Five SCiENCE "FACTS" that are Widely Believed...but WRONG!

Claim your SPECIAL OFFER for MagellanTV here: try.magellantv.com/arvinash . Start your free trial TODAY so you can watch the fascinating documentaries mentioned in this video:
Search for the Edge of space: www.magellantv.com/video/sear...
Jimmy's Big Bee Rescue: www.magellantv.com/series/jim...
Sapiens: The New Origins: www.magellantv.com/series/sap...
REFERENCES
(Video) Speed of light and Causality: • How Faster than Light ...
(Video) History of the Universe: • From Birth to Today: 1...
How Bees Fly: tinyurl.com/2zkk2ykp
Why apes aren't evolving to humans: tinyurl.com/gr8nwoh
Chernobyl frog story: tinyurl.com/2ksokypk
"Big Bang" was a joke: tinyurl.com/2j64y5gn
TALK TO ME on Patreon:
/ arvinash
CHAPTERS
0:00 Intro
0:56 There's no gravity in space
3:15 Gravity has infinite reach, but...
4:28 Nothing can go faster than light
5:58 How "light" can go faster than light
7:38 Bees shouldn't be able to fly
10:00 We would be screwed without bees
10:42 We evolved from chimps
12:58 Evolution is just a theory!
15:00 Big bang explains the creation of the universe
SUMMARY
"Facts" that are not quite correct: 1) There is no gravity in space 2) Nothing can go faster than the speed of light. 3) Bees shouldn’t be able to fly according to physics. I will explain this using Physics 4) Humans evolved from chimps, and 5) The Big Bang explains the creation of the universe.
You’ve probably been told that there is no gravity in space. That’s not true. Gravity is everywhere in space. It has infinite reach. The force of gravity on the international space station, which is 400km away in space, is almost the same as on the surface of the earth. They feel no weight because they are in freefall. The effects of gravity travel at the speed of light, that is, the speed of photons, so our gravity extends out to everything that we can see.
#speedoflight
#bees
Another common misconception is that nothing can break the speed of light because physics said so. Physics never put in such a limit. You might say, but Einstein’s law of relativity says so! It doesn’t actually say that. What physics tells us is that a massive particle cannot be accelerated to the speed of light, because it takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it to the speed of light. Most importantly, due to causality, information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. So the speed of light can be exceeded, as long as information does not exceed it. Space can expand faster than c, and there is something called the group velocity of light that can travel faster than c.
In 1934 the French zoologist and aeronautical engineer, Antoine Magnan, came to the conclusion that Bees should not be able to fly according to the laws of aerodynamics. But there was a mistaken assumption in Magnan’s original calculations that the wings of a bee work in a similar way as the wings of a bird.
Birds flap their wings up and down. But the thrust or lift that enables the birds to fly is only generated during the downstroke. No lift is generated in the upward stroke. Bees don’t fly like this. Bees flap their wings back and forth, not up and down. And lift is generated in both the forward and backward stroke. So the rapid rotation of the wing as it flops over and reverses direction, combined with a very fast wing beat creates more than enough lift for bees to fly.
Another common science fact that’s wrong is the idea that humans evolved from chimpanzees. They did not. They are cousins because they share a common ancestor, that lived between 6 and 8 million years ago. This common ancestor, over time, diverged into two different species probably due to, among other factors, environmental variation that suited different evolutionary paths in different geographic locations. How do we know? The strongest evidence is inside us, in our DNA. Chimps and humans share 98.8% of their DNA. There was not a smooth line from the common ancestor leading directly to humans on one branch and chimps on the other. The fossil record shows that there were many other branches in between on the 8 million or so year journey to modern humans. And the same is likely true for modern chimps.
Evolution is not controversial among scientists. It’s the cornerstone of modern biology. It is widely observable in laboratory and natural populations as they change over time.
The best theory we have on the evolution of the universe is the Big Bang theory. But it does not explain how the universe was created or where it came from. What the theory describes is how we got the universe we see today from a much hotter and denser universe near the beginning. It describes everything that happened after the beginning, not at the beginning nor before the beginning. It explains everything that happened after the moment of creation, not how that creation took place.

[@MickHealey]

Yes, I do like these debunking videos. Great as always Arvin, keep up the good work.

[@pluto9000]

Yes please, my friend.

[@smlanka4u]

Cosmic Inflation is a western lie.

[@fivebooks8498]

This video didn’t debunk anything. Except maybe the bees. Everything else in this video is pure garbage. People are dumb as hell to believe this crap scientists put out.

[@user-xn6jt6qu8m]

This is one of the best science channels ever!

[@TheMemesofDestruction]

Can confirm.

[@Bassotronics]

I plead the 3rd.

[@ericgraham3344]

HELL YEAH!

[@daffidavit]

Infinitely......

[@jagatiello6900]

Arvin is a FORCE of nature!

[@user-ih7om7yy1d]

At last, someone explaining weightlessness in terms of vectors. Well done. So simple.

[@terrypussypower]

It’s depressing just how many people actually think that the ISS is “floating” in space! That the reason astronauts are “floating” in their capsule is simply because they’re high above the Earth’s surface and thus further away from gravity!! 😆

[@norbertnagy5514]

​@@terrypussypowermore like a free fall from what i read. Its orbiting simultaneusly around the arth why gravity pulling it down so the forces cancel out.

[@norbertnagy5514]

​@@terrypussypowerif its already mentioned, i still watching the video

[@terrypussypower]

@@norbertnagy5514 Yeah, the ISS for instance, is orbiting the planet at 17,900 mph which means they’re in constant free fall towards the surface!

[@jeremypnet]

But he got it wrong. There is no force at right angles to the gravitational force. What’s really happening is that the ISS is constantly falling towards the centre of the earth but its velocity at right angles to the direction of the centre means that it literally misses the ground. Think about throwing a ball horizontally. It doesn’t fall straight down. It goes along a bit and then hits the ground some distance away. The faster you throw it, the further it goes. If you throw it fast enough, the curvature of the Earth comes into play and at some point (assuming there is no air) it will go fast enough that the Earth curve exactly matches how much the ball falls.

[@JaYoeNation]

Gravity and photos travel at the same speed…… mind blown.

[@greghenry3228]

Gravity doesn't travel - it's an attractive effect between two objects - if it traveled where does it start? This is a misunderstanding because gravitational waves travel at light speed. - gravitational waves are ripples in space-time causes by gravity

[@philosophiabme]

Great idea for a video and we’ll executed! Love your work, Arvin!

[@cdeeznutz]

I normally don't comment, but algo. Thanks for actually listing the 5 things at the start and then explaining each one. I have already subscribed. I hate the clickbait stuff with bs lists that you wait to the end and it's never worth it. I will be watching every video you make now. Great content! Thanks!

[@JLALALALA]

I agree. I was thinking the same thing as I debated whether or not to watch.

[@greghenry3228]

Gotta hate that click bait..... Like claiming science facts are wrong before agreeing with them, or claiming as science fact a common notion that has never been acclaimed or published by the scientific community.... I mean, it's far less likely to attract viewers / clicks with a title like "somethings you might have heard of that sound plausible actually aren't"

[@exa4564]

My favorite science channel on yt. Simple and effective explanations, you get the science but also the entertainment!

