A lot of people don’t understand that when we discover something that challenges current models, it’s EXCITING! The basic principle of the scientific method is that if your model doesn’t agree with observation, then there is something wrong with your model. To the average layperson this may seem like it’s bad for science, but that’s exactly what allows us to learn more about reality. Unexpected things mean we have more to learn. It is important to note, however, that a conflicting observation does not justify throwing out a model that works very well for many other things, it means that we must either modify our model to explain everything it already does and the new observation, or we must find a new model that does this as well.
yea but the problem is people assume things.....even the scientific Dr.s of today have fallen into the idea of consensus......consensus is anti-science by its very existence.....
Unexpected things mean we have more to learn. It is important to note, however, that a conflicting observation does not justify throwing out a model that works very well for many other things, it means that we must either modify our model to explain everything it already does and the new observation, or we must find a new model that does this as well. I agree with some of this, however I feel it is missing context....if the model works well for many other tings but not a few it is a common variable, not the rule.....thus, non scientific... this is a common problem now, mainly in the idea that we call theories facts...as recent as the 90s, you would have been laughed out of the room if you started calling a scientific theory fact....as 99% of today's "scientists" do... just because something is the same most of the time, does not make it the rule...you can drop a ball a million times, its not going to magically float upwards...thus gravity pulling something to the earth happens 100% of the time unless interfered with..That is a rule, not a theory...
Absolutely. Well put. My personal view is that it's perhaps beyond human comprehension. Its infinity in ALL scenarios and in all senses of the world. The Universe always is. It always has been, and it always shall be. There was no Big Bang. Except possibly from our perspective and our limits to understanding it all.
0:33 Chapter One: The Big Ring 3:28 Chapter Two: Batteries of the Future 7:57 Chapter Three: A Puzzling Black Hole 10:37 Chapter Four: A Cloning Breakthrough 13:20 Chapter Five: World's Smallest Robots
The funny thing is sometimes I see really positive responses to posts like this one and sometimes I'll see really nasty replies. Personally, I say thank you. Some topics just aren't very interesting to me so it's nice to know where to go!
...no, we just call them pseudo scientists. & conspiracy theories. Until say, lazer weapons are mentioned once or twice by a politician. Eventually being used nonchalantly in a conflict.
When you find evidence that disagrees with current models that *are repeatable* you can make scientific progress. Too many shady individuals bring out claims that go against current models, but either put out falsified data, or just say "trust me, bro."
Thats the plot of a movie called The Island starring ewan mcgregor. Its about a rich guy wanting to clone organs for other rich people but turns out he cant do it exactly how he thought he could
Cause it took months to collect slivers of light and create the composite photo we see. We simply could not collect and allocate enough light to see it until recently.
It's really, really difficult to fathom the size/scale/breadth/depth of the sky. It's one thing to stand in an open field or atop a hill/mountain and see all the huge sky around you and be like "damn, this would def take me a while to work through if I had to map all the stars I see at night." It's another thing entirely to then realize that for the further away you want to look, the field of focus narrows ever more so that, as an ass-pull numerical example, you go from being able to chart say, 1% of the sky at a time to 0.00000001% because you're basically taking a microscope to a distant section of space and even if you can pan the 'scope over, it's really hard to turn that into a cohesive image or map that connects.
I appreciate scientitsts who say, 'looks like we were wrong about xyz', and quickly adjust so they can enjoy and perpetuate the joy of discovery versus the so called scientits who are really modern day flat earthers who do everything they can to stop facts from seeing the light of day so that they can temporarily maintain false authority. Thank you!
You say 'modern day flat earthers' like there isn't a growing movement of modern actual, unironic Flat Earthers, lol. You're welcome for ruining or making your evening depending on how you take this news.
pretty ironic to say "modern day flatearthers" considering they're a modern occurrence. the ancient world didn't believed the earth was flat, we're just evolving backwards
Flat Earthers don't actually believe the World is flat, they just troll people who treat science as a religion. They target people who treat theories as facts and get upset if anyone questions popular theories...even though skepticism is the main principle of science. So they do the same exact thing mapmakers have been doing for thousands of years and then troll the living Hell out of the people who get upset over it
(Sigh) Bees are not in danger. The supposed problem of Sudden Colony Colapse is not a new issue, they simply gave what Bee keepers have known about for hundreds or thousands of years a scary name. It is a common thing YEARLY.
