This is brilliant. I am not well educated in either physics or maths (though I am trying...very trying) but this makes a lot of sense and it is explained in such a way that I really do think I have grasped the concept. I anyone reading comments takes pity on a weak soul like like me, please help me work out the units of of energy shown at 16:00. I get really confused with going from metres per second and kilograms to kilowatt--hours. Thank you.
What a great lecture, his passion really comes across and he did a fantastic job helping a layman like me understand the surface level of what was going on. Thank you so much to everyone involved
"I Don't have Time to Discuss That"... ...everything i wanted to hear about. You need 2 lecture versions: 1) People have never heard of... 2) People that want more clarity on...
If the electron's magnetic moment were an actual current loop, I think the smallest it could be would be if all its charge were flowing through the loop at the speed of light. I wonder if that size is smaller than that "largest electron size limit" threshold permitted by the limits of our current measurement capability...or if the accuracy of our measurements so far have already definitely disproven this possibility.
Well, way back when it was conjectured that the electron's magnetic moment was due to literal spin along with it's charge of coarse. Wolfgang Pauli shot this down determining that the electron would have to be spinning something like hundreds to a few thousands of times faster than the speed of light(I can't remember which) to generate the magnitude of the electron's magnetic moment; That's a no go. Extend this to your idea. Electrons are often stated as having no size, almost like singularities. They seem very small at high energy but in lower energies in atomic orbitals they become theoretically extended "clouds" of standing waves. This is where I think the QFT people would chime in: There are no particles only fields interacting... with their intrinsic properties.
This is at best a junior high school level lecture; probably suited for the layperson or the green science fiction crowds. Has Fermilab returned to the kindergarten in the pandemic days?
@@astrophotographyenthusiast5273 agreed, but if you can't explain complex concepts and awaken the imagination then you have equally missed the mark. This is at best a poor show and tell. Lack of preparation is apparent.
@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 when I went it was only $4,000 a year lol. I couldn’t afford to send my own kids there when I took them years later. It was $20,000 a year then. And I was a physician. My kids were, to state it bluntly, the wrong color to qualify fir a scholarship.
Space is not empty, hydrogen coherence backbones bind, resembling a vacuum but are the complete opposite.. induction is charge capacitance, cold contracts, heat expands, polar fields are based on cavitation, induction creates static polarization.
Do NOT bring up unnecessary garbage like entertainment (Star Trek). Entertainers never do hard work like science research. But HUGE praise to Dr Gabrielse at the end for emphasizing the fact of the BB and AGW.
Popular media is a good way to relate to the public. It's not like he was using Star Trek to explain anything. He used it as a way to relate a term people know (anti-matter) to the actual scientific concept by bringing up the place where many people probably know of the term from.
11:46 Given it's so hard to distinguish antimatter, how do we know that relatively isolated parts of the universe aren't made of antimatter? For example isolated galaxies, or the diffuse matter in the gaps between the cosmic network.
antimatter interacts with gravity just like matter, so black holes (just like anything with mass) with 'attract' antimatter all the same the photon has a charge of 0, as negative 0 and positive 0 are the same, so is antimatter of photon is a photon
@@eyle6839 There is more to a particle than its electric charge. Neutrinos also have a charge of zero and yet an anti-neutrino is not a neutrino. So in short, your conclusion is right (anti-photon is photon) but the explanation is misleading :)
Would the anti-Gabrielse annihilate the regular matter Gabrielse if they met? Regular matter objects, and presumably antimatter objects, when they meet don't pass through each other (i.e., bounce) because of the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Since the Exclusion Principle doesn't apply to matter/antimatter, if it did they couldn't meet to annihilate, anti-Gabrielse and Gabrielse could pass through each other. So annihilation comes down to the probability of the electrons and anti-electrons, and the protons and anti-protons, colliding. Since the volume of the particles is extremely small compared to the volume of Gabrielse (no offence), the probability of annihilations would be very small, and probably unnoticeable.
Are antimatter hydrogen atoms made from pre-existing normal matter quarks? Where do the "anti-quarks" come from if it is known that quarks cannot exist independently?
But does a particle ever annihilate with anything other than its own anti-particle? Why don’t we think anti-matter has anti-mass? What is the special quality that leads to annihilation? Especially if the only thing an electron annihilates with is a positron..What does an anti-muon annihilate with? With such a infinitesimally small amount of antimatter ever produced, I don’t think we know jack about antimatter. But maybe it is identical in every other way... but why does it even exist? To satisfy Dirac’s formula and radioactivity?
