I believe that the temperature of the universe has a huge part to play in gravity and how electromagnetic waves conduct themselves. Watch the video in the link below, that metals superconducting temp is 92 Kelvin and the universe is 2.73 Kelvin imagine the superconducting properties of the ozone being cooled to 2.73 Kelvin that's probs why we don't get alot of radiation from the sun and why certain WIMP particles will never be found passing through our planet! Id like to ask Neil about this ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-JIjzJKnpahA.html
Joe's hair follicles are more sensitive to the effects of gravity, it pulls the hair towards earth, thus preventing it from growing upwards out of his head...
Yes but not in a phylosophical way, science asks why to the unexplained facts presented by physics, why can we usually see a spectrum of seven colors? Why can we see colors? Why did this apple fall on my head? And to those common sense facts we get explanations, because the material has properties that absorb part of the white light it gets, but not all, because the reflection of the light in the objects can reach our eyes and so we see it (I haven't studied science in a while, so sorry if this explanation is a little blurry), because there was a force called gravity that was acting on the apple, those why's are scientific why's, but if you ask, why are there colors, why is there gravity, that is more of a job for phylosophy, and you will end up asking why is there life, and will know nothing It's just the way things are, that's what I usually go with
he answered question 3 times , from the first one it was obvious what he was talking about , yet you expected him to say what? that he doesn't know answer on question no one can , at least now .
Its hard to watch somebody i held in such high regard act like a that. Its like he took something before hand that ended up effectinf his mood hes normally arrogant, but not rude like that
He answered the question though, by saying that Gravity is the curvature of space and time. He said "I don't know" when he got asked "why is gravity the curvature of space and time?" Which is basically the same as being asked "why is gravity gravity?". The first question was "what really is gravity?". And Neil answered. And then he basically got asked "why is reality this way and not another way?". I think the confusion derived from the fact that the concept of gravity is hard to understand: it is a curvature sure, the same as a ramp at a skateboard park, but you cannot perceive it. You can't see it. Cuz it's in 4D, per say. But just because you can't picture it in your head, doesn't mean you don't know what it is. Neil knows cause it's his field, many people didn't really understand it I think.
@@TrevorAndSky Neil did not give a sufficient answer for Joe and for many people. It was very frustrating to view this clip as Neil continuously talked about the fact that we know 'enough' about gravity to get us to land on Mars for example. Neil did not explain what is the accepted theory in physics at the moment about how particles get their mass to create the curvature of space time. He just rambled about how what we know is enough and that is not an acceptable answer for a physicist. Neil showed his bad side with this podcast.
Actually he said it at the top of when he started talking he said "we don't know why gravity works we know we are limited to it's properties." It's better to keep asking how questions than why questions
I think Neil was getting somewhat agitated because he kept trying to explain that at some point the "why" question is irrelevant. But I'm not sure why Neil feels that way. Who knows what could come out of an even deeper understanding of why/how gravity bends spacetime. Especially if we somehow figure out how to reverse it counteract it. This could be huge for future space travel, no? Wasn't that the whole plot to Interstellar?
@@Wizznilliam yes, some scientists still question the validity of gravity, it doesnt make sense completely in some pieces. What Neil did here is he is closing the conversation on the theory of gravity, if I recall correctly, this is not how the scientific method works. Infact this is very detrimental to it. This is similar to the God argument religious people use. Its a real shame. I also think Joe made a brilliant counter argument agains neils analogy between hair follicles and gravity, which simply was "we know a lot more about hair follicles than we know gravity" (thus its ok to dig deeper and ask more questions).
Based on tone of voice Joe seemed way more agitated than DeGrasse and I don't particularly care for him normally, but in this convo Joe irked me. DeGrasse was right in that we understand gravity to a fine enough degree to land interplanetary shit. People still by and large go bald if their genes say so ..which thing is manipulated to a greater degree by humanity then?