Agreed, but its nice to have a reliable backup should something go wrong. Also bees don't do well in environments that they aren't accustomed to, such as space or another planet, but the plants themselves might be perfectly happy in. These robots would allow us to pollinate the plants in these environments with much less fuss than trying to acclimatize or genetically modify Bees to do the same thing.
@@rebeccarakuza2845 Not sure what you mean by naturally cloned. They come from sexual reproduction. Each tadpole is genetically unique, though there are some interesting metholization going on from various environmental inputs. There are some differences in the egg vs amniotes which makes it easier to modify... hence the use of tadpoles. Care to elaborate on natural cloning. I feel like I am missing something here that would make it make sense if I knew it.
As an individual with a B.S in the sciences (not even close to the biggest brain and am not about to claim so), I always appreciate new information coming out to challenge current hypothesis and theories. I have gotten very tired of scientists, who have been trained far better, coming out and stating hypotheses and theories as “fact”. They are not. These are simply the best answers we have come up with this far, and could be disproven tomorrow. The people who make these statements are standing on the shoulders of giants and acting like they are giants themselves. Not a fan of that behavior.
Very few scientific theories have ever been disproven. Scientific theory is as close fact as science gets because as you just said "it COULD" be disproven. Scientists don't like being wrong so leaving that .01% chance as a scapegoat has always looked good. That being said I agree with the hypotheses statement completely, far to many people of science and even far more with literally no background or even an interest spew hypotheses as theory and claim it fact because they saw it online once.
@@This1TimeAtBandCamp1 I must, respectfully, disagree. A theory is an hypothesis which has not yet been disproven. There are very few accepted scientific laws. Gravity comes to mind. As time passes and learning grows I firmly believe many theories will be disproven and a good number of hypotheses will be proven. That said, and I think this is where we agree, many, many times untested hypothesis are put forth as theories. Which is both factually and scientifically inaccurate and leads to a false sense of confidence in VERY fringe ideas.
What's the newest? I haven't seen a brand new channel from him in over a year and a half, from what I remember, anyways. This channel, for example, was founded in 2020. Also, he's no longer a part of 3 of the channels, I believe. The actual owners of the channels forced him out and now their views are a lot lower than when he was hosting them.
Newest, if memory serves, is Places. Less than a year old. And the daughter of the founder of Geographics, one of the aforementioned previous channels Fact Boi worked with has made a public statement on that channel saying she and others handled things badly.
That is actually bad for a channels watch time. As it expects for example 20 minutes but if you speed it up it only registers 10 minutes so it looks like you clicked off after 10 minutes. RU-vid should really fix that so it still registers as a whole view.
I would love to hear more detail on the statement that "the production of electric vehicles is more polluting" than using an internal combustion engine. Is there a break-even point based on the life of the vehicle. I find the unintended consequences of "green" technology fascinating and important to know.
Yes it's something like, producing a new small electric vehicle (all of the energy, mining, resources, etc required) uses about the same amount of resources as producing a large diesel pickup. This is partially due to the battery materials and manufacturing. If someone is looking to buy a car to commute in, they may look at a Model 3 or a Honda Accord. The Model 3 required more resources to manufacture initially than the Accord, so that is why they say producing electric vehicles is more polluting than a normal ICE. But over time, the Model 3 uses less energy and creates less pollutants to drive around than the Accord, so at some point, maybe 100,000 miles, the Model 3 will make up for its 'original sin' of being electric, and actually start to be better for the earth than the Accord. This is assuming you aren't charging the Model 3 with incinerated Spotted Owl corpses, or whatnot. Then there is also the case of keeping existing cars on the road for as long as possible. They may be slightly more polluting than a brand new car or EV on a daily basis, but I wonder how long it takes a new car to make up for the fact that it had to be made at all, because someone didn't take care of their old car, or just callously discarded it so they could have the newest, shiniest thing?