[@childofthe60s100]

Very enjoyable but you are not debunking - you are clarifying and explaining. And doing a good job of it!

[@jojomag9822]

Not to mention that the relative viscosity of the air for something as small as a bee also reduces the effort needed for lift.

[@Pain53924]

Hi intelligent person Question: Normally a star is stable because the its own gravity is balanced by force produced inside the star due to nuclear fusion. How are black holes stable then i.e. why isn't all the mass of a black hole in the singularity?

[@jeremythompson5151]

All of the black holes mass IS in the singularity. The event horizon is a sphere around that singularity corresponding to an escape velocity equal to the speed of light.

[@Pain53924]

@@jeremythompson5151 oh i see

[@orlock20]

@@Pain53924 There is also might be a difference between a mathematical black hole and a real black hole. For instance PI times the diameter is a mathematical circle, but that would make the circle ever growing which circles do not. Mathematical black holes have infinity issues and infinities in a black hole aren't real. That's why it is said the math breaks down when calculating black holes.

[@jojomag9822]

@@jeremythompson5151 Okay a couple things: First, as an object approaches the event horizon, time slows down until it completely stops just as the object intersects with the event horizon (from our perspective of course). If time stops for every object that falls into a black hole, then all that mass cannot be in the singularity - YET ( from our perspective of course). So if you're into spoilers, jump into a black hole, turn around & look out - you'll get to see everything that happens over the next googolplex or so years, although it won't take nearly that much time for you. Second, the singularity, while theorized, has never been proven to exist. In fact, Alan Guth refuses to even call it a singularity, because we are unable to define what a singularity is. Theoretically, a singularity is a place where the space-time curvature is infinite; but as you know, nature abhors both a vacuum and an infinity. Did I get any of this right Arvin?

[@andriibondar4029]

I do like your debunking videos! Great job, please keep going!

[@talismanskulls2857]

There is something missed here in regards to bees. The focus has been more on honey bees. We need all bees because the diverse species are specialized in a symbiotic relationship with various plants and trees.

[@jsl151850b]

Isn't there something about Vorticities in bee flight also?

[@talismanskulls2857]

@@jsl151850b Yeah, swirling vortices. Its true for many types of winged insects.

[@Vicus_of_Utrecht]

I am speaking on America only. Irony the honey bee is the focus given its an invasive species and are dying for reasons not necessarily man's fault. Their genetics have become 'domestic' so now more prone to disease and mites. Now for the native bees man is directly at fault. I used to see bumblebees all the time but as urban sprawl has come, there's little to no place to burrow, everything is paved.

[@Vicus_of_Utrecht]

But the bees will not go extinct. I hate that fear mongering. Besides, adapt or die. The naked human body can survive between 55-130F. Yet we survived multiple glacials; we adapted.

[@richardvoogd3012]

The account I originally heard was that it was the bumblebee supposedly shouldn't be able to fly, but being unaware of this alleged limitation, it manages to fly anyway. The bumblebees I've actually seen have a different appearance to the bees in the clip.

[@GraemePayne1967Marine]

Excellent video! I actually already know almopst everything you covered, but you can describe it far better than I ever could. Thank you.

[@AA-pd4pn]

A great teacher and narrator - keep up the good work Arvin

[@charlesnazare7358]

Love it! Well explained and illustrated. Thanks Arvin!

[@choncholchoudhury8710]

So kind of you, explained the important topics such a simple way. Thank you ash. ❤

[@jcq22]

The bee one, you forgot something: For a human, air resistance is barely noticeable, but for the bee's size, air resistance is noticeable. If you were at a similar size to the bee, the air would feel gooey and as if you're moving through honey. Bees use this to their advantage and sort of "glide" through the air. They don't fly, they glide.

[@wingracer1614]

This is true except your final assumption. Bees can't glide, they don't have enough wing area for that. Bees are more like helicopters which also lack the wing area to glide. The wings need to be moving to generate the extra lift needed.

[@jcq22]

@@wingracer1614 Ah, ok. Thanks.

[@Vicus_of_Utrecht]

@@wingracer1614 Helicopter do glide; autorotation.

[@wingracer1614]

@@Vicus_of_Utrecht The rotors still have to be moving. They stop spinning, she going down

[@greghenry3228]

That would be normal birds with vertical wing motion - they glide as they fly over larger distances and a greater hight so they can utilise air pressure and temperature differences. The similarity to the hummingbird highlighted by another commentator shows the difference in wing motion is due to different flight type -- you're right about air viscosity but bees don't glide - gliding is movement due to air pressure alone and no motion (gliders have no engines) but bees are in constant motion regards their wings

[@LeoBerardino]

Great video! Another misconception is thinking the big bang was an explosion when it was a rapid expansion.

[@Vectorized_mind]

It never happened, it's an extension of religion😂😂😂😂😂

[@ChinnuWoW]

What's the difference? An explosion literally is a rapid expansion.

[@tysondog843]

@@Vectorized_mind What tested evidence did you use to come to the conclusion it didn't happen? What is the supernatural belief that makes it a religion?

[@kylezo]

@@Vectorized_mind no, you're just brainwashed. this is a common religious talking point, because the man who coined the term was religious. he thought the theory was bogus and attempted to give it a name to reflect his opinion. he was wrong, and the name stuck because it's catchy. It's hilarious that his legacy is the fact that he popularized the thing he hated most because he was unable to understand it. Like you.

[@spinor]

​@@Vectorized_mind this makes no sense. Most physicists in the 20th and 21st centuries have been non-religious, so it doesn't make sense for the preference for the Big Bang to be religiously motivated. Indeed, the opposite is true: it's well-documented that the prevailing preference was towards steady-state theory for a long time. The Big Bang simply has extremely compelling evidence.

[@chaitanyatahasildar]

These debunking films, in my opinion, are what the world needs right now. Arvin's idea for this content is greatly appreciated.

[@hockeyguy820]

Agreed. Arvin has a way of simplifying science such that even a Flat Earther could understand. Sadly they refuse to try, boldly stating that even gravity does not exist, deferring to hand-waving notions of density and buoyancy. Thanks to science we have the internet, an amplifier of human nature. Therefore it can be argued that thanks to science, we have so many scientifically illiterate people and deluded conspiracy theorists.

[@jondunmore4268]

He's debunking "facts" that are stated incorrectly to begin with. HE'S stating the "facts" incorrectly, so that he can "debunk" them - but no reputable scientist from any of those fields (astrophysicist, biologist, physicist) has ever made statements to that effect. This guy is a charlatan with a youtube channel.

[@odd-arnedahle2173]

Some of the information is something new. But most of it is still wrong. Like the frog. It changed color due to the environment, it never turned into something else than a frog. They would still be able to mate with each other and produce offspring. But those evolution steps they claim, is not replicated in nature. He only claim that black people is black due to radioactive event that took place a long time ago.

[@Pain53924]

Hi intelligent person Question: Normally a star is stable because the its own gravity is balanced by force produced inside the star due to nuclear fusion. How are black holes stable then i.e. why isn't all the mass of a black hole in the singularity?