@Al Garnier Neil was condescending in many parts. Neil might have been genuinely trying to help, but that just means he's a genuine asshole. Just because "Why" isnt obtainable through science, dosen't mean its not something you can't ask a scientist... he didnt have to answer as a scientist... and then he went on to make the worst point he could, which is "good enough" science. We understand it good enough and the things we don't know aren't important... i hope i dont need to explain why its bad for a scientist to say that
@@warpath8453 you don't understand what neil was saying... neil is saying there is an Infinite philisplophical never ending ever receding asking of "Why" like a child you can keep asking why til the end of the universe. It matter what "Why" you are satified with... Purpose is spiritual or theological which has NOTHING to do with science. You find meaning on your own, but in the mean time we will keep discovering HOW things happen in our universe. He is NOT saying to stop dicovery... he is saying we can eventually discover the true reason WHY life exists... and you will still have people... asking why.... there has to be a point of satisfaction with why so you can move on and KEEP DISCOVERING
@@warpath8453 who said you cant obtain why from science? The fuck? Science answers why all the time. But science cant stop people from asking why again.
I liked this one more. 5:44 . It was hilarious to see Neil's face. Genuinely not knowing the answer and then deferring to Einstein's definition which is not even a definition but a description of a framework.
WHY is the force that causes intelligent people to question things! Why do the planets do this instead of that is what caused Copernicus and Kepler to question the motion of the planets.
This is a scary question to the physicist community as it exposes their lack of basic understanding and shows they rely massively on Einsteins laws but have no idea why hehe.. oh well that's mainstream for ya
Tyson is just frustrated by religious dogma. He's had enough of it. Religious people are claiming to have made the greatest scientific discovery of all time, that there is a God and what the properties and characteristics of this God are. Such a discovery would be the greatest scientific discovery of all time. The problem with the religious people is that they are making this claim without sufficient evidence to support it.
When will people comprehend that entire science is just a human's honest response to their own incompetence to fully comprehend the true nature of Nature?
In other interviews he was asked the same question.., and laughingly said he didn't know. The only "why" that troubles me is "why" was NDT so triggered
Lmao! Dude, Joe was over it. He kept interrupting Joe, so I image Joe just bowed out. Like, "dude, why are you preaching right now? I'm TRYING to have a conversation."
Neil gets a bit edgy any time someone pursues a line of questioning he feels he adequately answered, and Joe doesn`t let shit go if he`s not satisfied with the answers, but I don`t think they`re all like "fuuuuuuuuuckyoooooooo BUDDY!" lol
@@afrog2666 The thing is NDT does not get edgy when someone pursues yadda yadda. He gets edgy here specifically, because while he adequately explained multiple times, Joe tries to present it as if he is avoiding to answer. NDT again explains that he has answered, that we do know what gravity is, we just don't know the philosophical "why". Joe basically keeps asking rabbit hole questions, which don't lead to a what, but basically to a "why", and he does not even understand that he is doing that. This is what is frustrating about it to NDT, and I fully sympathize with him.
@@orestispalampougioukis6043 he is edgy, because he's a scientist first and foremost. If he feels questions are superfluous, he will probably be quick to say so. Nevertheless, we are limited in understandings of many things, and this can frustrate us, and NDT is no different. Also, theological questions are not often welcomed by scientists, which "why" could hint at, and in that case is fundamentally different to "how".
The interview in few words. Joe: What is gravity? Niel: A curve in space and time. Joe: Why? Niel: You are bald. Joe: I remind you that I go to the gym regularly. Well, that escalated quickly
My dad's a physicist. He always says: "how" is for scientists, "why" is for philosophers. Maybe I'm just used to it, but... it sounds about right to me.
Alex San Lyra nope science answers both once both can be answered and philosophers do nothing except push the scientist to answer both of these questions furthers
Alex San Lyra a biologist with a disdain for people who have to answer everything with a story about how it had to be created. Also I was just being tongue in cheek.
Neil was way more interested in letting Joe know that he's intelligent than anything Joe was trying to have a conversation about lol then when Neil got called out, it was a slippery slope of him being defensive as hell the rest of the way lol
Yes, Spooky Action at a Distance was an Einsteinian quote but the concept of action at a distance was a very big and defining limit to Newtons descriptions of Gravity. Newton didn't have the concept of "space-time" being a fabric, he thought of space as a vacuum only, so he wrestled with and failed to answer a mechanism for gravity, he could only make predictions of how it would manifest. He couldn't think of a way for two objects that aren't sharing a medium of something else to affect one another, to him it was action at a distance. What NDT was clumsily trying to say was that when Einstein described the concept of "space/time' and that Mass and energy can curve it, we no longer needed a concept of action at a distance for gravity, we had a medium, it was space/time itself.