Yeah I was also disappointed with the gloss over the green energy section, it's true that fossil fuel production does create arsenic as well, in Torry-math-theory-class, oil and gas doesn't ever leak or spill but in practice it spills quite a bit, I was disappointed they glossed over how lithium can be recycled, and theoretically our markets will eventually have enough lithium to be able to sustain future demand on recycled past lithium, it's also an impugnment of the lazy/dirty mining processes in general and nothing inherent about clean energy. Also disappointed to see no mention of how sugar-doped lithium batteries are up to 10x as powerful, basically all the way up to a pure sugar battery being more than 10x as powerful as lithium ion, we can get sugar from any crop, not just "sugarcane" but any plant with DNA (ahem- any plant) will compost down and break down into its basic sugars which can be harvested for batteries. We can also make plastic from compost so we can get basically perfect batteries from compost but no one's talking about it or imagining that even so we're still stuck wringing our hands about whether it's a good move to buy a prius or an EV, when ultimately it's about sending a message to auto producers that these models are the future, I never understood the idea of saying hey company X has bad mining practices so we better give up on clean energy, sounds like some excellent oil and gas propaganda to me this video
Little facts: charging AND discharging wastes 5-15% of energy for EACH cycle. Lithium reacts violently with water If the EV car catches fire, you have about 7 seconds to jump out or turn into a 0smoke Fire cannot be stopped until the batteries have burned Currently 1lbs of gas hold the same energy as the 13lbs of the best Tesla batteries. This translates: you WILL hauls 1200 lbs of batteries instead of 100lbs of gas and it get ridiculous with trucks: 12.000 lbs of batteries will get you a small percentage the diesel range in the unfavorable conditions, which do NOT affect diesel much: cold or hot. Read about the Canadian experience with the public transport. The companies offering EV trucks have REAL ranges somewhere down in fine print and now claim the trucks are ONLY for a local transport. NO fresh strawberries from Florida in Chicago in around one day. VIABLE tech takes over WITHOUT ABSOLUTELY INSANE amounts of subsidies. ZERO carbon tax, that is killing the energy sector have given us the tech of today. TWO THIRDS of the companies are relocating from the "Green" Germany abroad. ETC ETC
Why are you copying and pasting another persons comment? They posted this exact same comment a pretty good while before you did. Trying to steal likes? Or did you just not see it?
@@BackYardScience2000 As @AltonV pointed out, and something that was easy enough to see, if the OP had "copy/pasted" the other comment then they also took the time to change the timestamps and even the wording.
@@danidavis7912 I totally have to disagree , most emphatically ! When I landed in Sydney in '91, I went to a King's Cross bottle store and asked for a dozen of the most popular beer, he gave me VB. When I tasted it, I though it was like soapy water. Compared to nearly all other beers, it is SERIOUSLY under hopped, bland, vague neither crisp, or malty or even biscuit like, it's more like something between a womens legs.
You can get it walkin' You can get it talkin'! YOU CAN GET IT WORKIN' A PLOUGH! Matter o' fact I've got it now! Vaginal Backwash, for a hard earned thirst.
Thanks for a great video. And if you want tor widen your audience you could dial down the background music to make it easier for old-timers like me to filter the speech from the background :D
@@DJPhukk RPGs don't have a lifetime's worth of information for you to discover packed into something too small for the human eye to see. They get very repetitive very quickly. It is literally impossible for the human brain to comprehend the amount of stuff that makes up existence, let alone learn everything about everything in a single human life. Pick something you're interested in and have at it.
My favorite recent discovery was evidence for the fusion of elements inside water vacuum bubble collapses. It is absolutely fascinating. It totally rewrites most of what we understand to be about the formation of elements in our galaxy, human history, radiometric dating, and much more. It also opens up modern alchemy as a legitimate science based specialty, lol. All around super cool.