What is the symmetry nature of the universe? Let begin with the macro cosmos symmetry: We know that some clusters in some larger galaxies are symmetrically situated in the planes parallel to the equatorial plane of the galaxy, but some another formations such as solar system for example hasn’t symmetrically situated planets or moons of the planets, where never the least exist planets for example Jupiter and Saturn with clear visible symmetrical belts. In the micro cosmos we can register particles such as protons, electrons and other strong interacting particles which strictly observe symmetrically localization such as space position and interaction, but another particles or processes lost this symmetry and we call them weak interactions where the symmetry observe in far low level or doesn’t observe at all. We know also that some energy resonances (dispersing resonances) have inside symmetry similar to the planets Jupiter and Saturn symmetrical belts, but on these resonances, where obviously belong the bosons (because we can’t and never measure whether these particles possess momentum and therefore mass in repose, or don’t), there the symmetry comes from the complex phases on higher level of main quantum number. Why it is so and what force makes this phenomenon? From the multitude experiments we know that symmetry stay somehow above the huge range of particles, galaxies stars and so on, then from where and how comes this phenomenon called symmetry? The answer is very simple: The symmetry comes from the essence of field formation and it is field property pushing into the masses behavior (particles, galaxies and so on). On pages 55, 56, 57 USM www.kanevuniverse.com is shown the essence of polarization of the space and the equation of that, which is universally about the all stable fields: gravitational, electromagnetic and nuclear and explain in very simple and convincing way behavior of strong and weak interactions. In particular it is explains the belts of Jupiter and Saturn and their approximately sizes. Why this mathematically formalism describing symmetry preservation in Brian’s lecture is unfit for physical application? Because any phenomenon actually does represent all generalize coordinates dynamical depending actions and there is no way to examine particular process (for example one dimension rotation) without to take into account the dynamical dependences by the rest of “dynamical world”! Which means: Where is the energy of engine rotating the object which symmetry we observe? Is it possible to exist constant velocity if we haven’t had or haven’t acceleration? Of course the answer is not it is impossible: V=dV/dt.dt=a.dt So if absent (a) there absent (V) as well! That is why I always said that special relativity can apply only in absolute or empty space which obviously cannot exist because of contradiction to basic physical laws. Simply if we assert that such space does exist then we must to see this and therefore we are already there and obviously this space is no longer empty or absolutely! Now about “simultaneously” in case of inter movement of two observers. The delusion here is again that we are accepting velocity of light which hasn’t depending by the medium and its movement which means that light hasn’t dynamically interaction with the matter because there is accepted that the empty space is equal to the vacuum! But vacuum obviously is not empty space because the contrary will contradict to the shown above equation and therefore to the basic physical law!The same is in force about so called Higgs boson because in empty space where we haven’t accelerations we haven’t the energy as well! According to the concept of big bang the Higgs field is purely energy without any masses (masses don’t exist yet!) So if this field indeed exist then how we can measure such phenomenon if we haven’t masses and therefore accelerations and forces…. How we can know that such thing called Higgs boson indeed exist… So obviously this conception it isn’t fit with the fundamental rules of the physics and I wonder how such conception can define by the physicist? This is naïve view over the universe. Moreover according to USM www.kanevuniverse.com energy and masses always are hand with hand.. it is impossible to exist one of them without the other…. In such way the described problem is avoidable and this is the right physical direction! Next let begin with the nature of particle-antiparticle. All what we know about this phenomenon is that antiparticle is mirror image of respectively particle, but what is the essence nature of this dualism particle antiparticle? The answer comes from the essence of the field and polarization of the space in accordance with the USM www.kanevuniverse.com part I. Let see also page 195 to 198 USM where is given convincingly explanation of the nature question of antiparticle, which in summarizing fashion is the following: Antiparticle it is particle escaping from its own polarization space to the contrary one so quickly that there it isn’t tame to reverse its kinematic parameters, which immediately follows by annihilation. It is obviously that some form of common existence even in some not proved as a physical medium fantasy like a black hole it isn’t possible. Let remember again what should to be the black hole conception according to general relativity: Never forget the definition of black hole according to general relativity and it is place in the space where nothing can escape and anything stream in! Sensible person immediately ask you..where all these come in like masses, energies and soon, and you cannot give him reasonable answer…… G.Kanev
At the early Big Bang stage, wouldn't you need perfect mixing (high entropy) for both matter and antimatter to completely annihilate each other? Because this hasn't happened, mainly matter surviving agrees with the Past Hypothesis of low entropy at the beginning of the Universe. There must've been some asymmetry present at the beginning that left one type of matter abundant. Or we could just be in a bubble with matter, and bubbles of distant antimatter exist beyond the Observable Universe.
