*** Click this link sponsr.is/SciManDan and use my code SCIMANDAN to get 25% off your first payment for boot.dev. That’s 25% off your first month or your first year, depending on the subscription you choose ***
Dan... you didn't debunk him. You said 'no, you're wrong, I'm done'. That is, at best a rejection. Debunking would have been explaining WHY it takes 4x the energy to get 2x the velocity.
"Is it really worth anyone's time to sit there and debunk the guy who thinks soft organs can be fossilized?" Well, it's 2024 and we're still debating flat vs globe earth. So...yes. Yes it is.
I agree... it's not perse worth it, it's not worth my time.. but it's important.. we make decisions in life with the knowledge with what we have.. but their knowledge is a bit flawed.. so i see lot of problems that don't need to exist.. 😅
TBH I don't think it's worth it. And I also don't think it's worth to "debate" flat earth. If anything you're just giving them platform. But I do admit it's very entertaining. People who think the earth is flat, or that rocks are fossilized remains of giants or dragons .... I mean c'mon. That stuff may not be productive, but it's funny as hell. Specialy that guy who claimed 1*1=2 ... Terrance Howard - that was some funny stuff ....
@@schwags1969 Well watch him explain on Joe Rogan on all places. Terrance Howard invented whole new math and science. Even invented his own periodic table of elements.
@@bob_the_bomb4508 I prefer digestives (what the US calls a graham, I think) - it means you have to time the dunk to perfection. Admittedly the perfect dunk is rare, but satisfying when it happens. Just avoid the chocolate coated versions!
Clearly a Dunning-Kruger example. As a physicist I can assure viewers that the formula for kinetic energy and its relationship to gravitational potential energy is solidly understood by everyone who takes the time to do a few experiments with rising and falling objects in a gravity field. And the person who usually gets credit for recognizing the key facts about kinetic energy is Émilie du Châtelet. She figured this out dropping cannonballs from various heights into mud to judge the relative energy by the sizes of the craters in the 1730s. Being a woman at a time when men thought they were the only ones who could do science, she had to publish her findings through a man who presented the ideas as his own.
Very interesting. As someone who is not a physicist, I at least understand enough to realize when science makes a mistake, as has happened we all know, it self corrects pretty quick since everything that follows, based on that mistake, fails. Anyone that thinks a scientific discipline can progress when it is built upon an incorrect base is literally an idiot.
@@Mitsoxfan I don't think he even qualifies. Dunning-Kruger effect implies a little knowledge of a subject. He has none whatsoever. The "D" word I will give him is "Dunce". 🤣
Perhaps even a Drill Sergeant style de-bunking, where he is flipped out of bed, and shouted at to get his [bleep] straightened out and pull his head out of his [bleep].
Agreed, idiotic claims from ignorance need to be challenged at every turn these days. I do think this guy is a bit mentally ill, but who knows? Might just be yet another grifter.
It's always the same with these delusional types. And they always crap over tested science with their foolproof infallible "Well I think...." statements. No! You don't! Because if you did think, you'd shut your mouth! 😂
I just have to look at the paving stones beneath the edge of our terrass roof. Previous owner didn't bother to add a rain gutter, we added one, but you can still see exactly where the rain water dropped down all those prior years.
Waterjet cutter is so efficient because it uses solid garment (?) mixed with the water. I do think a waterjet would still work, albeit slowly, with pure water. Edit: sorry guys it’s garnet I’m not a native speaker lol
It's been a phenomenon for years, and it still baffles me: people "arguing" by saying "this is stupid, nobody cares." If you don't care, why are you publishing a video about it? And a lot of these guys make entire channels devoted to complaining about things they allegedly don't care about
Because stupid people like to moan about things more intelligent people, who stayed on at school, tell them. Because said intelligent people are likely to be their supervisor at work.
When will these... people (avoiding the UA-cam ban-hammer)... wake up and realize/admit that science is NOT a religion? When science is found to be wrong, the science changes. When religion is found to be wrong, "God(s) work(s) in mysterious ways."
@@IndictEvolution Explain what? School physics? They differ the same way as distance and speed. Power is the speed of transfer (or usage) of energy. I don't live 20 m/s from you and planes don't travel at the speed of 20km and the misuse of units of power and energy is as ridiculous as my example.
@@IndictEvolution religion is dogmatic, science is skeptical, dogma and religion has all the answers already, science and skepticism is trying to find better answer, new answers, improved answers.
At work 30-plus years ago I supported a waterjet cutting machine. It used a very high pressure stream of water and grit (from corncobs as I recall) to cut aircraft parts. To catch the stream there was a small cup filled with out of tolerance stainless steel ball bearings (much cheaper than the in-spec ones!). A drain from that cup carried away a slurry of water and steel particles. I realize that is rather different than moving water in a stream, but then the waterjet cutter is optimized to work almost instantly, while flowing water and random particulates takes years or more.
Water is made up of tiny molecules and when water is flowing those tiny molecules strike against equally tiny imperfections in rock causing them to slowly break away in microscopic pieces over very long periods of time. The process of tumbling a rock in a tumble accelerates this process through using various sizes of grit in water to simulate being in an environment of flowing water over a long period of time in a vastly shorter period of time. Think hundreds or thousands of years taken down to days. In either case the flowing water is used to carry away the broken off material. Tumbling is not a rock falling down a mountain, it's closer to sanding out the rough edges of a material and the tumbler's effectiveness comes from the constant flow of water and grit moving over every part of the rocks inside the tumbler as the rotating drum allows them to be constantly repositioned to allow other sides to experience the flow of material.
Lao Tzu recognized this over 2500 years ago when he said, "In nature, the softest thing in the universe (water) overcomes the hardest thing in the universe (rock)."
This guy is a complete crank, he's been arguing the same "ideas" on physics forums for YEARS, he's been proven wrong every single time, he's rebuttal is always the same, basically, na uh.
I think this guy is the same crank who used to go by the name 'inmendham'. I really hope he's not "in" Mendham, NJ because I live near there and I'm afraid his ridiculous "theories" will pollute the air that I breathe. One example of his contributions to physics is his theory of the electron. I forget the details but basically he says that an electron is a shell that contains several photons which are released at appropriate moments. Ugh! He used to be quite prolific on UA-cam with his theories of just about everything that strikes his fancy.
His physics may not be his best work, I'm not in a position to judge but his takes on philosophy in general is sound, he is def not some dumb wack, his videos on economics is good. Been watching him on and off for over a decade. He's an interesting character for sure.
@@ReinoGoo I have to confess that he confused me enough to misunderstand what he actually said. Yes, when falling double the distance the velocity isn't going to double as the 2nd half of the distance is passed in a shorter amount of time due to acceleration. Time for another self-facepalm.
I reacted similarly, it was something in the way he presented it that made it seem like a crock'o'shyte. Maybe I interpred as constant energy supplied needed to keep a vehicle at comparative speeds. So, doing a generous interpretation he meant just the kinetic energy stored in an object, or the external energy needed to push a mass up to speed (disregarding air and mech. / frictional losses)
A lot of white sand comes from parrotfish crap. They eat coral and the coral skeleton is indigestible, so they poop it out and it comes out pulverized. I thought that was gross and fascinating when I learned it.
Bogs are actually sometimes acidic and if a stone is left in a bog it will be eaten slowly into powder . Thusly a bog can change the shape of a stone .
10:14 I know this is super niche and tangential at best as Dan's pronunciation of "Leibniz" is fine the way it is, albeit anglicised, which has its benefits. Anyone who wants to get closer to the original German pronunciation, can try turning "Leeb-knits" into "Leyeb-knits" like this: The beginning sounds very much like "lie" (as in "flat earth is a lie"-bknits) and then transitions into "bniz" via "eib", which is close to the "eyeb" in "eyebrow." Dan's "knits" was solid already. The stress is on the "eye" and a very subtle pause is between "Leyeb" and "knits," which he does very well, too. tl;dr: Try going from "eyebrow" to "Leyebrow" to "Leyeb-row" and finally "Leyeb-knits."