No you're wrong, I know it sounds seducing, but there's sadly no magic in the world, only energy transfer. If you want to turn tomato sauce into gold, you'll have to spend A LOT of energy, whatever "water vacuum bubble collapse" some dude on youtube sold you :(
The problem with cloning is that the DNA used from say, a 10 year old sheep, already has 10 years worth of DNA degradation and mutation. So the cloned sheep essentially starts life 10 years old, shortening its average lifespan.
5 месяцев назад
Literally everyone is watching this in the future.
Wait what is this? What am I looking at? Now, Sir. You're looking at now. Everything that is happening now is happening now. Well go back to then! We can't. Why? We passed it. When? Just now.
Don't worry, its only 5 years away...just like all the other zillion new battery techs. 😉 It is encouraging though that there have been so many battery breakthroughs recently. Perhaps there really WILL be a new battery in 5 to 10 years.
The fact that human beings think we understand everything about the universe when there are still things on earth that still cant be explained astounds me honestly
@@stevenhorstgeorg5728 I'm just basing the statement off of the fact that there are a lot of scientific studies that attempt to make sense of phenomena in the universe that do not occur natively to this planet and most of the information is just working theories that are accepted because nobody else refute them lol
Load of horseshit. The essence of science is that knowledge is only based on experiment. We know vastly less than we do know. The universe is a wonder.
Tssss Tsssss Tssss Tssss Tough to listen to this on headphones. Is it me or does this channel Have the occasional audio issue? Love the content, curious about the audio problems.
Sibilant is the word you are looking for. Yes it can be mitigated, through some basic knowledge of audio engineering. He probably just hasn't bothered to deal with it.
Sibilance! I haven’t experimented with the audio, but there might be a specific frequency (or two) to which a notch filter (very narrow EQ curve) could be applied-thereby reducing that one frequency without diminishing the rest of the high end.
Simon says. our world is a wonderful place, with never-ending amazing features to astound, many yet to be found. Nothing about putting your hands on your head.. or anywhere else.
Brilliant. Thanks for covering scientific achievements of Chinese scientists as well. Most content creators seem to ignore what is happening in China, unless of course it's negative.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the Big Ring is 9.2 billions light-years away, doesn't that mean we see it now as it was 9.2 billion years ago? You know, speed of light and all that? And if that's the case, shouldn't the Upper Limit be even smaller than 1.2 billion light-years because, as I said, it was 4.x billion light-years in diameter 9.2 billion years ago? Doesn't that make it even more puzzling?
He doesn't write or research his material. He only reads it aloud from a script. That's how he makes a living - as a presenter of other people's material. Best wishes from Vermont 🍁
Astronomers have used the James Webb and Hubble space telescopes to confirm one of the most troubling conundrums in all of physics - that the universe appears to be expanding at bafflingly different speeds depending on where we look. This problem, known as the Hubble Tension, has the potential to alter or even upend cosmology altogether. In 2019, measurements by the Hubble Space Telescope confirmed the puzzle was real; in 2023, even more precise measurements from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) cemented the discrepancy. Now, a triple-check by both telescopes working together appears to have put the possibility of any measurement error to bed for good. The study, published February 6 in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, suggests that there may be something seriously wrong with our understanding of the universe.
And a new study, unpublished yet, but discussed at an event, looks at the same data and shows that there may not actually be a Hubble Tension at all and it could all just be an acculutated mistake in how the data is being processed.
I had heard that many space related theories are essentially just speculation (very little evidentiary data) and we should not be surprised if a number of them prove to be wildly inaccurate.
I don't think that it should be very surprising that we seriously misunderstand the universe. Evolution formed our senses of perception and other capabilities to assist us in surviving, not to enable us to understand the universe. In other words, we are woefully ill equiped to understand the universe. What I do find surprising is that we understand so much with the limited tools that are available to us. But then, on the other hand, our understanding may be a woefully strong form of anthropomorphism that has us way off in left field.