The Internet was not invented by CERN. Tim Berners-Lee invented World Wide Web while working at CERN - but that is just another protocol on the Internet.
Can someone please help, I'm looking out for anti trees 🌲... Has anyone seen one? We all need to remain vigilant because we need all the trees that we have, last thing we need is disappearing tree's 🌲.
Magnetism Squared = Energy; Energy Squared = Mass; Mass Squared = Magnetism; of New Magnitude #EMBUnification Inspired by Eric WeinStein's #GeometricUnity Fractal Universe Baby E^2=M M^2=B B^2=E'
I thought opposite charges attract ruclips.net/video/sXEtgMSOmDA/видео.html=44m, Wait is he talking about an opposite charged antimatter and matter particles, so the opposite applies?
I like how you admitted you don't really get to understand quantum mechanics, you just learn to accept it. Except you shouldn't accept illogic. When you're ready for a much better theory you can understand and use to eliminate illogic, rather than increase illogic, my unifying theory is for sale. Search keywords: matter theory marostica.
Pseudo science. You think little ole you has the answer for the largest problems in physics today yet you have zero understanding of basic physics and a "unifying theory" with zero peer review. Zero published works scientists can grapple with?
@@guywebster8018 You are completely ignorant of my theory, so your opinion about my understanding of physics has no basis in logic, and is just a pathetic attempt at abuse. Bye bye.
The huge disparity between the presenters enthusiasm and the actual scientist answering the questions renders this almost unwatchable to me. Didn’t even have the decency to pretend to care🤷🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️ I subscribed to this channel because of Dr. Lincoln and all of the great episodes he did. THIS^ episode however?- huge downgrade to say the least. We miss you Don😩 come back!
*Congratulations on 500,000 subscribers!*
Great public lecture, very informative. Thanks a lot Fermilab👍
Awesome. An opportunity to hear the wonders of physics from the people doing the work. Thanks for this Fermilab.
This is brilliant. I am not well educated in either physics or maths (though I am trying...very trying) but this makes a lot of sense and it is explained in such a way that I really do think I have grasped the concept. I anyone reading comments takes pity on a weak soul like like me, please help me work out the units of of energy shown at 16:00. I get really confused with going from metres per second and kilograms to kilowatt--hours. Thank you.
0p
What a great lecture, his passion really comes across and he did a fantastic job helping a layman like me understand the surface level of what was going on. Thank you so much to everyone involved
"I Don't have Time to Discuss That"...
...everything i wanted to hear about.
You need 2 lecture versions:
1) People have never heard of...
2) People that want more clarity on...
I'm only a college graduate but I watch this stuff because its free and i like it.
Does antimatter "travel backwards in time" (mathematically)?
If the electron's magnetic moment were an actual current loop, I think the smallest it could be would be if all its charge were flowing through the loop at the speed of light.
I wonder if that size is smaller than that "largest electron size limit" threshold permitted by the limits of our current measurement capability...or if the accuracy of our measurements so far have already definitely disproven this possibility.
Well, way back when it was conjectured that the electron's magnetic moment was due to literal spin along with it's charge of coarse. Wolfgang Pauli shot this down determining that the electron would have to be spinning something like hundreds to a few thousands of times faster than the speed of light(I can't remember which) to generate the magnitude of the electron's magnetic moment; That's a no go. Extend this to your idea. Electrons are often stated as having no size, almost like singularities. They seem very small at high energy but in lower energies in atomic orbitals they become theoretically extended "clouds" of standing waves. This is where I think the QFT people would chime in: There are no particles only fields interacting... with their intrinsic properties.
This was great. Thank you for sharing.
Thank you for the video
Such a great teacher! Thank you!
He really is.. This is basic stuff but hes done a good job explaining
This is at best a junior high school level lecture; probably suited for the layperson or the green science fiction crowds. Has Fermilab returned to the kindergarten in the pandemic days?
Blasting math and technical jargon won’t attract future scientist.