Flowing water alone is definitely enough to carve rocks. I have tons of "transitional rocks", half smooth, half rough..like what? When I was actively looking for fossils, after hours of focusing hard, my brain started seeing patterns where there were none, that's a sign to let your eyes relax and do something else, not go on for decades and become a dude who has "fossilized testicles"..
the climb in Yosemite called "The Shining" is a cascading waterfall in the spring and summer and dries up in the fall. It is smooth as a mirror, hence the name. No tumbling needed, just water, and this is granite
granite is a very hard rock and will polish very nicely. if that climb was over sandstone it would not be called the shining as sandstone will not polish nearly as well
@@dom11949 you are correct. The point was that it gets smoothed out with nothing but water, where this guy says it needs to be tumbled with other rocks or sand to get polished
@@chriswatson7965 My high pressure washer at home begs to differ. It certainly cuts into my wooden deck if I have the nozzle on its smallest setting, and chips away at the edges of concrete too. Having an abrasive in the stream is certainly more time efficient, and allows you to cut harder substances, but water on its own is still capable of cutting/eroding.
@@h14hc124 Pure water jet cutters exist but use the velocity of the water to break the integrity of the substance that they are cutting. It is not a case of them being quicker. If the stone is insoluble, there are no abrasives in the water, and the water velocity is too low then the rock will never be cut no matter how long you spray it (ignoring spontaneous breakdown of the material in the stone due to quantum effects). The principle behind the workings of pure water jet cutters has no bearing on the reason why we get round stones in streams.
Okay, so we see a narcissist make a ridiculous comment video over what he himself thinks is a ridiculous comment video? How ironic is that? Well, it gave me a good laugh. Thank you SciManDan for another fun start to the Tuesday!
@@rayfighter aww crap, there's an age limit on entry to the comments section? Or is it just the recycling of commonly understood terms that attracts age restrictions? I wonder how old you have to be to make pointlessly implied insults without provocation? Or should the question be how ironic?
I would freaking love a good old style debate between him and Dan, i want to see that old Inmendham when he used to rage in anger, i even joined a few of his livecams during the debate days, it was freaking glorious.
I think the issue here is (apart from Draft Science being confidently incorrect) is that us Brits sound naturally sarcastic and like we're taking the mickey ALL the time, which in fairness we only do MOST of the time.
Unit of work/unit of energy- in everyday vernacular, what's the difference? I understand the distinction, but just for a video's purpose, it seemed adequate. I'm genuinely curious, as I'm a layperson.
Yes if watt is unit for energy, Joule is the unit for distance. Another engineer here. He is completely scientifically illiterate. Often mixup of units can be a tell for illiteracy. He changed v(velocity) for s(distance) too in the kinetic energy equation mv^2/2. (I am Swedish, perhaps you don't use s for distance).
10:09 "Yes, that's all fine!" Well, technically, he's already gone wrong here too. I think you missed the fact that he's referring to energy in "watts", which suggests he doesn't even understand the difference between the concepts of energy vs. power.
Most of the erosion in the Grand Canyon is done by a combination of the water dissolving some substances, abrasion by the harder materials in the flow, and weakening of the walls of the canyon through exposure to temperature variation. Pure erosion by water alone plays a very small part.
If I was being generous, I would say that Howard meant that the tiny hard particles being carried in the flow of water were responsible for the erosion, but of course water is a great solvent, so anything that dissolves in water would be carved out in pure flowing water, and some particularly soft rocks would start to dissolve even while sitting in still, pure, water.
@@Hexon66 Yes and no. If you have pure water flowing over an insoluble rock there will never be any erosion, smoothing or rounding, ever. This was in essence the claim that Draft was making. However in practice there is no such thing as pure water in a stream, and many rocks are mildly soluble. So running water in a practical situation will cause erosion. This is the splitting hairs element that I think that you are referring to. But I don't think that it is splitting hairs to point out that the example provided by the OP does not support Dan's point of view, not at least without some context. IMO it's either not understanding the argument, or not understanding the underlying physics.
He looks like a character out of an American TV version of 'The Young Ones' - Neil. And I'm guessing every morning he says "Hello shoes, I'm sorry, but I'm gonna have to stand you again..." 🤣🤣🤣🤣 😎🇬🇧
The voicemail message when there running late for university challenge always makes me giggle "Beep beep beep, oh no heavy, the coins keep coming out, beep beep beep, even the telephone hates me, beep beep beep, I wish there were no machines, and everyone led a pastoral existence, trees and flowers don't deliberately cool you out and go beep in your ear."
As a caver I can telll every one. Water is damn abrasive.. Half the passage ways etc we follow are active or old stream ways that over time due to water flow have enlarged and still enlarging due to the water cutting is way through the rock......
Is it the water itself or the suspended sediment in the water that abrades the rock? If there were no sediment I suspect the cutting action would be greatly reduced. That said, water with dissolved carbon dioxide can chemically dissolve limestone, which is another way in which caves are formed.
@@chriswatson7965So many types fro lime to grit to many more as I cave all over the world... Also I am not here to argue.. I know what I see and have been taught/learned over the years... And you come too realise waterv is one of the most destructive thngs in the world... SO if you don't wish too accept my point of view thats up to you..
@@hudsonbear5038 You are commenting on a channel dedicated to correcting incorrect views on science, and you are not expecting someone to correct you about something perceived to misleading? If you aren't prepared to at examine what relevance your comment may have and how it could be misleading, why are you making it? I was being a little kind to you with your use of words. Water can be erosive to rock, but by itself it cannot be abrasive by the definition of the word abrasive.
When I was at school, we tested the kinetic energy formula, the gravitational potential energy formula and Newton's Law of Motion experimentally. They probably do the same in most other countries - it's really not difficult and doesn't take any sophisticated equipment - a ball, a piece of string, a plank of wood, a tape measure, etc. That quickly gets rid of any personal incredulity. If only these science deniers and flerfers would try this stuff themselves.
They skipped that "nerdy" stuff in school and most of them avoided science like the plague. I run into the same thing in my own family with a gigantic "nuh uh" when I try to explain anything to them. The lack of respect for people who have dedicated their entire lives to science is appalling. They just want to pat themselves on the head and think a scientist is what is portrayed as the bad guy in a hollywood movie.
@@OceanusHelios here in Germany it is not uncommon to hear someone say "I was never good at math in school" and almost everyone chimes in with a sympathtic reassuring "Me, too!" And that is one of the reasons why we can't have nice things. Major events from recent years taught me that not only hardly anyone groks what exponential growth actually is, but that most don't even know the "Grains of rice on a chess board" parable ...
@@hartmutholzgraefe When I was 10 I worked out how many grains of rice there would be on the chess board. I had to tape three sheets of paper together to have enough room to write out 65 lines of numbers. My friends thought I was mad, but it taught me a lot about the patterns in numbers created by even the most simple of operations; they didn't believe me when I said I could predict what the total would be when I added all 64 up.
He thinks it's not worth your time to do the debunk but spends *his* time to respond to that debunk? He must have very low self-esteem to think it's worth his time to do that.
ONLY basic physics though, if you understand anything more than "water flows downhill", "water finds it's level", "heavy thing fall down", and "light thing float up" - you are a satan worshipping demonspawn, obviously. Still shocked his wife hasn't Baker Act'ed his ass yet, assuming they are still together and he's not just living in that van at this point.
The principle in classical mechanics that E ∝ mv2 was first developed by Gottfried Leibniz and Johann Bernoulli. The Second Law of Motion is, of course, Newton.