I haven’t watched one of these in a while. Usually I’d be up on most of this stuff. It’s really cool to see a bunch of new stuff I didn’t know about! Awesome. What’s Thought 2 up to these days?…
Jeez who have you been talking to lately about this? Find some new friends if they arrogantly talk about how much they know! And why quotes around know? That’s what the word is. It doesn’t mean anything else. It’s not a loose interpretation or something that’s not believable! Like oh of course a “god” did it!
One of the most profound quotes in movies came from none other than Men In Black 1. “Fifteen hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow”
Yaaaaaay, fun and potentially undepressing video ^_^ lol j/k Appreciate all the effort that goes into all the content you guys do. Merci! ~a random canadian subscriber dude
They should be literate and call it the One Ring: "One Ring to rule them all One ring to find them One ring to bring them all And in the Darkness, bind them. "
Simon!! I'm impressed!!!! Unlike americans, who ALWAYS manage to mispronounce place names in Australia, you were able to pronounce "Melbourne," as flawlessly as a local!!! Well done, Simon! I take back 20% of the things I've previously said about your pronunciation...
@@georgejones3526 You should hear him try to say the name "Charlemagne..." I've tried many times to tell him that his penchant for mispronunciation is most often caused by him either inserting letters into a word that don't belong there, or because he's failed to notice letters that ARE there. With Charlemagne, it's the latter. He INSISTS on calling the father of modern Europe "Sharmayne!"
He completely botched "lah-NEE-kah" supercluster, though. Hawai'ian language only has 1 way to pronounce each letter and a simple web search would have revealed the pronunciation as "lah-nee-ah-KAY-ah". They managed to misspell it in the graphic as well...
@@sidewinder814u because the universe is not infinite eternal or cyclical. It had a finite start and is finite in size. our most proven knowledge the spacetime theorems tell us this. any multiverse fantasy is also bound be requiring a finite start thus God is required.
@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep ...who also can't exist without a proto-god to create him. Its the same chicken-and-egg riddle that theologians and philosophers have been debating since time immemorial.
@@dustinarcher9034 How? You are redefining God to be subject to their own spacetime creation they already have mastery over. And at the very least must exist in dimensions superior to their creation if they do exist in time prior, all it takes is two dimensions of time a length and width to be uncreated.
Wow best video I've seen in a long time..... Keep the updates on our technological advancements coming please... Any and every update on our human knowledge or perception is crucial for us as a species... In the long run saving seconds days weeks in our growth of intelligence could and should make all the difference... Possibly even species saving potential
@@adamlee9461so? Why would that mean he can’t watch Simon? I hope the people closest to you are disgusted with, and hate you. I genuinely wish that you’re loved by no one in perpetuity, everywhere forever.
Ok,let’s assume for a second that the original hypothesis of the uppermost limit of a cosmic structure is correct and that the structures we are detecting appear to be massively larger than they should be, are known to be farther away than what we expected, and that gravity affects time by slowing it down. We include the fact that the space between galaxies is increasing relative to the size of said galaxies. Throw in that black holes are supposed to be matter crushed down to a singularity or close to it but appear massive . Let’s also go with the universe is what, 4.5 billion years old but a bunch of things we see contradicts that in an expanding universe. Keep in mind that the universe expanding is an assumption based on the distance between galaxies increasing. Why wouldn’t it make more since that every particle in the universe is shrinking and the impossibility large cosmic structures we see are only what they use to be when every single particle in he universe was larger and closer together relative to there size. Why are you so blind to the idea that we are shrinking? Prove me wrong. Prove not theorize because you can’t. Except it as a possibility reason.
Now, your "Big Ring" expanding spherical wave front is what does happen after an explosion. However, an explosion only expanding in two dimensions is another thing altogether.
Perhaps our error is in imagining one universe with 1 Big Bang, instead of a collage of universes (redefining multiverse theory somewhat) with a cluster of Smaller Bangs (more miniature creation events), thus leading to smaller actual "universes" (meaning that each of these superclusters ought to be reimagined as a mini-universe, with it's own creation event).