[@frgmntTOB]

I wouldn't call it debunking. To me that sounds a bit over-dramatized.

[@b.calvinsaul1909]

Well done! You simplified things without losing the thread of logic, and that is a balancing act. Again, well done.

[@jamesT008]

Most underrated channel...Arvin i like the way u explain....the commentry is so soothing to listen❤

[@Satya54979]

Your effort of making the most difficult things to understand and visualize easily is quite commendable.

[@guitarszen]

Wrong. He is misrepresenting or lying to get people to watch.

[@GoodDay2YouSir]

@@guitarszen Where are the parts where he is misrepresenting and lying?

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@guitarszen I told you yesterday that YOU are wrong, and that he is pro-science and explicitly calls them "Facts" (with quotation marks) and "so-called facts". Grow up.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@guitarszen I told you yesterday that YOU are wrong, and that he is pro-science and explicitly calls them "Facts" (with quotation marks) and "so-called facts". Grow up.

[@Pain53924]

@@TonyTigerTonyTiger Hi intelligent person Question: Normally a star is stable because the its own gravity is balanced by force produced inside the star due to nuclear fusion. How are black holes stable then i.e. why isn't all the mass of a black hole in the singularity?

[@jaybristowe2346]

This was really good, definitely do more videos like this

[@johnbarney5787]

AWESOME!!! Some of the best explanations I've heard in such a short form.. More please!

[@fijimermaidfadeto8]

You are brilliant! Keep up the good work young man.

[@hugbeaver]

we need more debunking facts videos like this

[@jasonborne5724]

Totally agree with you, unless he debunks the forbidden things, then he will be de platformed and we’ll never see his brilliant work….

[@jagatiello6900]

@@jasonborne5724 Agree, but bear in mind that in order to muddy the waters some conspiracy theories like Flat Earth and aliens are boosted online by different agencies in order to make legit whistle blowers look bad by amalgamation, say massive illegal surveillance by the government (Snowden), TI's electromagnetic harassment/torture all around the globe, JFK assassination, recent bioengineered viruses intentionally released disguised as global pandemics, all recent wars' false pretexts, and the list goes on and on...

[@michaelmonteforte2485]

What are the "forbidden things" in science that are not allowed to be debunked?

[@RobertoCarlos-tn1iq]

blacks have superior protection against nuclear radiation than whites?

[@jondunmore4268]

If only he stated the "facts" correctly in the first place - he made up the incorrect wording of his statements, JUST so he could debunk them. Do like he says: "Look it up" - no one from any of those fields has ever claimed those stupid statements he's making. For example - NO BIOLOGIST HAS *EVER EVER EVER* STATED THAT HUMANS EVOLVED FROM CHIMPS. Biology has always maintained that human ancestors were "an ape-like creature" from the same family tree as chimps, maybe - but humans have NEVER been placed on a direct line with chimps. Or maybe this chump is confusing chimps with himself.

[@centaur7607]

Loved it!! So cool to hear about the discovery of how bees can fly!

[@guitarszen]

Which was done by science, using physics, contrary to his stupid claim at the beginning.

[@centaur7607]

@@guitarszen Facts is in quotation marks in the title. Arvin very much respects science.

[@dieSpinnt]

@@guitarszen So you watched the video (really? and surely somebody must have forced you to do so. did it hurt? **facepalm** ). You didn't get the ironic hint (with the fencepost) through the quotation marks and by context in the video? And so you think that the mere mention of the words science, and physics in particular, should constitute any argument contrary to his joke, which clearly uses everyday language and definition ... and is a effing physics lecture somehow in your mind? Sounds like a YOU-problem. And not a small one, you plonker.

[@gnjoeyhowell]

​@@guitarszenv

[@dongshengdi773]

​@@guitarszen I also confirm that evolution theory and the big bang theory suggests a Creator. 1. Just as we design AI and random generators, evolution reflects that part of the design. 2. We know that the big bang is real , implying a beginning of the universe as opposed to the fixed -state universe theory that scientists believed before a Catholic priest, Father Georges Lemaître , proposed the idea of the big bang. " Let there be Light" Sounds familiar, right ? . Just look at Nutritional Science as an Example. 1. Eat breakfast vs skip breakfast 2. eggs are healthy vs eggs are not healthy 3. Cow's Milk is healthy, rich in calcium vs Cow's Milk is unhealthy , can't absorb calcium 4. Avoid eating Fats , Eat less Fats vs Eat more Fats (Ketogenic Diet) 5. Take multivitamin supplements vs Multivitamin supplements are useless 6. Vegan Diet vs non-Vegan Diet 7. Fasting is unhealthy vs Fasting is healthy 8. eat 8 meals a day vs eat 1 meal a day 9. Coconut oil is healthy vs Coconut oil is unhealthy trans fat. 10. TCM Traditional Chinese Medicine (alternative medicine) is not scientific vs TCM is scientifically proven (food supplement boom) *** And millions more contradictory Scientific findings. Just look at Physics and other Sciences: 1. Newton Physics vs Einstein Physics 2. Time is going forward (Arrow of Time) vs Time is relative. Time is an illusion . (All of time) Every moment in time exists all the time . 3. Big Rip vs Big Crunch 4. Matter is real using our 5 senses vs 5 senses are not real, Matter is not real. (Matter is just a wave frequency, a wave of potential.) 5. Atom as solid vs Atom as energy, vibration , frequency. 6. Water is dead vs Water is alive. 7. Virus is dead vs Virus is alive. 8. Carbon dating as accurate vs not accurate 9. Dinosaurs had reptilian skin vs Dinosaurs had Avian feathers. 10. Neanderthal Man as a separate species vs Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens are interspecies (interbreeding) 11. TCM Traditional Chinese Medicine (alternative medicine) is not scientific vs TCM is scientifically proven (food supplement boom). *** And millions more contradictory Scientific findings. … All just an interpretation of evidences , we need faith on our scientists that their interpretations are correct , which often is wrong , thus we often change and update these interpretations . … Medicine, Nutrition, Psychology, Archeology, Paleontology, as well as all other fields of science are ever-changing and constantly open to re-interpretation. What's confirmed as "scientific truth" today can easily be marked as "scientifically disproved" tomorrow. New discoveries can render the information in this post obsolete at any time.

[@alanbalkany1438]

Excellent! These segments were illuminating and explained so logically and clearly! Arvin Ash is multitalented.

[@gershonhayford8779]

Amazing video. Thanks for the good work👍

[@philochristos]

I've never heard the "no gravity in space" one, but I've heard the others.

[@samuelbaquero6313]

Wow, respect for saying the five facts right away and then going in depth to debunk them. A lot of channels would not, in hopes to maximize viewing time, and then there's "the last one will shock you" in the title.

[@marenpurves4493]

True. Seen a few videos lately that were click bait as their title goes. This one has exactly what it says.

[@guitarszen]

I am a scientist, he did not present any scientific facts to debunk. He is a liar.

[@marenpurves4493]

@@guitarszen he put "facts" in double quotes. To me that makes it easy to see that they aren't.