Aspects of the concept of work done appear as early as 60AD in the writings of Hero of Alexandria. Hero reported that if a weight were raised with a pulley system by the exertion of a force less than the weight being lifted, the rope must be pulled with a speed greater than the speed with which the weight rises. Leibniz used the law of falling bodies to argue that the object with mass m reaches double the velocity of the 4m object, because it falls four times the distance. As the same ‘force’ is required to lift both bodies, the value of version of kinetic energy (he called it vis viva) should be related to mv^2 not mv as had been suggested by Descartes around 1664. Moreover, Leibniz (1686) argued that the quantity mass multiplied by velocity squared was conserved. The disagreement between followers of Leibniz and Descartes over the nature of vis viva occupied philosophers for over 50 years. English and French thinkers tended to favour the notion that ‘living force’ was represented by mv, with Dutch, German and Italian philosophers preferring Leibniz’s mv^2 construction. It is argued that Newton understood, and used mathematically, the concepts of the kinetic and potential energy in the context of objects in orbit (1687), without having explicit terminology for the concepts. A significant contribution to the debate about the nature of the concept of energy was made by Émilie du Châtelet, a female French philosopher and scientist born in 1706. She proposed a thought experiment in which a spring projects a ball forwards on the deck of a boat. She pointed out that James Jurin (who argued in support of Descartes) and others had neglected the recoiling motion of the boat. She asserted that the model of ‘force’ as mv, which had been supported from this mistaken assumption, should be replaced with the quantity 1/2mv 2 and *_proposed the conservation of total energy in addition to conservation of total momentum._* Some historians of science argue that the vis viva debate was finally resolved by Jean Le Rond d’Alembert in 1743. He pointed out that the controversy was “un dispute de mots”, a dispute over words, rather than a disagreement of physical models. He showed that it was possible to use both conservation of mv and mv^2 in the same system. In 1807, Thomas Young was the first person to use the modern sense of the word ‘energy’ for the quantity of mass multiplied by velocity squared. William Thompson, who later became Lord Kelvin, is credited with introducing the concept of kinetic energy in 1849. We now associate the concept of an object’s kinetic energy with the quantity of one half of its mass multiplied by its velocity squared.
I think this might be the first time that a major science channel (at least in the hundreds of thousands in terms of subscribers, let's say) has played a video or clips of videos from DraftScience. I am noting this because he has, I believe, been requesting for some years that such a channel do this. An 'historic' moment, in a sense.
Hahaaa. When I was in school the teacher had a metal box and a two lengths of string. One length had metal nuts at equal distances tied into the string. Then the teacher held that string extended and dropped it into the metal box. Guess what, the clanging of the nuts hitting the box sped up, the nuts were hitting the box at an increasing speed. The another length of string also had metal nuts tied in -- but at an increasing distance, increasing by a factor of 4. Guess what the clanging did when those nuts hit the box: the clanging did not speed up or slow down, so the nuts were hitting the box at a constant speed.
Holy shit! Isn't that GloomBoomDoom from over a decade ago when he was into nihilism? He was very well known in the atheist community back in the day. Looks and sounds just like him
@@HunterAtheist someone doesn't like me giving info of who this is even being vague on links. They keep deleting my posts... Dear oh dear. Pathetic InMendham DoNotGod All4VR SufferingSucks GloomBoomDoom BuySomeBrains JustSayNoToKids GracefulExit FairEconomics IrVoting NoncommercialAlterna TobaccoTaxTyranny InJustice4Most BestIdeaContest Are some that he goes by
I remember this guy from years ago. He used to make rebuttals of Stefan Molyneux videos and he wasn't bad at it. Then he started talking about some physics model that was meant to replace General Relativity or something, but he couldn't do the math and was asking for someone to do it for him and it became clear that he was a kook.
Nah man; I’m an old stoner myself so on sight alone there’s no way I’m believing a word from that bloke unless he has at least a masters in physics 😂😂😂
That guy's fiddling on the whiteboard at the end can be answered by the first few minutes of the first episode of the great series _The Mechanical Universe_ , which is available to view for free on its web page which can be found on its Wikipedia page. "It's twice the time, it's twice the velocity, what makes you think it's 4 times the energy?" Calculus. In fact, there was a huge debate of mv vs. mv², and it was demonstrated physically by dropping dense balls onto pieces of clay and noticing the size of the resulting dents. That history is well worth learning! Today you might use an _instrument_ that registers energy deposited, but that works by integrating force over time; that is, by applying the relation you're trying to validate or refute.
Are we watching a video of a guy watching a video of a guy watching a video of a guy watching a video of a guy making a video? UA-cam Droste effect or am I trapped in an infinite loop?
Holy fuck, inmendham is his name. This is not new science, he's been on UA-cam ranting for 20 years. I genuinely did not know he is still alive, but I guess he won't rest until there is no life left in the universe
@petertaysum8947 he's not a flerfer. He's an antinatalist who thinks that all life should not exist. He created his own... philosophy... called efilism. He had a few miserable bastards in his orbit which acted as an echo chamber and fueled his narcissism.
Water can rip 6 inch steel plate off a boat, so it 100 percent can erode rock. Moving water is very powerful and the faster it moves the more powerful it is.
The only place you'll get "water alone" is in a laboratory with highly purified water. In practice, water is full of suspended bits of hard stuff (mostly bits of rock). Even "crystal clear" water, like in Quintana Roo, Mexico or Abaco, Bahamas caves, is full of stuff. "Clear" tap water has lots of suspended stuff. As said elsewhere, water molecules can knock molecules off rock, but the major erosional effect of moving water is from the suspended hard stuff.
I think it would be amazing if you made some videos about HOW you learn about these scientific facts. Explain how and what you can trust and about how scientists are TRYING to disprove each other in order to further understanding.
Seems pretty self-explanatory- anytime you run across something you haven't heard of or don't understand, look it up. It's nerdy, but it's a great way to expand your knowlege. I've found myself wandering down many a encyclopedia rabbithole.
@@Deletirium No no haha. I want someone like Dan to show people who don't understand. I think most people who are distrustful of science just simply don't understand the scientific process. It is good for us to equip as many people as possible with the ability to understand science so they can use it too instead of just trusting what other people say.
@@h14hc124 I think it would be amazing for people to see Dan explain how he researches things; what and when to trust and how to verify; how the scientific community works and how scientists are constantly checking each other's work to improve our understanding. I think a lot of people believe it is a religion or that religion is a science.
@@sub0fathom Dan is a science communicator, not a professional scientist, but I suppose he could walk people through the process that actual scientists follow. Essentially it's one of skepticism, where you don't trust anything, including yourself, unless you can back it up with evidence, and demonstrate why that evidence is valid and was collected/obtained correctly, with any potential biases or data contamination accounted for. Scientists do not just make stuff up and publish their findings for fun.
Wow.. that was a flashback to 10-14 yrs ago! He made videos under name "Inmendham" when the youtube christians VS atheists wars was the rage. He was quite a disagreeable character, by most atheists too.
Unlike SciManDan I do have an issue at 9:55. The unit of Energy is Joule, the unit of Power is Joule/second or Watt. This guy confuses Energy and Power. This guy laughes at people for not understanding physics and not understanding the difference between Energy and Power is quite hilarious actually. I feel you could have pointed that one out, @SciManDan. Cheers!
dunno, dont see this being worth a video, neither from him, nor from you. he might be a nutcase from his final segment which you then cut off, but at least he understands the theories and applies them correctly. also clowned on the stone guy pretty good
Hi Scimandan. This is a rant about the idea that "scientists don't want to debate about science. " Of course not. Someone who falls for that doesn't understand either science OR debating. If you debate someone on ANY topic and win, it proves nothing about the topic. The ONLY thing it proves is that you are better at debating. If you are debating against science and win, you only prove you are a better debater. The debate proves NOTHING about science. Anyone who falls for that and thinks you proved science wrong just doesn't understand this point. People, please don't fall for this trap. A Public Service Announcement
The problem with conspiracists is that they thrive on any attention generated by debunking content. By challenging you directly, they're trying to piggyback on your views count. Remember that you are the size of your enemy and you should probably not give guys like these the time of your day..