The analogy you used comparing the black hole to a little boy that looks like a grown man reminds me of the Robin Williams movie 'Jack'. It's like a 'Jack' hole.
The water thing is dumbed down.. a lot. Saline solutions have ALWAYS been good electrical conductors.. you just run into the problem that is also really good at rusting damn near everything that conducts the electrical charge. The breakthrough was more along the lines of finding a way to make the rusting either not happen, or in a way that doesn't interrupt the flow of electricity. Calcium does the same thing, it coats surfaces then prevents the flow of electricity. The discovery was more about the materials/techniques that allow water to be used effectively.
@@SeraphRyanindeed. In fact the power source of the Nautilus in the book 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is said to be aluminum that produces electricity via the salt in the sea water. So it’s not like the idea hasn’t been out there a while.
Sadly, Afghanistan has a ton of lithium and other metals that science is interested in, so we can expect continued combat (at some level) so various countries can aquire it. Ugh.
I believe there are two main problems with lithium: The first is that extracting it is cumbersome, and as stated in the video, causes some pretty massive negative repercussions for the environment. While we likely have more on Earth total, than we can use *currently*, most of it is inaccessible. This puts a huge limit on how much we can actually utilize in manufacturing. Second, lithium is one of the least abundant elements overall, and more lithium can't be produced. There is currently no known process to manufacture lithium, so the amount we have is the *total* amount we will ever have. So while we might have more than enough for our needs at present, if we ever try to massively scale up our usage of the element, we could easily hit a permanent limit.
@@AeriFyrein Lithium is the 25th most abundant element on Earth, there is more than we could ever use. But like I've said, it can be quite labor-intensive to extract. That is because it's usually in fairly low concentration. But they are developing new techniques for extraction that are much better. There are probably better battery chemistries coming up, but we are not gonna run out of lithium no matter how much we need. Lithium is kind of like aluminum: it's incredibly plentiful, but it requires a lot of energy to refine. That's why aluminum and lithium are both great candidates for recycling, and lithium that is extracted from dead batteries can be used again, nothing about it is depleted from use, it's a good as new.
I believe lithium will eventually go out favor for most uses except perhaps air travel and high performance applications. In those cases, high cost and the requirement for other expensive metals in the batteries like nickel, and cycle life downsides will remain worth it. But for just about everything else, cheaper tech like sodium ion will likely take over.
It isn't failsafes. It more has to do with how the earliest organisms reproduced that way, but as we got more complicated, we started doing it in other ways, which are not really compatible with cloning. Basically just billions of years of evolution moving us away from that, making it very hard to get it to work now.
I love when astrologers, scientists, and evolutionists claim to know how the universe works exactly and that anybody who claims a different theory than them is wrong; only for them to collect more data and information that completely shatters and upends what they previously thought(and sometimes prove past "theories" correct all along or at the very least make them seem more plausible).
This is VERY cool. The batteries alone are worth their own video. Will definitely be checking more of these out! One thing though: You talk SO FAST. 😅 I had to put it on .75 speed!
*II. Artificial Gravity Generation:* - Rotating drum or cylinder with a magnetic water or red mercury lining - Diameter: 20 meters - Length: 50 meters - Rotation speed: 2-3 rpm - Centrifugal force created by the rotating drum will simulate gravity - Magnetic field generator will enhance the gravitational effect *III. Spacecraft Design:* - Spherical or cylindrical shape to minimize mass and maximize volume - Water tank and circulation system integrated into the spacecraft's structure - Rotating drum or cylinder placed at the center of the spacecraft - Radiation shielding and protection from cosmic rays *IV. Magnetic Water or Red Mercury:* - Magnetic water or red mercury will be used to enhance the gravitational effect - These materials will be used to line the rotating drum or cylinder *I. Propulsion System:* - Water-based implosion engine (utilizing vortex dynamics principles) - Water intake and purification system - Implosion chamber with magnetic field generator - Thrust vectoring system - Magnetic field generator to create a rotating magnetic field - Water tank and circulation system