[@l0zerth]

@@guitarszen If you're an actual research scientist, then you may be on the opposite end of most people who need to "touch grass" and get out of your bubble to interact with the rest of the world once in a while. If this is a case where you may have some sort of developmental or psychological disability that makes it difficult for you to read social cues, I think you should look into getting some sort of coaching or therapy, because to give you the short answer, putting a word[s] in quotations in such a format has been a clear indicator for many decades that what is being referred to is not what the word actually means. I don't mean any offense if either of the first two actually apply to you, but my money would be that you're simply trolling, and I've probably wasted several minutes of my life typing this.

[@jessicamaccabe4219]

I'd love many more of these. A slightly more in depth explanation on a couple of them would have been amazing for where you said about the magellan TV documentaries. We barely have time for tv in this household can speak for anyone else but these shortened explanations are genuinely lifechanging for how we can come to vaguely understand these complex and interesting matters, like from what the human species actually evolved

[@greghenry3228]

I would, as a general rule of thumb, never allow a shortened explanation of anything to be life changing - by definition they are shortened and so you don't have all the information - also someone has shortened the explanation - why? For whatever reason they have a motive - in this case it's click bate and views hence sensational title of the video. By all means be intrigued by things like this but cross reference the information - preferably with a book - before you allow it to change your life

[@glenjaques5581]

​@@greghenry3228good point

[@glenjaques5581]

Doesn't explain how we evolved, cos we never

[@pinkukaki]

Was eagerly waiting for new video.

[@Andrewlohbihler]

Yes please, more debunking videos. This was very informative and I recommended it to others.

[@larrya7822]

@larrya7822 0 seconds ago There are many Biologist that will disagree with him His example about the frog is micro evolution (a change of character with in the kind). Example a finch's beak chances shape (finch is still a finch, a frog is still a frog). Macro evolution (a change from one kind to another) is what is disagreed with. Example, a reptile to a bird. Also, when a fossil is fond it is just a small piece of a bone. Then they (with their imagination) create a whole being from it. Also your ideal goes against the laws of science. Matter decades to it's smallest form. It does not build up to a larger form. kzbin.info/www/bejne/q6a4kIh7gd5nnrM kzbin.info/www/bejne/jn-vYYWmYqpmpM0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/oKqkhXhviNmVgZo kzbin.info/www/bejne/fV6qapajgdWfqKc

[@arthurjarrett1604]

I endorse this comment.

[@Unique_Monk]

😂😂😂

[@alexfromoz]

noting was debunked. He actually just simplified what science actually says

[@Unique_Monk]

@@alexfromoz Nope, he didn’t, he spouting the narrative - science actually proves the opposite but that would prove God and a moral law that these people don’t want

[@James_3000]

0:22 why is this animated person THAT caked up

[@joepkortekaas8813]

Excellent video! Thank you!

[@pepe6666]

another banger episode from arvin ash. thank you sir

[@LowellBoggs]

Great video, and i especially liked the way that you wove the product placements seemlessly into the content. This worked really well from a consumer perspective - I wish everyone making money off their channels would out this much thought into it. Great content, great ads.

[@antman674]

Best explanation of the scientific definition of theory ever! Great job!

[@anthonywarfield7348]

Yes! People misunderstanding Theory is a pet peeve of mine. Now I can just refer them to this video because I do a horrible job trying to explain it myself.

[@geoffreyM2TW]

@@anthonywarfield7348 - They don't misunderstand the meaning of Theory, they don't want to understand what it means, they think they will be damned. A rational explanation is what they dislike the most.

[@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep]

Ironically evolutionary theory doesn't fit the definition of a scientific theory. It more fits the criteria for mythology lol.

[@geoffreyM2TW]

@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep - I do not suppose you are an American Evangelical?

[@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep]

​@@geoffreyM2TW Truth is not relative. I could be a purple panda. I can see why you would have issues basing your thought processes around such a faulty conclusion. The fundamental problem with evolution as a scientific theory is that it is neither predictive nor falsifiable. Embryologist and geneticist C. H. Waddington says, “The theory of evolution is unfalsifiable… If an animal evolves one way, biologists have a perfectly good explanation; but if it evolves some other way, they have an equally good explanation… . The theory is not … a predictive theory as to what must happen.” Information theorist Mark Ludwig elaborates, “Darwin’s hypothesis … has the character of unfalsifiable philosophy: it can explain anything and predicts practically nothing… . Darwinism … requires belief… . It has become the scientist’s paradigm, and he is rarely able to admit that it is fragile and charged with philosophy.” Ironically evolution doesn't even fit the definition of a theory given it is not falsifiable, it does however fit the criteria of mythology. Yet this is the argument of neo-Darwinianism-an argument no different from the “god of the gaps” argument. As evolutionary zoologist Pierre-P. Grassé says, “Chance becomes a sort of providence, which … is secretly worshipped.” The litany of evolutionary biologists is: “We know evolution is true, even though we don’t know how it works and have never seen it happen.”

[@jeanrafaelbragamonte9382]

Great knowledge, thank you ^^

[@marcoterbekke]

Loved it, definitely would love to see more!

[@scloftin8861]

I've frequently heart that bumble bees are aerodynamically unsound due to body size compared to wing size ... not that all bees are. Of course, until my mom accidentally dug one up one spring, we didn't know they apparently hibernate ... and are really grumpy when you disturb them too soon.

[@Craznar]

"“The Guide says there is an art to flying", said Ford, "or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”" - Douglas Adams, Life, the Universe and Everything.

[@Gary4DLC]

A great video. We need more like this.

[@gmodesike]

Best channel on KZbin. Thank you.

[@fazergazer]

Fun fact: science is now studying the cosmic gravity wave background. It is actually earlier than the first photons. Predates the cosmic microwave background❤

[@MythicJawa]

This is imperative that you keep making videos like this one…please, please, we do desperately need more of those out there. On a more personal note…thank you sir, for everything. 🙏🏼

[@stefaniasmanio5857]

Wonderful advice! Yes, these videos are brilliant!! 😍

[@Istandby666]

Your religious views have nothing to do with science. Let's leave your religious views where they belong, in your head.

[@guitarszen]

So he can keep lying, deceiving people about science. This video is bunk.

[@coreyspitzley2960]

A free month of Magellan!!!! My weekend is booked now thankyou

[@debrawehrly6900]

I've also known that gravity exists in space. It is what keeps the planets in orbit. We just don't feel the pull of gravity that strongly in space is because we do not have that much mass. Gravity becomes strong when it involves large massive bodies like planets and stars. Gravitational force is proportional to the mass of the objects and the distance between said objects. The more massive they are and the closer they are, the stronger its gravitational pull. The larger the planet, the stronger its gravity has on objects.

[@kt420ish]

This was a great video. I kind of knew about each topic...except the bees. But now I have a deeper understanding. Big thumbs up 👍

[@Pain53924]

Hi intelligent person Question: Normally a star is stable because the its own gravity is balanced by force produced inside the star due to nuclear fusion. How are black holes stable then i.e. why isn't all the mass of a black hole in the singularity?