It's such a difficult thing...I kinda like what Professor Dave does: prevention work by putting out easy to understand science content and a takedown from time to time. But especially concerning the content on this channel I totally agree with you
That DaftPhysics guy...sorry...DraftPhysics...is powered by personal incredulity. All he was saying was, you tell me it's twice the time? How can it be four times the energy? With the implication, I can't understand it, therefore, it's wrong.
Now we need the original video's creator to comment on you, commenting on this guy, commenting on you, and we will go back in time! Great stuff as usual SciMan. Loving the running channel also!
*** Click this link sponsr.is/SciManDan and use my code SCIMANDAN to get 25% off your first payment for boot.dev. That’s 25% off your first month or your first year, depending on the subscription you choose ***
10:57 I like how you prioritise your sanity over "the cause". 😂
A rock could "fall slowly from a mountain" by being under a glacier and move with it. It's not flowing water, though...
Bad enough they make you read their script now you have to post for them too......
UA-cam is almost worse than watching tv at this point
Dan... you didn't debunk him. You said 'no, you're wrong, I'm done'. That is, at best a rejection.
Debunking would have been explaining WHY it takes 4x the energy to get 2x the velocity.
@@AnonEyeMouse Did you miss the part where he said water can erode?
"Is it really worth anyone's time to sit there and debunk the guy who thinks soft organs can be fossilized?"
Well, it's 2024 and we're still debating flat vs globe earth. So...yes. Yes it is.
I agree... it's not perse worth it, it's not worth my time.. but it's important.. we make decisions in life with the knowledge with what we have.. but their knowledge is a bit flawed.. so i see lot of problems that don't need to exist.. 😅
TBH I don't think it's worth it. And I also don't think it's worth to "debate" flat earth. If anything you're just giving them platform. But I do admit it's very entertaining. People who think the earth is flat, or that rocks are fossilized remains of giants or dragons .... I mean c'mon. That stuff may not be productive, but it's funny as hell. Specialy that guy who claimed 1*1=2 ... Terrance Howard - that was some funny stuff ....
@@Member_zero Yes, entertainment value is high. And how did maths not teach this person that 1*1=1, that is beyond belief...that was elementary maths?
Mr first thought upon seeing them was teeth!
@@schwags1969 Well watch him explain on Joe Rogan on all places. Terrance Howard invented whole new math and science. Even invented his own periodic table of elements.
Nothing wrong with a wet biscuit, as long as you dunk responsibly.
As an American I think that translates as dunking a cookie in a glass of milk
Can’t dunk a ‘Nice’ biscuit - they collapse immediately. Digestives are a bit hit and miss; dunk a Bourbon for the win :)
@@____chris Probably closest. Here it is a biscuit in your tea, and UK cookies are already soft, so dunking them would be problematic 😁
@@bob_the_bomb4508 I prefer digestives (what the US calls a graham, I think) - it means you have to time the dunk to perfection. Admittedly the perfect dunk is rare, but satisfying when it happens. Just avoid the chocolate coated versions!
Ginger nuts. Proper dunkers
Clearly a Dunning-Kruger example. As a physicist I can assure viewers that the formula for kinetic energy and its relationship to gravitational potential energy is solidly understood by everyone who takes the time to do a few experiments with rising and falling objects in a gravity field. And the person who usually gets credit for recognizing the key facts about kinetic energy is Émilie du Châtelet. She figured this out dropping cannonballs from various heights into mud to judge the relative energy by the sizes of the craters in the 1730s. Being a woman at a time when men thought they were the only ones who could do science, she had to publish her findings through a man who presented the ideas as his own.
I learned something new today!
There’s also the little issue of equating force and energy
I must inform you Dunning-Kruger has been re-branded as the Terrance Howard Effect
Oh dear, more people who don't understand Dunning-Kruger :/
Very interesting. As someone who is not a physicist, I at least understand enough to realize when science makes a mistake, as has happened we all know, it self corrects pretty quick since everything that follows, based on that mistake, fails. Anyone that thinks a scientific discipline can progress when it is built upon an incorrect base is literally an idiot.
Howard needs debunking as often as possible. He's delusional and incredibly dishonest.
Confidently wrong as it turns out is still wrong.
I'll throw in a "D" word for Howard, Dunning-Kruger.
@@Mitsoxfan I don't think he even qualifies. Dunning-Kruger effect implies a little knowledge of a subject. He has none whatsoever. The "D" word I will give him is "Dunce". 🤣
Perhaps even a Drill Sergeant style de-bunking, where he is flipped out of bed, and shouted at to get his [bleep] straightened out and pull his head out of his [bleep].
Agreed, idiotic claims from ignorance need to be challenged at every turn these days. I do think this guy is a bit mentally ill, but who knows? Might just be yet another grifter.
I do Believe the Only Reason he reacted to a Scimandan video is to get you to make a Video about him to hopefully get his Viewer count up
100%
Winner: SciManDan, in science, facts, and even insults. I mean, really, wet biscuit? What does that even mean?
Yeh well, either that for Flerfs getting all the attention.
@@deltasixgaming he's pretty well known
InMendham
DoNotGod
All4VR
SufferingSucks
GloomBoomDoom
BuySomeBrains
JustSayNoToKids
GracefulExit
FairEconomics
IrVoting
NoncommercialAlterna
TobaccoTaxTyranny
InJustice4Most
BestIdeaContest
Think you've hit the nail right on the head.
This is tragic, how far has Michael Bolton gone, Rock bottom...
😂😂😂
Looks like he crashed into Robert Plant
so, it's not worth anyones time to respond to the rock guy, but he responds to your entire response AND wastes time on anti science nonsense?
One could wonder why he bothered if he thought that.
Some people are just too cool for the room yet have nowhere to go
and spouts his own anti-science at the end ? wtf was all that about ? this nitwit needs to _work_ (getit?) at understanding basic physics concepts!
Seemed odd even for an odd guy.
He dissed the rock video and Dan's correction of the rock video
It's always the same with these delusional types. And they always crap over tested science with their foolproof infallible "Well I think...." statements. No! You don't! Because if you did think, you'd shut your mouth! 😂
“Water is not abrasive”
Ever heard of a water jet?
Water is defacto one of the most aggressive liquids known to humanity.
I just have to look at the paving stones beneath the edge of our terrass roof. Previous owner didn't bother to add a rain gutter, we added one, but you can still see exactly where the rain water dropped down all those prior years.
Waterjet cutter is so efficient because it uses solid garment (?) mixed with the water. I do think a waterjet would still work, albeit slowly, with pure water.
Edit: sorry guys it’s garnet I’m not a native speaker lol
Have you? Water jetting for cutting or heavy material removal uses an aggregate of water and abrasive.
I accidentally put a hole in my fence with my Karcher.
It's been a phenomenon for years, and it still baffles me: people "arguing" by saying "this is stupid, nobody cares." If you don't care, why are you publishing a video about it? And a lot of these guys make entire channels devoted to complaining about things they allegedly don't care about
"I don't care about this thing so hard that I made 300 videos telling you how much I don't care about this thing!"
Tommy Chong wanna be also dismissed things by saying "I don't think so".
Well that's sure good enough for me
Attempting to cure the ones who believe crap.
it is a lazy person's way to trying to sound relevant.
Because stupid people like to moan about things more intelligent people, who stayed on at school, tell them. Because said intelligent people are likely to be their supervisor at work.
The guy is criticizing our SciMan for spending time refuting a dumb idea, by spending time refuting what he thinks is a dumb idea?