@@launchsquid wow. Well said. So when Einstein used the " spooky action at a distance" line, was he actually incorporating Newton's "action at a distance " line in order to throw shade at Niels Bohr's quantum physics thesis?
@@blindspotspotter.2352 Einstein famously thought Quantum entanglement was impossible. He believed the universe to followed the principle of locality and that quantum entanglement broke that principal. Einstein rejected the older alternative of action at a distance, such as Newton had invoked when he tried to explain how he saw gravity influencing objects that were unconnected and in a vacuum with no interconnecting medium. Einstein later showed the warping of spacetime was the mechanism for gravity and the connecting medium between celestial objects was spacetime itself. Because Einstein believed any particle or energy state could only be influenced by another particle or energy that is causally linked to it he rejected the notion that action at a distance was a thing. Quantum entanglement allows for two particles to influence one another over infinite distances instantaneously, despite no obvious causal link, so Einstein dubbed it spooky action at a distance as a way to deride it.
Well imagine being as intelligent as NDT and trying to explain that concept to Joe "I know, but I dont know..." Rogan. I mean even if you've ever tried to teach someone whose new on a job it can be infuriating. Somehow at 60 years old Joe is still new on life and needs a lot of this stuff explained to him lol.
@@OurBlackFriend Joe isn't any different than all humans asking for answers. Neil is in a "greater" position to provide a little more insight however on the grand scale even tyson doesn't have the ability to propel our knowledge of anything more vast than 11% of our unlocked brain. For example how to worm holes work in the universe? why haven't we found a way to live too 170 years old? Why has climate change been on the four front lately when for billions of years volcanos erupting gives off far more carbon damage than anything humans have done in our small real 400 years of industrial earth damage
Alex Stoll I enjoy teaching new people on the job and I also enjoy learning and asking why. Maybe you’re just an asshole. Get off that pedestal you’ve put yourself on.
Funnily enough Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman once had almost the exact same conversation in an interview, except he was asked about magnetism. (You can easily find that on youtube by searching "Richard Feynman. Why.") He also struggeled a bit to explain how a physicist views this sort of question. But in my opinion the most helpful quote from that interview was: "When you are explaining a Why, you have to be in some framework that you allow something to be true. Otherwhise you are perpetually asking why."
I dont think Neil was defensive. He just thinks like a scientist and doesn't go much further than that with gravity. Gravity to me, is related more closely to the miracle of life itself than the math that gets you into a crater in Mars. We are a long ways from understanding the why of why there is life and things like gravity that seem to be present and factors that allow for life.
Shane O Mac theres no reason to ask why to an established objective truth; just as court cases where you don't prove or disprove agreed facts among parties. The "whys" that are asked for the sole puropose of generating controversy have to be shut down; because that's how you get to flat earth, holocaust denial, space is fake, etc. there isn't any need to have more imbeciles than those that already exist.
@@tefosemanate9514 Yea well, Neils flowery poetry shit & insisting on not asking why just reinforced all of those imbeciles! I've had elementary school teachers that could have given a more satisfactory conclusion.
t@XY ZW Is it really true that Relativity is unproven garbage? Apparently the GPS wouldn't work properly without accounting for the Mathematics of Relativity. I know that you can do Space Travel without Relativity but simply with Newton but GPS I have heard relies heavily on General Relativity. Or have I heard wrong?
Knowing how something works gives us the ability to exploit it for our benefit. Knowing why something works teaches us how not just to simulate something, but to truly recreate it and to manipulate it in ways we have yet to even imagine.
I don't believe Neil was implying stop asking questions rather lets continue our purpose to see gravity work on a scale we have yet to figure out. It's like having a math question and we all know 1+1=2 and someone standing up with why is 1+1=2. The answer is given so shouldn't we move onto other math equations just as gravity needs to be explored more then just asking the same why question in different context. :)
Science has painted itself into several corners. This is why the number of breakthroughs and discoveries has slowed to a trickle. Gravity is very important to one of them: Dark Matter. 25 years of searching for the stuff and not even a whiff to show for it. Cosmologists are getting very defensive that their knowledge of gravity is complete and perfect. If they admitted that their knowledge is incomplete, the funding might dry up...