[@kt420ish]

@Pain53924 I am not intelligent by any means. I just read a lot. Black holes to me don't make sense. They say there is a singularity at the core of every Black hole. Well think about this...everyone portrays a black hole in 2 dimensions. Basically they show a grid with a cone going straight down to infinity. Because a singularity is infinite. Well in real life...a black hole would be 3 dimensional. So if there is a singularity at the center of a black hole...then wouldn't one black hole (with its infinite singularity) literally eat up all space and time? Because a black holes infinite singularity would be 3 dimensional...meaning everything that ever happend should be pulled into that single, infinite, 3 dimensional, black hole singularity? But I've had smarter people than me try to explain why my thought is completely wrong. And then I gave up on asking the question because scientists probably know better than me. To this day I still don't understand it. But I'm sure my question is really dumb to people who have clearly moved past my question. Would love to hear your thoughts on the subject 🤙

[@Pain53924]

@@kt420ish I'm not sure about the answer but here is what I think. The singularity is a point (Basically zero dimensional). At that point alone the space time curvature is "infinite". Any other point on the black hole, you would find that the curvature is not inf.

[@kt420ish]

@Pain53924 yes I think that makes sense. Because a black hole, depending on its mass, only has as much gravity as its mass. So like if our sun collapsed and turned into a black hole...it still has the same amount of gravity as it always has. So we would just keep rotating around it as normal because the mass never changes so the gravitational pull never changes. But that whole singularity thing is just so hard to grasp. I mean, even with mathematics...I think most people still have a hard time visualizing that concept

[@Pain53924]

@@kt420ish ya thats the extent of my knowledge. Mind bending stuff

[@patrickswift1172]

Great video! You can have a limited amount of scientific knowledge, but still understand what you are discussing. The story about the tree frogs is great. Please keep making them😊!

[@larrya7822]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/fV6qapajgdWfqKc

[@cbjodd5878]

The tree frogs are still tree frogs. They did not evolve or gain any new information, they only lost the "green color" info in this accident.

[@cbjodd5878]

It is called EPIGENETICS.

[@nicolelala10]

@@cbjodd5878 Yes, they are still tree frogs, but a certain trait has changed (evolved) to enable them to survive in that environment. It's overly simplistic, but that's what evolution is. Like how Humans (humanoids) gained larger craniums and brains, more upright postures, different teeth, to adapt (evolve) into what we are today. Evolution doesn't necessarily mean that something becomes another thing completely different. It just means that organisms adapt, or change over time. They are tree frogs. Not exactly like the tree frogs previously common to that region or time, but still tree frogs.

[@cbjodd5878]

@@nicolelala10 Hi, my friend. It is called epigenetics. The different collors and traits are already programmed in the genes. It has to do with how the chromosome is wrapped around the histone, and what parts of the genes that are available for transcription. ( The only " proof " they have provided for evolution is The Missing Link, but that one is still missing. Think about that one for a minute.) Thanks.

[@nasiaking]

Well presented and informative.

[@thehumanist3847]

So much greatful for ur valuable informations....

[@photon434]

The only thing not to like about your video's is the thought of missing one. I could listen to them all day. Your content, understandability, and presentation methods are phenomenal. Keep'm coming! 🐒

[@dw620]

Just use "speed of causality", of course. Saves a lot of grief... : ) Nice video as ever, thanks. Nicely dodged on mentioning whether gravity is quantized or not. ^^

[@l0zerth]

I agree on retiring the 'speed of light' expression, it just happened, and remains, to some extent when communicating to laypeople, the simplest and commonly relatable example of that speed limit. It also was what Einstein was directly speaking to when he was developing SR, so I'm sure that's also part of why it stuck... lol Arvin also was working in macro scales, in fact, talking about ever-increasing distances, so there was no reason in this video to go the other direction all the way down to the quantum, just to state that that's the biggest part where physics break down between the micro quantum and macro classical systems.

[@drdassler]

I did know those already but this looks like a great channel. 👍🏼

[@hmarillejla7]

Wonderful video. I like how certain facts (sic) are provedfalse . Keep up the info coming

[@stellarwind1946]

The last one is a very common one. The current laws of physics can explain everything up until the very earliest moment known as the Planck epoch.

[@louisdrouard9211]

I really dislike when physicists over simplified the big bang to creation, they did big damages doing so. Now we have several generation of peoples who believe science proves the creation of the universe et therefor God....

[@johanmalm8378]

Thank you! The info on the big bang made it a little clearer to me.

[@ajam4u]

@johanmalm8378 Except that the fairly new James Web telescope is sending back information that is counter of what the Big Bang theorists were expecting to find.

[@bpark222]

Watching these uploads on science always leaves me with more questions than understanding, but i appreciate your explanation of what a theory really entails, scientific or otherwise because theories always are, or should, be evolving, but they arent guesses because there is no theory without a fact or facts, just a fact can change, which i guess is kinda hard to comprehend.

[@greghenry3228]

Scientific method is observation (what you see) hypothesis (why you think it is like that) experimentation (test your hypothesis) and analysis (analysis of results)..... This is why scientific theory has always been evidenced by repeatable experiment.... Doesn't mean it's right as a different experiment could prove your hypothesis wrong so you need to revaluate your hypothesis not the observation. Imagine astrology before the invention of telescope - theory's were based on limited information

[@amanvermalh]

I will love to see more of these debunking videos.

[@micahcorbett7795]

The constant promotion is pretty annoying

[@davefrapart]

Uncle eilley😅

[@russlehman2070]

A note on how birds fly. For the bulk of flying bird species, it's true that they only generate lift on the down stroke. An exception to this is hummingbirds, whose flight mode is similar to that of bees. They generate lift on both strokes, similar to bees. This flight mode enables both bees and hummingbirds to hover.

[@tessjuel]

Since we're at it, many birds don't waste energy flapping their wings at all if they can possibly avoid it, most of the time they soar.

[@analog_guy]

Barn swallows, and perhaps some other swallows as well, deserve more credit than they get. I have observed barn swallows hovering and even flying backwards for brief periods. I presume they only do it very briefly because such flight requires substantially more power than normal forward flight. I don't know if swallows are able to generate lift on both strokes.

[@l0zerth]

@@analog_guy I think they have to also tilt their bodies up/back (however you want to phrase it), because their skeleton and musculature do not allow them to fold their wings over like bees and hummingbirds.

[@greghenry3228]

Evolution in action! Both species that require hovering as opposed to distance have lateral wing motion. The majority of birds using vertical wing motion allows for gliding - able to reduce energy output and increase distances between eating

[@glenjaques5581]

​@@greghenry3228how is it showing evolution in action please explain

[@rippinkorpse]

More of these videos please!

[@mustwereallydothis]

It's like that old saying. "Flying is easy. Just aim for the ground and miss."

[@markbrisec3972]

The question that young Earth creationists think it's a gotcha, always makes me cringe.. "If we evolved from the chimps why are there still chimps?"... Jeez.. Elementary level biology.

[@Jj-jg6pw]

Even if we had evolved from chimps, it doesn't mean that all chimps had evolved to humans.

[@ab-fi6ks]

Creationism is such a scam. I say this as a Christian lol

[@anywallsocket]

It’s not just the rotation of the wings as the bees flap that enables them to fly, it’s also that they are intentionally creating vortices which give them extra lift.

[@pluto9000]

And they are full of hot air like a blimp.