Ya, it seems he is a bit irony impaired.
@@crhkrebs Spot on and bonus points for alliteration!!❤❤
Kelly Anne Conway + James Dio = this guy
No idea who those people are, but I'll take your word for it. :)
@@celticlass8573 *Ronnie James Dio. He was a singer
@@celticlass8573and Kellyanne Conway a Trump press secretary (in)famous for her use of the.phrase "alternative facts" in an attempt to deny reality.
I was thinking more Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs.😅
@@radarlockeify I could def see that
>> Talks about energy
>> Uses the units of power
When will these... people (avoiding the UA-cam ban-hammer)... wake up and realize/admit that science is NOT a religion?
When science is found to be wrong, the science changes.
When religion is found to be wrong, "God(s) work(s) in mysterious ways."
Care to explain how they are actually different?
@@IndictEvolution Explain what? School physics? They differ the same way as distance and speed. Power is the speed of transfer (or usage) of energy. I don't live 20 m/s from you and planes don't travel at the speed of 20km and the misuse of units of power and energy is as ridiculous as my example.
Watt you on about? would joule believe it?
@@IndictEvolution religion is dogmatic, science is skeptical, dogma and religion has all the answers already, science and skepticism is trying to find better answer, new answers, improved answers.
We don't talk about geo-testicle theory; it's a sensitive subject.
All this team we have been calling them the family jewels when we should have been calling them the family geodes
I heard that theory is already fleshed out and bagged.
Rocks fall slowly when you give them little parachutes...
Aw, that's cute.
Hey that's Groppler Zorn. I've always wondered what he is up to since the Federation decided not to use Farpoint Station.
At work 30-plus years ago I supported a waterjet cutting machine. It used a very high pressure stream of water and grit (from corncobs as I recall) to cut aircraft parts. To catch the stream there was a small cup filled with out of tolerance stainless steel ball bearings (much cheaper than the in-spec ones!). A drain from that cup carried away a slurry of water and steel particles.
I realize that is rather different than moving water in a stream, but then the waterjet cutter is optimized to work almost instantly, while flowing water and random particulates takes years or more.
The principle is still the same, so I think your analogy works
Water is made up of tiny molecules and when water is flowing those tiny molecules strike against equally tiny imperfections in rock causing them to slowly break away in microscopic pieces over very long periods of time. The process of tumbling a rock in a tumble accelerates this process through using various sizes of grit in water to simulate being in an environment of flowing water over a long period of time in a vastly shorter period of time. Think hundreds or thousands of years taken down to days. In either case the flowing water is used to carry away the broken off material. Tumbling is not a rock falling down a mountain, it's closer to sanding out the rough edges of a material and the tumbler's effectiveness comes from the constant flow of water and grit moving over every part of the rocks inside the tumbler as the rotating drum allows them to be constantly repositioned to allow other sides to experience the flow of material.
Lao Tzu recognized this over 2500 years ago when he said, "In nature, the softest thing in the universe (water) overcomes the hardest thing in the universe (rock)."
Another way water can destroy rock is through explansion when freezing.
@@kaltaron1284 Is that an expanding explosion?
I always thought they were fossilised sea urchins.
@@ianobrien3248 Possibly. Or I made a typo.
This guy is a complete crank, he's been arguing the same "ideas" on physics forums for YEARS, he's been proven wrong every single time, he's rebuttal is always the same, basically, na uh.
I'm sure I recognise this chap, went under another name/id which I forget.
I think this guy is the same crank who used to go by the name 'inmendham'. I really hope he's not "in" Mendham, NJ because I live near there and I'm afraid his ridiculous "theories" will pollute the air that I breathe. One example of his contributions to physics is his theory of the electron. I forget the details but basically he says that an electron is a shell that contains several photons which are released at appropriate moments. Ugh! He used to be quite prolific on UA-cam with his theories of just about everything that strikes his fancy.
@@LeRationalRabbit Thats it. All I could remember was that it was a single meaningless to me word.
"na uh" 🤣 Guy summed up in the few letters possible (?)
His physics may not be his best work, I'm not in a position to judge but his takes on philosophy in general is sound, he is def not some dumb wack, his videos on economics is good. Been watching him on and off for over a decade. He's an interesting character for sure.
8:11 - I live in America. After the last few years, I’m convinced there’s absolutely nothing stupid enough for half this country to believe.
just look at the Trumpeters with bandages on their ears at the fascist conference last week...
@@listerofsmeg884 Riiiiiight, they're the problem, and not the chump who got his brain splattered all over the slanted roof . . .
@@mikeguilmette776 are you really calling the man who lost his life to a piece of filth a chump?
God I hope you never breed boy
"Four times higher to double the velocity" ???
That facepalm I gave myself when hearing that was close to causing permanent damage ...
It means constant acceleration, and four times the energy.
@@ReinoGoo I have to confess that he confused me enough to misunderstand what he actually said.
Yes, when falling double the distance the velocity isn't going to double as the 2nd half of the distance is passed in a shorter amount of time due to acceleration.
Time for another self-facepalm.
I reacted similarly, it was something in the way he presented it that made it seem like a crock'o'shyte. Maybe I interpred as constant energy supplied needed to keep a vehicle at comparative speeds. So, doing a generous interpretation he meant just the kinetic energy stored in an object, or the external energy needed to push a mass up to speed (disregarding air and mech. / frictional losses)
A lot of white sand comes from parrotfish crap. They eat coral and the coral skeleton is indigestible, so they poop it out and it comes out pulverized. I thought that was gross and fascinating when I learned it.
Wait until you hear what soil is!
@@drunkenhobo8020 Oh now you're opening a can of worms
@@drunkenhobo8020 Well lay it on me then! I'm down for new knowledge!
It's coming out pretty much the same as it went in.
Yes, I think there is a beach in the canaries somewhere that is entirely made up of parrot fish crap
Wait until he discovers Mr. Wormhat and Professor Mudflood.
Bogs are actually sometimes acidic and if a stone is left in a bog it will be eaten slowly into powder . Thusly a bog can change the shape of a stone .
to be fair, that's chemicals in the water, arguably not the water.
10:14 I know this is super niche and tangential at best as Dan's pronunciation of "Leibniz" is fine the way it is, albeit anglicised, which has its benefits.
Anyone who wants to get closer to the original German pronunciation, can try turning "Leeb-knits" into "Leyeb-knits" like this: The beginning sounds very much like "lie" (as in "flat earth is a lie"-bknits) and then transitions into "bniz" via "eib", which is close to the "eyeb" in "eyebrow." Dan's "knits" was solid already. The stress is on the "eye" and a very subtle pause is between "Leyeb" and "knits," which he does very well, too.
tl;dr: Try going from "eyebrow" to "Leyebrow" to "Leyeb-row" and finally "Leyeb-knits."
Can someone say 'Silence of the lambs' ....
It puts the lotion in the basket, or it gets the hose again 😂😂😂😂
He seems like the sort of who is familiar with the mirror scene from personal experience
@@shadowman21282 Go to 11m18s of my vid "And Now For Something Completely Different" to see exactly that.
Flowing water alone is definitely enough to carve rocks.
I have tons of "transitional rocks", half smooth, half rough..like what?
When I was actively looking for fossils, after hours of focusing hard, my brain started seeing patterns where there were none, that's a sign to let your eyes relax and do something else, not go on for decades and become a dude who has "fossilized testicles"..
yep. I live in a creek valley, and the majority of the rocks in the streambed are what he would term "transitional"
the climb in Yosemite called "The Shining" is a cascading waterfall in the spring and summer and dries up in the fall. It is smooth as a mirror, hence the name. No tumbling needed, just water, and this is granite
granite is a very hard rock and will polish very nicely. if that climb was over sandstone it would not be called the shining as sandstone will not polish nearly as well
@@dom11949 you are correct. The point was that it gets smoothed out with nothing but water, where this guy says it needs to be tumbled with other rocks or sand to get polished
@@billynair the water has lots of particles on board including sand and granite. that is what polished the surface
Water Literally Cuts through Solid Stone all the Time its called Erosion and this guy has no idea what that is
Water-jet cutters are a thing as well. Often used to avoid generating dust when cutting toxic materials.