I think what he was trying to say is that even though there's no scientific explanation for why the laws of physics seem to be so arbitrary, you don't necessarily have to know the why in order to understand the other things that depend on them. Kind of like back before people could go around the world to prove that it's round, the ancient Greeks could still calculate the circumference of the earth using just the sun and trigonometry. It's just the way he said it made him seem like a dick for no reason
This why we needed Eddie on so he could of quickly said... oh I get it so gravity is like fatness the more you eat your belly starts to curve like the Earth... allegedly 😉 Ndt-😠😵
I feel like finding out what property of matter causes it to bend space is a good direction to head in order to find the unifying theory between relativity and quantum mechanics. And may lead to discoveries we didn’t know we were looking for. And Joe Rogan, despite my recent disagreements with him, is a genius at intern.
I think neil really changed how a lot of people view him lately with just a few podcast you could really see a bad side of him that I personally didn't see before.
@@ALEXANDERATTACK he wasn't getting defensive though. You people don't understand the answer "we don't know why" if it isn't framed that way. 🤦🏻♂️ Which he also said we don't know why. Everyone is so defensive when they aren't as smart as they thought
Gravity is real, we can measure it. We experience it, we can see it happen. Why it happens is unknown, but gravity is a very real tangible thing. The way you phrased this makes it seem like you don’t believe in gravity, is that what you are implying?
Neil's energy this entire podcast was weirdly uncomfortable to watch. Noticeably different from what we've seen of him over the years. Joe felt it, handled it well
I think he was nervous because he was wondering the whole time if Joe was going to bring up anything about the sexual harassment incident that happened.
YTglobersan Globersan hope not, idk why joe has to choose to oppose guests sometimes. Once he’s decided nothing can change his mind. Why argue with a specialist ya know? Generally joe asks questions and enjoys learning but he isn’t that open minded when it comes to science.
@@hellotheir1427 If you cant explain the basics of gravity to someone then you dont understand it. Thats why questions get asked. You explain the basics and if they want to know more they will prompt you to go more in depth by asking questions. Gravity is a force that pulls all bodies with mass together. Boom, gravity explained. It is explained at a basic level but if they want to know more they prompt with questions
Ninpeg This podcast isn't an education video. Neil didn't get invited by Joe so he can get explained in detail about the laws of physics. He got invited to advertise his book and have a high-level conversation about physics.
NdT has said a few scientific things that were actually terrifically inaccurate during his career, and you are correct about what Einstein said about Quantum Entanglement. Newton did refer to gravity as an "action (a force) at a distance" and it is quite a curious force because we don't know how it works fundamentally despite being able to predict how it will affect bodies in our Universe. I think we can give him a pass on this one because he might have been drinking or smoking with Joe prior to the broadcast...
Newtob said " action at a distance" and that's what neil said when he was referring to gravity listen closely ppl he didn't say "spooky action at a distance"
I think when Joe kept asking why, that's a very common question religitards ask when they are trying to say that behind it all stands God. It's an argument they always use, and from videos I've seen of Neil they've asked him that countless times, and I'm sure in his personal life people have asked him a lot too. All I'm trying to say is that that question gets annoying after a while, I'm annoyed of it of just seeing Neil deal with it countless times in videos. I'm guessing he's probably heard it most of his life so I totally understand why he lost his cool a little bit, I knew the reason right away. Also he didn't know Joe's agenda, he thought he was religious, but when Joe told Neil that he isn't, and the purpose of Joe's question wasn't coming from there at all, Neil backed off as you can see in the video.
@@1Peasant Honestly, it is a little pathetic to keep copy-pasting the same comment everywhere. However, the point the comment makes is quite good. The reason most religious people ask "Why" is to smuggle God into the scientific explanatory regress. It's taking advantage of the fact that all science is based on assumptions, and there is always a deeper "why" behind those assumptions, so no matter how much science progresses and explains why stuff happens, God will be the why behind that why. It's a disgusting trick.
seriously man, that was very odd, like dude you've been on JRE like 3 times already, why are you asking what the format of the podcast is like? very very odd, made me lose the respect I thought I had for him.
It's just that Niel's attitude about "why" questions has been jaded over time by religious nut jobs that usually end up invoking the a "god of the gaps" argument every time a science discussion moves to the frontiers of current understanding. He explained this. Quite frankly, if I was him and that is what was really happening, I would have been getting frustrated as well with that kind of William Lane Craig bullshit.
