Yeah, I should know better than to even respond by now. But I just can't help myself, sometimes. On a side note, HOLY SHIT! This guy has posted like 50 comments on here in the last few hours. I like my Youtubing as much as the next guy, but this seems to be an obsession for him.
They wouldn't have been burnt at the stake if they had just submitted their work to peer-reviewed journals. They would, instead, have been hung, drawn and quartered. But I trust my point is clear.
@TruthfulChristian2
You aint got no pancake mix!
@fertilizerspike
Ok, stars are powered by electric discharge (lol), now explain heavy elements. Oh wait, you can't, your faith explains less then conventional evidence based theories, but i guess that doesn't stop a true believer.
Also, I have made pictures myself where gravity accounts for bending star/galaxy light. I already know this isn't special since this evidence has been available for at least 90 years, so, should i send them in for review by the nobel comittee under your name?
@fertilizerspike how can you explain to people outside the scientific community that the sun is not the center of the solar system? you fail to explain your point clearly and accurately.
@fertilizerspike
Only fools blindly follow anything.
Even the bible says - Test Everything & Stay true.
Bloody well sounds like science to me.
I still think we need to have a concensus that is based in things tested as opposed to observed only. Many observations leads to a better understanding of the one thing we see.
I do not think we think differently, just differently about the same thing. We are united in our quest to help people through human nature.
Facts are facts. Test everything!
@LordBrakensiek
Yea, he seems to have trouble with reality when it contradicts his cherished beliefs. Very scientific :P
I'm truly amazed at this though, he tries to dismiss the first observation of gravitational lensing as a fraud as if he's completely oblivious to the thousands of observations after that. This guy has the blinders on so tight he doesn't even realise he has them on. Dunning-Kruger effect anyone?
@fertilizerspike That is still peer reviewing the peer reviewing.
You seem to be taking the science out of the equation of peer reviewing. At the time the evidence didn't point to a round earth. Least that was the common conception. Then people started getting evidence, actually going out and Testing things. And when these people who went boldly around the world all came back and all their conclusions about the earth being round were independently verified. That was Peer Review.
@fertilizerspike lmao ur information comes straight from wikipedia, i cannot guarantee that our current theory of general relativity is 100% correct, but it is the most likely scenario devised that correctly reflects what we see in space. it is more than likely that sometime in the future our theory of gravity will be revised, but wiping the slate clean would be foolish as our current theory clearly reflects what we observe, the curvature of space was proved as early as 1919 by Eddington by
there is only one solar system.
!