@@ceejay0137 Water jet cutters use a mixture of water and an abrasive. Water by itself can't do that.
@@chriswatson7965 My high pressure washer at home begs to differ. It certainly cuts into my wooden deck if I have the nozzle on its smallest setting, and chips away at the edges of concrete too. Having an abrasive in the stream is certainly more time efficient, and allows you to cut harder substances, but water on its own is still capable of cutting/eroding.
@@h14hc124 Pure water jet cutters exist but use the velocity of the water to break the integrity of the substance that they are cutting. It is not a case of them being quicker. If the stone is insoluble, there are no abrasives in the water, and the water velocity is too low then the rock will never be cut no matter how long you spray it (ignoring spontaneous breakdown of the material in the stone due to quantum effects). The principle behind the workings of pure water jet cutters has no bearing on the reason why we get round stones in streams.
@@chriswatson7965 Oh man.. I love that you included quantum effects in there. Just in case I pulled you up on that. Well done.
Okay, so we see a narcissist make a ridiculous comment video over what he himself thinks is a ridiculous comment video? How ironic is that? Well, it gave me a good laugh. Thank you SciManDan for another fun start to the Tuesday!
welcome to the internet
@@keraptisblackrazor2658 how old are you
@@rayfighter aww crap, there's an age limit on entry to the comments section? Or is it just the recycling of commonly understood terms that attracts age restrictions?
I wonder how old you have to be to make pointlessly implied insults without provocation? Or should the question be how ironic?
@@ulthea welcome to the internet
@@rayfighter thanks, I've always wanted to go there 😂
Getting stoned does not make you a geologist. 😂
If he only understood How and when.
You ever heard of efilism, the extinction-by-any-means ideology invented by Draft Science? He's also a CSAM advocate.
I would freaking love a good old style debate between him and Dan, i want to see that old Inmendham when he used to rage in anger, i even joined a few of his livecams during the debate days, it was freaking glorious.
@@HansensUniverseT-A Thank you for your service.
Water’s not abrasive yet they use water cutters to cut all sorts of materials and they use high pressure water for erosion in hydraulic mining.
"wet biscuit" sounds like a very British insult 🤣🤣
I dare you to look up what "wet biscuit" is.
I know what it means. I am british@@DandelionGum1
so does brainless twat, but imagine if they were African. According to a UA-cam video series, they'd tear down everything about you
@@pizza01412I think he meant, look up the urban dictionary definition of it. 😂
Or a cool horse name
Carrot Top has a lot of nerve calling you a wet biscuit. 😂
I think the issue here is (apart from Draft Science being confidently incorrect) is that us Brits sound naturally sarcastic and like we're taking the mickey ALL the time, which in fairness we only do MOST of the time.
Is that the same as “taking the piss”? Genuinely asking.
no issue with using "Watt" as a unit of energy? I as a science teacher DO have an issue with that!
As an engineer, likewise.
Unit of work/unit of energy- in everyday vernacular, what's the difference? I understand the distinction, but just for a video's purpose, it seemed adequate.
I'm genuinely curious, as I'm a layperson.
Is Mayonaise a unit of energy?
What is a joule per second ? (damn it, it doesn't work when written down)
Yes if watt is unit for energy, Joule is the unit for distance.
Another engineer here.
He is completely scientifically illiterate. Often mixup of units can be a tell for illiteracy.
He changed v(velocity) for s(distance) too in the kinetic energy equation mv^2/2.
(I am Swedish, perhaps you don't use s for distance).
He added your name to the description to try and up his viewers.
How did we go from understanding rock erosion to a formula about velocity and power? Did I fall asleep?
When this idiot is talking, you'll learn more if you are asleep. Saves the brain cells, too.
SciManDan says something correct and this _"Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem"_ wannabe is like "whatever". He knows he's lost.
Maybe he meant "Limp Bizkit", which would hardly be an insult.
Gary aka inmendham has always been a crazy hermit
@@JB_inks Yes! That was his name. Thank you!
I'm trying to remember which creator I used to watch that took this guy on a lot. I think it was Skeptical Heretic.
@@danspawn85 and amazing atheist
Some of his early videos are freaking crazy. A true internet legend.
7:01 Freezing and thawing doesn't wear down rock? Chicago's potholes would like a word with this man.
10:09 "Yes, that's all fine!" Well, technically, he's already gone wrong here too. I think you missed the fact that he's referring to energy in "watts", which suggests he doesn't even understand the difference between the concepts of energy vs. power.
He says he defends Newtonian mechanics and then says (I am not kidding or making this up!!!)
force = energy = momentum = weight = joules = watts.
Dude looks like Dave Mustaine if he hadn't given up doing Speed Balls.
Water can't abrase stone, Howard?
Uh....How about The Grand Canyon?
Does that work for you?
Most of the erosion in the Grand Canyon is done by a combination of the water dissolving some substances, abrasion by the harder materials in the flow, and weakening of the walls of the canyon through exposure to temperature variation. Pure erosion by water alone plays a very small part.
If I was being generous, I would say that Howard meant that the tiny hard particles being carried in the flow of water were responsible for the erosion, but of course water is a great solvent, so anything that dissolves in water would be carved out in pure flowing water, and some particularly soft rocks would start to dissolve even while sitting in still, pure, water.
@@chriswatson7965 I'd say that's a considerable splitting of hairs, there. At least with the "harder materials in the flow" part. 'The flow'.
@@Hexon66 Yes and no. If you have pure water flowing over an insoluble rock there will never be any erosion, smoothing or rounding, ever. This was in essence the claim that Draft was making. However in practice there is no such thing as pure water in a stream, and many rocks are mildly soluble. So running water in a practical situation will cause erosion. This is the splitting hairs element that I think that you are referring to. But I don't think that it is splitting hairs to point out that the example provided by the OP does not support Dan's point of view, not at least without some context. IMO it's either not understanding the argument, or not understanding the underlying physics.
@@chriswatson7965 how about the Scab lands then that was done hours.... when ice dam that held back Lake Missoula broke
Previously on 'How to confuse a cat'...
He looks like a character out of an American TV version of 'The Young Ones' - Neil. And I'm guessing every morning he says "Hello shoes, I'm sorry, but I'm gonna have to stand you again..." 🤣🤣🤣🤣 😎🇬🇧
🎶 The hole in my shoe was, letting in water 🎶
@@jaynbob42 And the giant albatross.... Rgr
The voicemail message when there running late for university challenge always makes me giggle
"Beep beep beep, oh no heavy, the coins keep coming out, beep beep beep, even the telephone hates me, beep beep beep, I wish there were no machines, and everyone led a pastoral existence, trees and flowers don't deliberately cool you out and go beep in your ear."
@@jaynbob42 Traffic!!
Neil was likable, that's the difference. Smug-arse isn't.
As a caver I can telll every one. Water is damn abrasive.. Half the passage ways etc we follow are active or old stream ways that over time due to water flow have enlarged and still enlarging due to the water cutting is way through the rock......
Is it the water itself or the suspended sediment in the water that abrades the rock? If there were no sediment I suspect the cutting action would be greatly reduced. That said, water with dissolved carbon dioxide can chemically dissolve limestone, which is another way in which caves are formed.
@@ceejay0137 in many cases it is just water nothing more... and it has take thousands/millions of years too form them.
What type of rock are you talking? As a caver most of the rocks you will be looking at will be weakly water soluble.