[@RobertoCarlos-tn1iq]

huh?? blimps get their lift from helium.

[@michaelmoore7975]

Bats?

[@bogusmogus9551]

Bees also have a secret. They can defy gravity

[@feedingravens]

"Flying is easy, all you have to do is throw yourself to the ground and miss it". This quote from Douglas Adams' "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is exactly the description of an orbit.

[@TradeWithTraderIQ]

First video from this channel and it was very informative. It just felt more like a long ad than a show. With that said, still great content.

[@tazzmdevil7461]

I very much enjoy learning all this science explained in simple brain terms.. 😊 I'm a 40 year old bricklayer who wishes I had made better choices during my school years. Religion held me back, that's all my parents really cared about and science scared them.. anyways... Thank God I found your channel! Lol😂😂😂 but seriously..😅

[@PrashantGijare]

It didn’t have to be either or approach, honestly. But I understand where they come from. Similar things happen when there’s science only approach.

[@margodphd]

​@@PrashantGijareNo, they don't. Science only approach doesn't make people stupid and afraid and easy to manipulate while religion absolutely does.

[@driller7714]

⁠@@margodphdActually I think you have it backward. Faith in God makes one unafraid. Science is understanding how God created our universe. Notice that the man in the video referred to the beginning as creation. Freudian slip? Matter conserves itself. Matter cannot be destroyed and no new matter comes into existence. Yet, in the beginning, matter did come into existence. Matter was created. This violates the laws of physics. Perhaps the laws of physics came into being at the same time matter came into being so no violation? Hmmm, laws of physics. 🤔 Laws mean order, structure, design, intelligence. People who hold to science only are just as religious and possibly cult like as religious folks who deny science. Science proves God. There are many more examples that can be demonstrated using the laws of this universe. Laws that would be violated if there was no intelligent creator. For example, Every single possible thing in this universe is a mathematical equation. We know that mathematics has laws. A mathematical equation has to be perfect in order for it to work. If one calculation is off in the slightest, if one factor is missing, the equation falls apart. Humans are able to create complex things. We call these things technology. Most of the things we make are inspired by what we see in this world. A solar panel is a leaf. A computer is a brain. Most of these things are inferior to what we observe in this world. This technology requires many mathematical equations in order to be possible. One factor in these mathematical equations is intelligence. The intelligence factor determines how complex the technology can be. Without this factor, the creation of technology fails. Now, think of the solar panel and the leaf from which it is copied. The leaf is a far superior technology. How can that technology exist without the intelligence factor being in the mathematic equation to make it so? Does the existence of the leaf violate the laws of mathematics? Impossible. The proof of God is right in front of your nose. Your utter refusal to entertain the fact that a creator does indeed exist and science leads us to that conclusion makes you, what’s the word you used?……Ah yes, stupid.

[@greghenry3228]

PBS Space-time - far more accurate but complex... History of the universe is accurate and detailed but explained clearly - 40 Min episodes

[@marvac-r7916]

Loved what you said about "theory" and that in science everything is always under scrutiny. Humans often dismiss the fact that our senses of perception are dismally minimal. Geez, many animals can see and hear things we can't. Re the big bang, I always ask proponents, "So, what was it that went 'bang'?"

[@vladyvhv9579]

Chuck Norris farted and it went faster than light, thus breaking causality.

[@juliathelittle7007]

The Big Bang theory was presented by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian cosmologist and Catholic priest. But it was named by Sir Fred Hoyle who held the opposite theory. So in an interview in the 1940’s he dismissively called this theory he did not hold “the big bang” theory. So yes the name is actually a joke name for the theory but it stuck.

[@HorseMaster23]

It's simple... it was one of Andrew's famous anus-ripping implosions

[@oldmanandthesea3384]

Thank you for bringing this to light. Saves me the typing. @@juliathelittle7007

[@WhiteMouse77]

What? The absolute nothing is the most unstable form of nonexistence which explodes in such bang in less than second it has occured. Because of time. Where's time, there's space, where's space, there's energy...but if an energetic imperfection causes accidntal occurence of absolute nothing....BAAAANG!!!!

[@iraklitos20022003]

Great video thank you 😊

[@SallyWilliams]

Very interesting video, and you have a very charming presentation

[@lucasdeaver9192]

The treading water analogy for the bee thing works great. To a bee air density is more akin to water than the way we feel it so it makes sense that they fly that way.

[@aresh004]

I was under the impression that the bee flight thing was still unsolved. Awesome to know that it isn't

[@PeerAdder]

And hasn't been for 20 years or so.

[@kylezo]

@@PeerAdder it's like you watched the same video everyone else did or something

[@freefall9832]

I didn't need a physicist to tell me bees could fly. The mathematics didn't fit, hahaha

[@nicstroud]

This was always about semantics. Instead of saying, 'bees shouldn't be able to fly', what we should have been saying is, 'we are too stupid to know how bees fly but they clearly can as you can see them fucking doing it.' I'm pretty certain no one intelligent said bees _shouldn't_ be able to fly in opposition of the evidence.

[@rodenreyes6320]

Bee flight lift is like fish swimming?..back and forth fin movements?

[@teddrewry6001]

More, please!

[@josephmorgan3058]

Thank you KZbin algorithm for recommending this channel --fascinating!!

[@greghenry3228]

Click bait in action - people far more likely to click "science facts proved wrong" than "something you might have heard that sounds plausible actually isn't"

[@theklaus7436]

I think these questions should be common knowledge if you are interested in physics. I often have a discussion about thermodynamics especially the second law. Perhaps a subject if you don’t already have made it. Great show by the way 🎸😊

[@flambambam3578]

Veritasium's recent video did a good job educating many of those that hear about science, but don't actually understand where it comes from. Too many people read "entropy is strictly increasing" and never actually look into the math (and assumptions) governing where that statement comes from.

[@ThrockmortonSign]

Nerd

[@flagmichael]

@@ThrockmortonSign I had two great careers as a nerd; there is a huge market for people who understand how complex things work and how to get them working when they fail. There is nothing wrong with being inquisitive.

[@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep]

@@flambambam3578 and what is patently absurd is despite knowing the whole universe is in a state of decay, even information theory states this for the immaterial concept of information, some people still accept the logically absurd notion of evolution, information magically increasing to a higher state.

[@greghenry3228]

​@@flambambam3578entropy is always increasing within a closed system - literally rewording the second law of thermodynamics. The only true closed system is the universe as a whole Entropy can be "decreased" only by proportional input from outside agent or environment (not closed system) and is also possible by random results of causality. However random causality so much lower in probability the actual effect is that entropy will always increase as the effects of causality play out and outweigh the lower probability outcome

[@triconcert]

For me, as a writer, I often have to stop and think about the level of basic information my readers are exposed to before I write. While I understand the overall theses here I'm still lost in all the physics details at the top of your show. Loved the section on bees. I think you're perfectly right about the wrong assumptions of humans evolving from chimps. Thanks for clarity on the Big Bang Theory.