@@astrophotographyenthusiast5273 agreed, but if you can't explain complex concepts and awaken the imagination then you have equally missed the mark. This is at best a poor show and tell. Lack of preparation is apparent.
"I don't have time for that"...
...just when it was getting interesting.
If ALL of these lectures are at naive level, how can people progress?
Even I have heard of Wheeler's one-electron idea.
...since it lead to QFT...
Feynman's Prof inspired that idea.
And Time Symmetry.
...Suprising.
I went to Northwestern. Loved it. The winter of 1977 was dreadfully cold on the lake. One day it was -75 degrees. Brrr
When I toured Northwestern some guys yelled from an upper window - "don't do it, $40,000 a year!" - hilarious.
@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 when I went it was only $4,000 a year lol. I couldn’t afford to send my own kids there when I took them years later. It was $20,000 a year then. And I was a physician. My kids were, to state it bluntly, the wrong color to qualify fir a scholarship.
scientists are excited in proving themselves wrong - this should be an example to follow..
Space is not empty, hydrogen coherence backbones bind, resembling a vacuum but are the complete opposite.. induction is charge capacitance, cold contracts, heat expands, polar fields are based on cavitation, induction creates static polarization.
Thank you! I really enjoyed your lecture
Thanks for the great presentation.
Do NOT bring up unnecessary garbage like entertainment (Star Trek).
Entertainers never do hard work like science research.
But HUGE praise to Dr Gabrielse at the end for emphasizing the fact of the BB and AGW.
Popular media is a good way to relate to the public. It's not like he was using Star Trek to explain anything. He used it as a way to relate a term people know (anti-matter) to the actual scientific concept by bringing up the place where many people probably know of the term from.
How does propogation of electric field and magnetic field bring about light wave / photon particle?
Brian Josephson does qigong at Cambridge - his Josephson Junction is the basis of the SQUID.
Thank you for sharing this with us
When the matter and anti-matter particle meet and destroy each other, are any particles released such as photons?
11:46 Given it's so hard to distinguish antimatter, how do we know that relatively isolated parts of the universe aren't made of antimatter? For example isolated galaxies, or the diffuse matter in the gaps between the cosmic network.
Thats a genuinely great question. 😂
If they are identical wouldnt we be able to see this throughout the universe? ;)
Thanks, guys. Great video!👍💖
Do black holes distinguish between matter and antimatter?
Also, are there anti photons?
dark photons
antimatter interacts with gravity just like matter, so black holes (just like anything with mass) with 'attract' antimatter all the same
the photon has a charge of 0, as negative 0 and positive 0 are the same, so is antimatter of photon is a photon
@@eyle6839 There is more to a particle than its electric charge. Neutrinos also have a charge of zero and yet an anti-neutrino is not a neutrino. So in short, your conclusion is right (anti-photon is photon) but the explanation is misleading :)
31:03 What mean "Electron, if it has no size". Is Electron not a physical particle?
@@froop2393 - so the mass of electron is not real mass, but imaginary mass for its charge? Can we say that?
@@froop2393 - interesting. Official literature say, electron have mass. Most probably this official claim is wrong.
I think it will be the weak force as the difference to the standard model due to the time asymmetry.
Would the anti-Gabrielse annihilate the regular matter Gabrielse if they met? Regular matter objects, and presumably antimatter objects, when they meet don't pass through each other (i.e., bounce) because of the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Since the Exclusion Principle doesn't apply to matter/antimatter, if it did they couldn't meet to annihilate, anti-Gabrielse and Gabrielse could pass through each other. So annihilation comes down to the probability of the electrons and anti-electrons, and the protons and anti-protons, colliding. Since the volume of the particles is extremely small compared to the volume of Gabrielse (no offence), the probability of annihilations would be very small, and probably unnoticeable.
Are antimatter hydrogen atoms made from pre-existing normal matter quarks? Where do the "anti-quarks" come from if it is known that quarks cannot exist independently?
Love this. You guys don't get enough praise.
But does a particle ever annihilate with anything other than its own anti-particle? Why don’t we think anti-matter has anti-mass? What is the special quality that leads to annihilation? Especially if the only thing an electron annihilates with is a positron..What does an anti-muon annihilate with? With such a infinitesimally small amount of antimatter ever produced, I don’t think we know jack about antimatter. But maybe it is identical in every other way... but why does it even exist? To satisfy Dirac’s formula and radioactivity?