@@chriswatson7965So many types fro lime to grit to many more as I cave all over the world... Also I am not here to argue.. I know what I see and have been taught/learned over the years... And you come too realise waterv is one of the most destructive thngs in the world... SO if you don't wish too accept my point of view thats up to you..
@@hudsonbear5038 You are commenting on a channel dedicated to correcting incorrect views on science, and you are not expecting someone to correct you about something perceived to misleading? If you aren't prepared to at examine what relevance your comment may have and how it could be misleading, why are you making it? I was being a little kind to you with your use of words. Water can be erosive to rock, but by itself it cannot be abrasive by the definition of the word abrasive.
When I was at school, we tested the kinetic energy formula, the gravitational potential energy formula and Newton's Law of Motion experimentally. They probably do the same in most other countries - it's really not difficult and doesn't take any sophisticated equipment - a ball, a piece of string, a plank of wood, a tape measure, etc. That quickly gets rid of any personal incredulity. If only these science deniers and flerfers would try this stuff themselves.
They skipped that "nerdy" stuff in school and most of them avoided science like the plague. I run into the same thing in my own family with a gigantic "nuh uh" when I try to explain anything to them. The lack of respect for people who have dedicated their entire lives to science is appalling. They just want to pat themselves on the head and think a scientist is what is portrayed as the bad guy in a hollywood movie.
@@OceanusHelios I feel convinced that your family wants alcohol and cheap petrol to have a prosperous life.. Rgr
@@OceanusHelios here in Germany it is not uncommon to hear someone say "I was never good at math in school" and almost everyone chimes in with a sympathtic reassuring "Me, too!"
And that is one of the reasons why we can't have nice things.
Major events from recent years taught me that not only hardly anyone groks what exponential growth actually is, but that most don't even know the "Grains of rice on a chess board" parable ...
@@hartmutholzgraefe When I was 10 I worked out how many grains of rice there would be on the chess board. I had to tape three sheets of paper together to have enough room to write out 65 lines of numbers. My friends thought I was mad, but it taught me a lot about the patterns in numbers created by even the most simple of operations; they didn't believe me when I said I could predict what the total would be when I added all 64 up.
He thinks it's not worth your time to do the debunk but spends *his* time to respond to that debunk?
He must have very low self-esteem to think it's worth his time to do that.
They all do, which is one of the traits that makes them susceptible to anti-science and anti-sociopolitical rhetoric.
Are we sure it's not Daft Physics ?
After all, as CC himself says, "You have to understand basic physics!"
ONLY basic physics though, if you understand anything more than "water flows downhill", "water finds it's level", "heavy thing fall down", and "light thing float up" - you are a satan worshipping demonspawn, obviously. Still shocked his wife hasn't Baker Act'ed his ass yet, assuming they are still together and he's not just living in that van at this point.
#3 in the Flerf Playbook - ‘When you can’t meet the argument, resort to rapid-fire ad hominem attacks.’
This guy obviously doesn’t get British humour 😂
Is "wet biscuit" a serious insult in English English?
He doesn't strike me as someone who has a sense of humour
I dont think he gets anything
I think the best bit about the timing of the ad is I had an ad on this video at the exact same time
Jebus. Put the lotion in the basket!!!!
The principle in classical mechanics that E ∝ mv2 was first developed by Gottfried Leibniz and Johann Bernoulli. The Second Law of Motion is, of course, Newton.
Aspects of the concept of work done appear as early as 60AD in the writings of Hero of Alexandria. Hero reported that if a weight were raised with a pulley system by the exertion of a force less than the weight being lifted, the rope must be pulled with a speed greater than the speed with which the weight rises.
Leibniz used the law of falling bodies to argue that the object with mass m reaches double the velocity of the 4m object, because it falls four times the distance. As the same ‘force’ is required to lift both bodies, the value of version of kinetic energy (he called it vis viva) should be related to mv^2 not mv as had been suggested by Descartes around 1664. Moreover, Leibniz (1686) argued that the quantity mass multiplied by velocity squared was conserved.
The disagreement between followers of Leibniz and Descartes over the nature of vis viva occupied philosophers for over 50 years. English and French thinkers tended to favour the notion that ‘living force’ was represented by mv, with Dutch, German and Italian philosophers preferring Leibniz’s mv^2 construction.
It is argued that Newton understood, and used mathematically, the concepts of the kinetic and potential energy in the context of objects in orbit (1687), without having explicit terminology for the concepts.
A significant contribution to the debate about the nature of the concept of energy was made by Émilie du Châtelet, a female French philosopher and scientist born in 1706. She proposed a thought experiment in which a spring projects a ball forwards on the deck of a boat. She pointed out that James Jurin (who argued in support of Descartes) and others had neglected the recoiling motion of the boat. She asserted that the model of ‘force’ as mv, which had been supported from this mistaken assumption, should be replaced with the quantity 1/2mv 2 and *_proposed the conservation of total energy in addition to conservation of total momentum._*
Some historians of science argue that the vis viva debate was finally resolved by Jean Le Rond d’Alembert in 1743. He pointed out that the controversy was “un dispute de mots”, a dispute over words, rather than a disagreement of physical models. He showed that it was possible to use both conservation of mv and mv^2 in the same system.
In 1807, Thomas Young was the first person to use the modern sense of the word ‘energy’ for the quantity of mass multiplied by velocity squared. William Thompson, who later became Lord Kelvin, is credited with introducing the concept of kinetic energy in 1849. We now associate the concept of an object’s kinetic energy with the quantity of one half of its mass multiplied by its velocity squared.
He's just a more offensive version of Terrance Howard.
Needs a scientific explanation of what happens, when you skip breakfast and go straight for the bong...
That guy must be a riot at parties!
Liebnitz is credited with coming up with the mv2 value for kinetic energy.
At least he didn't call you a soggy biscuit...
'Whatever' is a valid scientific rebuttal according to Daft physics.
I mean, I guess he seems more chill and less desperate than Flat Earthers… I guess
Benefits of ingesting or inhaling parts of certain plants.
Heart shaped rocks are hearts? Someone has graduated from mud fossil university? 😂😂
Holy shit I remember that guy from WAY back in the day. He's (or was) an anti-natalist and made some really wild videos maybe 15 years ago or so.
Inmendham is a legend.
I think this might be the first time that a major science channel (at least in the hundreds of thousands in terms of subscribers, let's say) has played a video or clips of videos from DraftScience. I am noting this because he has, I believe, been requesting for some years that such a channel do this. An 'historic' moment, in a sense.
Did he say geodes are petrified testicle? Then southern Indiana is balls deep
I always thought Evansville smelled a little wrong...
Hahaaa. When I was in school the teacher had a metal box and a two lengths of string. One length had metal nuts at equal distances tied into the string. Then the teacher held that string extended and dropped it into the metal box. Guess what, the clanging of the nuts hitting the box sped up, the nuts were hitting the box at an increasing speed. The another length of string also had metal nuts tied in -- but at an increasing distance, increasing by a factor of 4. Guess what the clanging did when those nuts hit the box: the clanging did not speed up or slow down, so the nuts were hitting the box at a constant speed.
Holy shit! Isn't that GloomBoomDoom from over a decade ago when he was into nihilism? He was very well known in the atheist community back in the day. Looks and sounds just like him
@@Equinox68 I recognize him from another name but I can't put my finger on it.