@@BrianPaul1984 Yup, this is why scientists just have to disengage from religious nut jobs, flat earthers, and the like. Ignore them. Engaging them as a credible scientist just lends them an air of credibility. It's just not healthy for people who really understand the science. It's a waste of their intellect. Leave the Flat Earthers and creationists to us semi-educated grunts on RU-vid comments and Reddit where we can just have fun with them and walk away when we get bored. I actually learn things engaging these people. It forces me to look up and refresh on topics I would otherwise just forget from school.
This is even a bigger issue in Quantum Mechanics. We literally have no real clue why it is the way it is, and most scientists don't bother and just claim it's a philosophical question. "Shut up and calculate". Although some like Sean Caroll aren't happy just accepting it.
Joe is like a child.No respect for neil.And when neil respond he mocks him with ta ta ta and raises eyebrows.But i guess since joe spoke to other astropysicist he is smarter then neil.smh
@@luissantiago874 no, joe is a guy thats not intimidated. He was a fighter for a living. Titles, acclimations, dont matter. In the end, he knows he could probably beat ur ass. Working in tandem with that, hes a fairly intelligent person. I love NGT, but Joe had the right of it. And hes not afraid to express it.
Nobody is picking up on this. Neil started with "why" Just to build a foundation for his ranty behavior and ended it with blaming Joe for wanting a purpose to life? cmon now
@@owl4446 When Joe kept asking why, that's a very common question religitards ask when they are trying to say that behind it all stands God. It's an argument they always use, and from videos I've seen of Neil they've asked him that countless times, and I'm sure in his personal life people have asked him a lot too. All I'm trying to say is that that question gets annoying after a while, I'm annoyed of it of just seeing Neil deal with it countless times in videos. I'm guessing he's probably heard it most of his life so I totally understand why he lost his cool a little bit, I knew the reason right away. Also he didn't know Joe's agenda, he thought he was religious, but when Joe told Neil that he isn't, and the purpose of Joe's question wasn't coming from there at all, Neil backed off as you can see in the video.
I'm glad Joe kept pushing. As Penn Jillet podcast recently pointed out, if you are intelligent enough, you can argue any point. But it doesn't mean you are right. I definitely know Neil is intelligent. But he doesn't want to go deep into certain questions and is very good at changing topics whilst not looking like he is. Neil kept going to philopsical purpose whereas Joe just wanted the science but he couldn't go that deep into it because science is based on results and not necessarily understanding to the point degree of Joe's essential point of question.
I'm with Neil on this one. Joe's questioning was going down the path of meaning and purpose. Joe was lazy with his words. And Neil had an excellent point that your WHY questions can get reduced down to very fundamental components where the WHY questions are meaningless. Joe could not follow this line of thinking/logic at all.
FenixDown147 the saying is “if you can’t explain it, you can’t teach it.” There’s no sentence limit on that saying. Also, that’s all it is - a saying. It’s not a truism.
@@Vic2point0 I didn't see it that way. Neil is a passionate guy and his enthusiasm can sometimes come across as anger if you're not familiar with Neil's style of communication. Lol Joe is a moron.
@@TheAstraeuss Except that Neil has been on his show before and it looked very different. Joe even specified exactly what seemed to be the catalyst for Neil's defensiveness this time around.
Gravity is tied to time. The higher up you go from the center of the Earth the faster time moves. So when you have an object on earth or an object like Earth, the time moves quicker towards the top of the object and slower towards the bottom thus pushing the object down
This whole conversation was strange. Neil is losing credibility in my book. I saw a clip of him comparing rock climbing on a mountain abroad to scaling important man made buildings. Explaining how some regions people don’t like westerners rock climbing on their sacred mountains. He went on to say something like that.. “how would a westerner feel about someone repelling down (whatever building of importance he suggested)” I can’t remember exactly which buildings he listed but the argument is absolute horse shit. Comparing an actual mountain that is formed in nature to a man made building in a heavily populated area is just ridiculous
@@nonenone5326 what is conservative about it? I genuinely wonder if we watched the same video. He says he has no clue, but Neil Degrasse Tyson has studied gravity in every conceivable way our technology allows and admits that any new knowledge is "the frontier" how can you say he doesnt know anything? I think tyson got defensive because every day on twitter he has to defend basic scientific knowledge to retards who say "but what is the purpose of gravity" or "but why is it doing that" as if that invalidates hundreds of years of compiled research. As if the scientists dont ask those exact questions to themselves all the time, but instead of wasting time looking for a moral purpose to the universe they devote their lives to quantifying the underlying mechanisms.