What is the symmetry nature of the universe? Let begin with the macro cosmos symmetry: We know that some clusters in some larger galaxies are symmetrically situated in the planes parallel to the equatorial plane of the galaxy, but some another formations such as solar system for example hasn’t symmetrically situated planets or moons of the planets, where never the least exist planets for example Jupiter and Saturn with clear visible symmetrical belts. In the micro cosmos we can register particles such as protons, electrons and other strong interacting particles which strictly observe symmetrically localization such as space position and interaction, but another particles or processes lost this symmetry and we call them weak interactions where the symmetry observe in far low level or doesn’t observe at all. We know also that some energy resonances (dispersing resonances) have inside symmetry similar to the planets Jupiter and Saturn symmetrical belts, but on these resonances, where obviously belong the bosons (because we can’t and never measure whether these particles possess momentum and therefore mass in repose, or don’t), there the symmetry comes from the complex phases on higher level of main quantum number. Why it is so and what force makes this phenomenon? From the multitude experiments we know that symmetry stay somehow above the huge range of particles, galaxies stars and so on, then from where and how comes this phenomenon called symmetry? The answer is very simple: The symmetry comes from the essence of field formation and it is field property pushing into the masses behavior (particles, galaxies and so on).
On pages 55, 56, 57 USM www.kanevuniverse.com is shown the essence of polarization of the space and the equation of that, which is universally about the all stable fields: gravitational, electromagnetic and nuclear and explain in very simple and convincing way behavior of strong and weak interactions. In particular it is explains the belts of Jupiter and Saturn and their approximately sizes.
Why this mathematically formalism describing symmetry preservation in Brian’s lecture is unfit for physical application? Because any phenomenon actually does represent all generalize coordinates dynamical depending actions and there is no way to examine particular process (for example one dimension rotation) without to take into account the dynamical dependences by the rest of “dynamical world”! Which means: Where is the energy of engine rotating the object which symmetry we observe?
Is it possible to exist constant velocity if we haven’t had or haven’t acceleration? Of course the answer is not it is impossible: V=dV/dt.dt=a.dt So if absent (a) there absent (V) as well! That is why I always said that special relativity can apply only in absolute or empty space which obviously cannot exist because of contradiction to basic physical laws. Simply if we assert that such space does exist then we must to see this and therefore we are already there and obviously this space is no longer empty or absolutely!
Now about “simultaneously” in case of inter movement of two observers. The delusion here is again that we are accepting velocity of light which hasn’t depending by the medium and its movement which means that light hasn’t dynamically interaction with the matter because there is accepted that the empty space is equal to the vacuum! But vacuum obviously is not empty space because the contrary will contradict to the shown above equation and therefore to the basic physical law!The same is in force about so called Higgs boson because in empty space where we haven’t accelerations we haven’t the energy as well!
According to the concept of big bang the Higgs field is purely energy without any masses (masses don’t exist yet!) So if this field indeed exist then how we can measure such phenomenon if we haven’t masses and therefore accelerations and forces…. How we can know that such thing called Higgs boson indeed exist… So obviously this conception it isn’t fit with the fundamental rules of the physics and I wonder how such conception can define by the physicist? This is naïve view over the universe. Moreover according to USM www.kanevuniverse.com energy and masses always are hand with hand.. it is impossible to exist one of them without the other…. In such way the described problem is avoidable and this is the right physical direction!
Next let begin with the nature of particle-antiparticle. All what we know about this phenomenon is that antiparticle is mirror image of respectively particle, but what is the essence nature of this dualism particle antiparticle? The answer comes from the essence of the field and polarization of the space in accordance with the USM www.kanevuniverse.com part I. Let see also page 195 to 198 USM where is given convincingly explanation of the nature question of antiparticle, which in summarizing fashion is the following: Antiparticle it is particle escaping from its own polarization space to the contrary one so quickly that there it isn’t tame to reverse its kinematic parameters, which immediately follows by annihilation. It is obviously that some form of common existence even in some not proved as a physical medium fantasy like a black hole it isn’t possible. Let remember again what should to be the black hole conception according to general relativity: Never forget the definition of black hole according to general relativity and it is place in the space where nothing can escape and anything stream in! Sensible person immediately ask you..where all these come in like masses, energies and soon, and you cannot give him reasonable answer…… G.Kanev
Amazing all the best.
we do know electricity positive and negative forcess act like gravity? or am I wrong,
Poor audio. Where's the microphone?