@@HunterAtheist Google Donotgod first link InMendham seems like his most popular channel
@@HunterAtheist someone doesn't like me giving info of who this is even being vague on links. They keep deleting my posts... Dear oh dear. Pathetic
InMendham
DoNotGod
All4VR
SufferingSucks
GloomBoomDoom
BuySomeBrains
JustSayNoToKids
GracefulExit
FairEconomics
IrVoting
NoncommercialAlterna
TobaccoTaxTyranny
InJustice4Most
BestIdeaContest
Are some that he goes by
@@HunterAtheist
InMendham
DoNotGod
All4VR
SufferingSucks
GloomBoomDoom
BuySomeBrains
JustSayNoToKids
GracefulExit
FairEconomics
IrVoting
NoncommercialAlterna
TobaccoTaxTyranny
InJustice4Most
BestIdeaContest
@@Equinox68 I recognize Inmendham and donotgod. Lol it's crazy how his website is stuck in 1998.
I remember this guy from years ago. He used to make rebuttals of Stefan Molyneux videos and he wasn't bad at it. Then he started talking about some physics model that was meant to replace General Relativity or something, but he couldn't do the math and was asking for someone to do it for him and it became clear that he was a kook.
Nah man; I’m an old stoner myself so on sight alone there’s no way I’m believing a word from that bloke unless he has at least a masters in physics 😂😂😂
Physics has masters for Inmemdham. He is a legend!
That guy's fiddling on the whiteboard at the end can be answered by the first few minutes of the first episode of the great series _The Mechanical Universe_ , which is available to view for free on its web page which can be found on its Wikipedia page.
"It's twice the time, it's twice the velocity, what makes you think it's 4 times the energy?"
Calculus.
In fact, there was a huge debate of mv vs. mv², and it was demonstrated physically by dropping dense balls onto pieces of clay and noticing the size of the resulting dents. That history is well worth learning! Today you might use an _instrument_ that registers energy deposited, but that works by integrating force over time; that is, by applying the relation you're trying to validate or refute.
So this is a reaction, to a reaction, to a reaction video?
Are we watching a video of a guy watching a video of a guy watching a video of a guy watching a video of a guy making a video? UA-cam Droste effect or am I trapped in an infinite loop?
Holy fuck, inmendham is his name. This is not new science, he's been on UA-cam ranting for 20 years. I genuinely did not know he is still alive, but I guess he won't rest until there is no life left in the universe
Gratex!
WTF!? Never heard of him, but visited his channel now. The guy has posted 4 thousand videos! Now that's a useless body of work.
@@fabrislemos 4000 on that channel. He has others. Or had others.
Has he ever done a collaboration with Santos - just asking for a friend?
@petertaysum8947 he's not a flerfer. He's an antinatalist who thinks that all life should not exist. He created his own... philosophy... called efilism. He had a few miserable bastards in his orbit which acted as an echo chamber and fueled his narcissism.
If he doesn't understand 4X then maybe he should double the top speed of his car with anything less than 4X and prove all science wrong.
Inmendham is UA-cam 1.0. OG. He was around when TheAmazingAtheist was big. He’s never changed I see, just an old bitter hermit.
One of my favorites of his videos was his cooking video: ua-cam.com/video/KGf4U61x5Iw/v-deo.html
Water can rip 6 inch steel plate off a boat, so it 100 percent can erode rock. Moving water is very powerful and the faster it moves the more powerful it is.
You just have to look at underwater caves you can see how the stone is formed by just water alone
The only place you'll get "water alone" is in a laboratory with highly purified water. In practice, water is full of suspended bits of hard stuff (mostly bits of rock). Even "crystal clear" water, like in Quintana Roo, Mexico or Abaco, Bahamas caves, is full of stuff. "Clear" tap water has lots of suspended stuff.
As said elsewhere, water molecules can knock molecules off rock, but the major erosional effect of moving water is from the suspended hard stuff.
Triple H has never been the same since his crack and ketamine addiction, but can you blame him? Clearly the rock haunts him still to this day.
"who cares about this video?" Says the guy who recorded, edited, then published a response video of a response video of the original video.
I saw Gary in the thumbnail and was like what??? Lol
I think it would be amazing if you made some videos about HOW you learn about these scientific facts. Explain how and what you can trust and about how scientists are TRYING to disprove each other in order to further understanding.
Seems pretty self-explanatory- anytime you run across something you haven't heard of or don't understand, look it up. It's nerdy, but it's a great way to expand your knowlege. I've found myself wandering down many a encyclopedia rabbithole.
@@Deletirium No no haha. I want someone like Dan to show people who don't understand. I think most people who are distrustful of science just simply don't understand the scientific process. It is good for us to equip as many people as possible with the ability to understand science so they can use it too instead of just trusting what other people say.
You mean.. have Dan explain the scientific process, for the benefit of those who don't understand it ?
@@h14hc124 I think it would be amazing for people to see Dan explain how he researches things; what and when to trust and how to verify; how the scientific community works and how scientists are constantly checking each other's work to improve our understanding. I think a lot of people believe it is a religion or that religion is a science.
@@sub0fathom Dan is a science communicator, not a professional scientist, but I suppose he could walk people through the process that actual scientists follow. Essentially it's one of skepticism, where you don't trust anything, including yourself, unless you can back it up with evidence, and demonstrate why that evidence is valid and was collected/obtained correctly, with any potential biases or data contamination accounted for. Scientists do not just make stuff up and publish their findings for fun.
"There's no evidence for dragons."
Komodo and Bearded Dragons 😔
Wow.. that was a flashback to 10-14 yrs ago! He made videos under name "Inmendham" when the youtube christians VS atheists wars was the rage. He was quite a disagreeable character, by most atheists too.
" This isn`t worth my time" but continues wasting his time anyway !
oh well , it`s his time to waste, seems he has nothing better to do ! 😄
Unlike SciManDan I do have an issue at 9:55.
The unit of Energy is Joule, the unit of Power is Joule/second or Watt.
This guy confuses Energy and Power. This guy laughes at people for not understanding physics and not understanding the difference between Energy and Power is quite hilarious actually. I feel you could have pointed that one out, @SciManDan.
Cheers!
Most people confuse energy and power. Particularly journalists and TV presenters who deal with engineering and science.
Not a soggy biscuit! 😂😂😂😂
You stopped just as he went all Terrance Howard on us.
dunno, dont see this being worth a video, neither from him, nor from you. he might be a nutcase from his final segment which you then cut off, but at least he understands the theories and applies them correctly. also clowned on the stone guy pretty good
5:51 Yes, it's funny and people like Mudfossil University and flat earthers exist.
A hob nob laughs in the face of liquid!
DIP ME AGAIN!
AND AGA... oh, bugger.
@@PeerAdder😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Hi Scimandan.
This is a rant about the idea that "scientists don't want to debate about science. "
Of course not.
Someone who falls for that doesn't understand either science OR debating.
If you debate someone on ANY topic and win, it proves nothing about the topic. The ONLY thing it proves is that you are better at debating.
If you are debating against science and win, you only prove you are a better debater. The debate proves NOTHING about science.
Anyone who falls for that and thinks you proved science wrong just doesn't understand this point.
People, please don't fall for this trap.
A Public Service Announcement
The problem with conspiracists is that they thrive on any attention generated by debunking content. By challenging you directly, they're trying to piggyback on your views count. Remember that you are the size of your enemy and you should probably not give guys like these the time of your day..
It's such a difficult thing...I kinda like what Professor Dave does: prevention work by putting out easy to understand science content and a takedown from time to time.
But especially concerning the content on this channel I totally agree with you
That DaftPhysics guy...sorry...DraftPhysics...is powered by personal incredulity. All he was saying was, you tell me it's twice the time? How can it be four times the energy? With the implication, I can't understand it, therefore, it's wrong.
So to be clear, I’m watching a response video to a response video to a response video..
Like Russian nesting dollls.
Thanks for your response.
Man, this Draft Science guy gives off "I carpeted my bathroom" vibes
I've seen him clean his fridge once.
Wet biscuits can be quite the thing when dipped into coffee.
Now we need the original video's creator to comment on you, commenting on this guy, commenting on you, and we will go back in time! Great stuff as usual SciMan. Loving the running channel also!