@@twoOfThemThangs he didnt talk in circles, he explained why it is a logical dead end to ask "why" a fundamental force of the universe exists. The questions of "why" any fundamental force exists or "why" life exists is not a question that science is even attempting to explain. He VERY clearly explained that science is only to and CAN ONLY explain the HOW as our technology and understanding deepens. Asking "why" something exists is a philosophical question that cannot be proven or disproven with logic or the scientific method. He isnt saying "i dont know" because again.... he is clearly saying "i dont care"
I think there’s a difference between being passionate about the subject matter and anger. “Why” questions do propose a purpose usually , and for all physicists they are annoying because it does have a diminishing demeanor towards the hundreds of years of hard work by these guys to understand it. It’s like asking”why is there light ?”. It’s a stupid question and is more suited to a religious mentality that panders to the perceived thoughts and actions of imaginary deities . I like Joe but if he actually went and did a PHD in astrophysics he would most definitely not ask the why question unless he was a bible basher .
Peter Browne lol peter, the majority of science is driven by why questions broken down into what or how questions. The only reason anyone would have a disdain for why questions is because they assume that why questions require purpose alone. Yet they don’t see that all what and how questions require looking at the physical world with purpose. So to ask questions like “why is their light” might seem like a question about philosophy, but one could also see it as trying to ask bigger questions about the fundamental nature of the world. Maybe the why within the system can help us understand more about the nature of particles. Also, religious individuals can still answer what or how questions with God, so I think the whole split between what how and why questions in order to avoid philosophically religious thought is nonsense.
Honestly seeing this video multiple times now, I can understand the frustration of Neil as well of Joe. Neil is saying that there’s pretty much a point where there’s literally no point in trying to keep figuring out the why is works because it could be way far from our knowledge but still making sense that for right now there’s no point in keep trying to understand more of it if we have understood it enough to know how to use it and how it works. I side 50% with Neil there. Now my other 50% is with Joe in the sense that I really believe that for us to ever even reach such fantasies(right now) of traveling at the speed of light and travel planets and galaxies at an extreme velocity(safely) we MUST keep asking how and why gravity is what it is. Maybe also the path into understanding dark matter more as well. I’m no physicist so obviously no expert in the matter but both make sense to me. If science has reached a certain place where we can’t understand more about gravity then I guess it’s just a waiting game on the spawn of a brain in which can further understand and reach new knowledge of the universe.
I don’t see defensive...I see frustration of trying to explain physics without a chalkboard to someone who wouldn’t understand the math in the first place. Why? Because Jesus. Move on? 😂
When Joe kept asking why, that's a very common question religitards ask when they are trying to say that behind it all stands God. It's an argument they always use, and from videos I've seen of Neil they've asked him that countless times, and I'm sure in his personal life people have asked him a lot too. All I'm trying to say is that that question gets annoying after a while, I'm annoyed of it of just seeing Neil deal with it countless times in videos. I'm guessing he's probably heard it most of his life so I totally understand why he lost his cool a little bit, I knew the reason right away. Also he didn't know Joe's agenda, he thought he was religious, but when Joe told Neil that he isn't, and the purpose of Joe's question wasn't coming from there at all, Neil backed off as you can see in the video.
"Why? Because it IS..." Which just goes to show how teachers are scared to admit "We don't know". But they'll give students hell over using that exact same response, "Because it IS".
@@PATTHECATMCD I thought it was funny at the end when Joe, asked him for the last time "Do we know what gravity is?", and instead, Neil says, "No, were working on it." If he just said that earlier, it wouldve been over right there.
I believe it was Albert Einstein who said spooky action at a distance, and when he said it he wasn't talking about gravity. He was talking about quantum entanglement.
I concur. And the fact that Neil, an astro physicist, botched that fact goes to show how irrational he was in attempting to answer the question at hand, or defend his non-answer.
You are exactly correct. Btw, watching Joe kind of manipulate NDT into a temper tantrum certainly seemed to qualify as spooky action at a distance to me
5:42 "we know more about why people go bald than we do about what gravity really is" the most intriguing and interesting assertion I've ever heard Rogan make on behalf of us all
@Mike SKARONIS are you NDT in disguise? You literally used a four word response to call someone stupid. Dude made a good point seeing as I could've given a better explanation for gravity, in a tenth of the time.