[@Kyle-nm1kh]

I'm a writer too, also working on clarifying complex ideas to an audience that may be less capable of understanding. I want to start simple and elaborate, without 1) spiraling out of control with the complexity and 2) Boring the audience who already knows the basics. It's really a challenge. For example if I were to explain how gravity affects everything at a greater than zero force, regardless of distance... I'd have to start by talking about the basics for my audience that is less educated, without making the more educated audience be bored. Then I'd have to elaborate in complexity without scaring away the less educated audience, while also keeping it interesting to the audience with more education. It can be done, but only with finesse. And if done incorrectly, can upset both audiences lol

[@Thestoicstallion]

⁠@@Kyle-nm1khI think a good way to do that is by keeping it engaging. Because the people who already know might stay if you explain it in a way that gets their imagination going, seeing from a different perspective and the people who don't know might stay if it's explained in a way that is practical with examples. Just my 2 cents! I think you should write about the gravity example you gave! It sounds very interesting

[@Kyle-nm1kh]

@shaned6671 there are a few ways to go about. There is to keep it interesting, like you suggest. Also there is to keep it fun, have you heard of "fun theory"? You could also add a new twist to an old idea so it's not just the same old ideas being repeated. For example my latest theorizing has me thinking about gravity very differently. Traditionally gravity has been associated with mass, which is associated with matter. I was wondering if gravity is actually associated with.... dark matter.... and that mass traps an amount of dark matter increasing its density. We just don't see it. It would explain why we aren't seeing the gravity boson... cuz it's dark. But I don't know how to prove any of this so it's just an idea until some physicist gets the same idea. I was thinking this dark matter also is an opposing force to dark energy (push vs pull) and is responsible for the formation of galaxies and the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is because the greater the distance dark energy has from dark matter, the stronger dark energy becomes thus the farther it moves away, the more it accelerates. But I'm not a physicist, I'm just a writer.

[@Thestoicstallion]

@@Kyle-nm1kh I have not heard of fun theory but it sounds fun! Hahaha I had to. Anyways, yes I think that's a great idea because people who are learned on the subject will have heard all the old ideas and will probably lose interest that second. I am not one of those people so everything I say from here is my humble opinion and imagination but as far as dark matter that would make sense for gravity to effect it because it's still technically matter, right? So gravity effects all matter even the one we can't see. That is only logical in my mind but maybe that's my naivety on the subject. Also, as far as dark matter/energy being responsible for galaxies, as everything is expanding, is the darkness not already there before the things have expanded? So if they are already there they must be pulling things in their direction? Unless things were already going that way to begin with. Unless that is not what is meant by dark energy/matter. One last thing. You say you can't prove it, which might be true but you can make a portion of the writings as "theoretical" or just "creative theory" and lay them out for fun. Getting people to think is what will keep them engaged. This is why you should write the book. I don't mind reading the boring ones but this is way more interesting!

[@Kyle-nm1kh]

@shaned6671 I'm busy writing other books right now! One is a non fiction book that is designed for spiritual enlightenment. I'm also working to revive my old fictional trilogy I worked on 10+ years ago which will be about vampires, werewolves, and zombies. Also I'm applying for college to get a degree in accounting so I can pay the bills. I also am designing a video game and I invented a board game which I need to patent and copyright and publish etc. So dark matter is this invisible and unknown "stuff" that the only reason we know is there is because it has a gravitational effect. That's why it's called matter. And dark energy was proposed to describe the expansion of the universe as observed by red fade light. I'm suggesting that dark energy may be responsive to dark matter which would explain the acceleration of the expansion because of the distance between the two things getting larger. Since the rate of expansion is not faster than light, there's probably some sort of characteristic linked to matter!

[@alfredoa334]

What a great video!!! Thank you very much.

[@Srjan-Srjan]

Yes sir pls make lots of such debunking science videos .

[@CaseyHancocki3luefire]

i never heard that bees shouldn't be able to fly before but it is cool the explanation of how they do.

[@guitarszen]

That's because he is lying. Clearly the laws of physics apply. No scientific facts were presented or debunked.

[@brolinofvandar]

I believe it was specifically bumblebees that were supposed to not be able to fly, but could anyway. Larger body mass than, say, a honeybee. I'd heard that "mystery" had been solved, but this is first explanation of it I've seen.

[@waynejackson1426]

@@guitarszen nothing he said make sense. In fact the topic is so misleading it is not funny.

[@PrimalShutter]

@@brolinofvandar there was never such a mystery, it's just a meme wellness coach type of people were spreading around

[@John777Revelation]

Hi Arvin, This topic would make for a nice mini-series on your channel. If/when you post a part 2/3/4, would you discuss the recent discoveries of Developmental Gene Regulatory Networks and the fallacies of the out-dated "Junk DNA" belief? Thank you and best wishes.

[@l0zerth]

Junk DNA is actually not outdated, and the oft quoted figures of >95% similarity (as he used in this video) with other species was from an incredibly bad and arrogant take at the beginnings of genomic research in the 60's, declaring everything that is not protein-coding to be "junk," which is less that 2% of human DNA. We have long since isolated plenty of other coding branches in DNA besides protein, isolated other functions that do not do direct coding themselves, and haven't even reached a consensus on the definition of 'functional,' but the current consensus all agrees that the old protein-coding only comparison has been outdated for decades.

[@dixonpinfold2582]

That was good, man. You've really got your method down.

[@MrMattberry1]

Really interesting, thanks

[@rwsmith7638]

The only one I wasn't aware of was the speed of light thing. 'Anologous Dispersion' and the expansion epoch faster than light are new to me. Happy to learn something new.

[@louisdrouard9211]

So you knew about big bang and cosmic inflation but did not know about cosmic inflation ?

[@l0zerth]

I'm not sure I've ever heard the term "Analogous Dispersion," before, either, but yes, it simply means Inflation, which is still the standard model of the "Big Bang," although not critical, but has actually come into some question in recent years. BTW, please do yourself a favor and ignore standard media whenever they have sensational headlines about... anything, really, but especially preliminary observations in astrophysics, such as declaring that JWST just proved that the universe is twice as old as previously thought, etc.

[@christianfaust5141]

Very informative. I really appreciate it, but that with the difference of phase and group velocity in material of anomalous dispersion is still hard to grasp. Very well explained is the fact why astronauts fly in the orbit though 90% of gravity still applies on them. Overall a very useful and educational video.

[@daniellewilson8527]

Yes pImagee an explation of anomalous dispersion would be good

[@13amplifiers]

I vote for more like this. Good job!!

[@MrWahotts]

NGL, I was nervous clicking the video because I was expecting a conspiracy type “science is lying to us” thing. I was greatly relieved to hear actual facts presented in a concise manner without being condescending.

[@NaamManithar]

As the world is moving towards pseudoscience, we need more science and debunking videos like this... I always loved your way of explaining the things, it directly hits the brain 😅 ... ❤❤❤ ...

[@Novarcharesk]

It's also moving towards people claiming stuff is pseudoscience even when it isn't.

[@stefanogandino9192]

It's also moving towards people treating science as religion and thus imposing pseudoscience on others as a revealed Truth while accusing doubters as pseudoscientists

[@generalmarkmilleyisbenedic8895]

Anything from marxism and leftism is pseudoscience

[@ThePaulv12]

@stefanogandino9192 Opinion presented as fact and a self serving convenient ignorance of the that the core business of science is to disprove hypothesis. In short if you don't understand the core business of science then you can challenge science as just another belief mechanism. They think they have it all sewn up.