Fav! Best! Coolest! Loved it!
Lots of slides with typos.
Waiting for a lecture from antimatter gabrielse 🤣
At the early Big Bang stage, wouldn't you need perfect mixing (high entropy) for both matter and antimatter to completely annihilate each other? Because this hasn't happened, mainly matter surviving agrees with the Past Hypothesis of low entropy at the beginning of the Universe. There must've been some asymmetry present at the beginning that left one type of matter abundant. Or we could just be in a bubble with matter, and bubbles of distant antimatter exist beyond the Observable Universe.
Anti-matter fields?
Excellent, I was looking into the oppositional attributes of particulates yesterday! Thank you for sharing!
Same
I'm searching for -energy you have some or know how to get it ;)
The Internet was not invented by CERN. Tim Berners-Lee invented World Wide Web while working at CERN - but that is just another protocol on the Internet.
Looks like I'm in luck. I just picked up a dozen chicks from Farm and Fleet. I'll post a video of the experiment.
"That was well before Kirk got his CPAP machine." I laughed wayyy too hard at that.
Might help to know more about how magnetism interacts with standard model.
Can someone please help, I'm looking out for anti trees 🌲... Has anyone seen one?
We all need to remain vigilant because we need all the trees that we have, last thing we need is disappearing tree's 🌲.
Is it possible we ARE antimatter? After all matter and antimatter are opposites but the names given are arbitrary.
Yes, it's all symmetric. None of them is more "anti" than the other. As you say, those names are arbitrary.
That was a picture of a Romulan ship, not a Klingon ship.
Have experimentalists made anti-magnetism?
lol
@@onnietalone3181 like a east-west magnetism?
The Nuuronmatter Intermediary
Couldn't have been any better so cool 🎉🔥🔥🔥❤️❤️
Terrible audio quality, great content. Ask Sean Carroll for tips on audio quality.
Very good!
here is his paper - thanks Towards an Improved Test of the Standard Model’s Most Precise Prediction
Thank you
bring don back.
a religious particle physicists now thats rare antimatter
Magnetism Squared = Energy;
Energy Squared = Mass;
Mass Squared = Magnetism; of New Magnitude
#EMBUnification
Inspired by Eric WeinStein's #GeometricUnity
Fractal Universe Baby
E^2=M
M^2=B
B^2=E'
🤘🏼spark picking.
I thought opposite charges attract ruclips.net/video/sXEtgMSOmDA/видео.html=44m, Wait is he talking about an opposite charged antimatter and matter particles, so the opposite applies?
So who added the word "other" to the title of the video? I think it was a bad decision.
21:15 dan brown's angels & demons and weapons
Fermilab. Smashing chickens since 1967.
Either talk about less, but explain more
OR
Talk more and explain nothing.
"I live in a State of Denial" well shucks, howdy from the State of Perpetual Confusion!
Olivier Costa de Beauregard disagrees about the "no negative time" claim because as per quantum mechanics he thinks Precognition is real. thanks
remember when someone dropped a screwdriver into the nuclear missile silo? oops!
i believe it was a wrench
...a LARGE wrench...
But hey, its Arkansas 💥🔥
Good Genial agur
I like how you admitted you don't really get to understand quantum mechanics, you just learn to accept it. Except you shouldn't accept illogic. When you're ready for a much better theory you can understand and use to eliminate illogic, rather than increase illogic, my unifying theory is for sale. Search keywords: matter theory marostica.
Pseudo science. You think little ole you has the answer for the largest problems in physics today yet you have zero understanding of basic physics and a "unifying theory" with zero peer review. Zero published works scientists can grapple with?
@@guywebster8018 You are completely ignorant of my theory, so your opinion about my understanding of physics has no basis in logic, and is just a pathetic attempt at abuse. Bye bye.
If only there was an anti-Kardashian.
Now is backwards inside out for one and not the other
A lot of resistance a little reluctance
Let's build a pyramid point down
The huge disparity between the presenters enthusiasm and the actual scientist answering the questions renders this almost unwatchable to me. Didn’t even have the decency to pretend to care🤷🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️
I subscribed to this channel because of Dr. Lincoln and all of the great episodes he did. THIS^ episode however?- huge downgrade to say the least.
We miss you Don😩 come back!
God his miking is awful. You need a closer microphone! Annoying to hear.
thumbs down for the c pap machine comment. bye.
time stamp?