[@rogerwilco1777]

..but but earth is flat! space is just holograms projected by nasa nazi's who want to steal taxes to bury more fake dino bones and teach your kids its ok to gay marry your dog!.. trust me, i watch youtube videos

[@naoyaueno610]

I knew them all, except the 4th one, that they're wrong. I like to enjoy "what!?" feeling, so I hope there'll be more enlightening debunking videos like this!

[@pluto9000]

The ball has more mass so needs more force to change its speed.

[@naoyaueno610]

@@pluto9000 I only focused on the strength of gravitational interactions and completely forgot to take inertia into account. Thank you for correcting.

[@Silberstern-bd9jx]

Amazing video! While I knew many of these things already, I didn’t know that apart from expanding spacetime, light energy can also travel faster with this anomalous dispersion. Thanks for this enlightening video!

[@greghenry3228]

It doesn't travel faster than light - the author has read some basic news reports in USA that misunderstood the research... The way to imagine the difference between signal velocity and group velocity is shine a torch on a wall. Move / rotate the torch one inch to the left - how far does the light spot on the wall move? It depends how far away the wall is. The sun is many times larger than earth but we can see it. Imagine your torch as powerful as the sun and you shine it on a wall as far away as the the sun. It would take 8 mins for the light to hit the wall but when you move it to the left the spot would move such a vast distance it would appear to move faster than light but it does not - the signal velocity remains the speed of light so it takes 8 mins before the spot rotates but it appears the spot itself moves faster.

[@joemilbourne3151]

I always thought that saying everyone blinks when they sneeze was doubtful, after thinking about it one night a few months back.... when we sneeze the pressure in our nasal passages etc. etc. is increased and builds pressure in our heads and the involuntary blink occurs but I found when you sneeze with your mouth open and a few practice sneezes and of course holding a tissue in front of the mouth this blink does not occur through a lack of pressure ... 🙂🙂🙂 hey I was bored, give me a break !!

[@MacDaniboi]

I thought this was going to be some weird pseudo science, but it's not, this is very educational and high quality. Also I wouldn't call it "but wrong", instead I would call it "but explained more accuratly"

[@robertgoldie5077]

Me too! I actually thought it was going to have some sort of pro-creationist theme. Thankfully not. It was good - but I don't think 'debunking' is the right word though

[@jibijacob0001]

It is the psuedo science

[@neiljohnson7914]

I'm a Homosapien, not that there's anything wrong with that.

[@chucktouchton398]

*Homo Sapiens

[@mikeschuler2946]

Lol

[@mikeschuler2946]

I identify as a human

[@Steve-Cross]

We are primates. Our species, Homo sapiens, evolved from ancient primates, as did the chimpanzee, which genetically is our closest cousin. We are, and will always be genetically associated with great apes. I’m sure that Answers a lot of questions. 🙂

[@user-dc1en6di8f]

I'd like you better if you were just a sapien...

[@IanM-id8or]

Orbiting reminds me of Douglas Adams' description of how to fly - you fall and miss the ground

[@caiolopezcomz]

Great video! But maybe the audio of your mic is a bit too bassy? I'd filter out the lows.

[@bay7711]

I've always wondered...if the gravity of a black hole swallows the light and the light can't escape it, would it stand to reason that gravity, in this case, exceeds the speed of light?

[@daniellewilson8527]

I think 3:23 will help you, as will the light section later on, which I haven’t gotten to yet. Watch some videos on black holes too, the Science Asylum has some videos about black ho,es as well as many other things

[@WakenerOne]

No, because when he's speaking of gravity moving at the speed of light, he's talking about its propagation, not its intensity. This was proven by detection of gravitational waves from two colliding black holes, but an impossible example will make it easier to understand. Let's say that BAM! A black hole appears in the middle of empty space neara bunchof rogue planets. One second, nothing, the next zero black hole of 1000 solar masses. A photon headed away from it just beyond the event horizon will never know it's there. Any photons at the same distance which are NOT traveling directly away from it will get captured. The sole reason for the difference is that its gravitational effect is propagating at the exact same speed as the lucky photon, but it's a snail's whisker behind it. That photon will keep going as long as it doesn't interact with anything, and it will never know the hole is there. A planet 1 AU away will also never know the black hole is there . . . For just over 8 minutes. The hole will have NO effect on it until then, because it takes 8 minutes and change for light and gravity to move 1 AU. It would BE there with all the intense gravity you expect in 1000 solar masses, but not affecting the planet until just after the photon passed by. Then that planet would experience what the ancients called "interesting times." A planet at Mars ' distance will find out what is going on a few minutes after the first one, once gravity reaches it, and so on. It would take hours for something at Saturn distance to find out. Such an object might go into orbit, but it wouldn't deviate from a mostly straight line course until hours after the hole bammed into existence. Now, with all the matter the hole hoovers in, the distance between the event horizon and the singularity would increase, but only slowly. So the zone light can't escape doesn't increase at anywhere near the speed of light, either. Of course, there's a theory that gravity is just the illusory effect of the curvature of space from the presence of matter slowing time (the closer you are to the mass, the more curvature, the more curvature, the slower time moves, the slower time moves, the greater the perception of gravity. Once space is infinitely curved, as inside a black hole, EVERY direction must inevitably be "down," therefore light can't escape no matter how fast it goes because "up" isn't even a thing anymore.

[@daniellewilson8527]

@@WakenerOne that’s a good explanation

[@l0zerth]

Contrary also to popular belief, we actually don't have a proper theory of gravity, only the observation that it seems to be caused by energy/matter, and a mathematical approximation that only works in classical frameworks (meaning not at the quantum level), and turns out may be asymptotic, which is to say a divergent approximation, meaning it actually gets less accurate the further out you calculate. What sense we have made of gravity is that it seems to be the bending of spacetime itself, and if you bend spacetime far enough, you basically create too great a space for light to ever traverse (remember all the talk about infinities), in the absolute roughest of analogies. According to the Inflationary Model, it's not just things moving away from each other from a single point of explosion in space, it is spacetime itself expanding outward, kind of like a black hole pulling outward on the universe, stretching it far enough and fast enough that points that start incredibly close become far enough apart that the speed of causality (i.e. light) eventually no longer connects. It's definitely a big mental hurdle for a lot of people to climb, but Relativity applies to objects in spacetime, not to spacetime itself, which is how things end up moving apart faster than light. If your head hasn't exploded yet, gravity is *not* the same as gravitational waves, which seem to move just slightly slower than the speed of causality. As a bonus, it it this expansion that causes "redshift" in light, literally stretching out the wavelengths of the photons energy, and there are undoubtedly some details and unknowns that we don't have yet that affect this along with the gravity we can calculate (stars and galaxies, etc.), but redshift was how Hubble realized the universe is actually expanding, and not static, and the basis of how we calculate astronomical distances over millions and billions of lightyears.

[@daniellewilson8527]

@@l0zerth your explanation makes lots of sense to me

[@PortmanRd]

"Science Fiction That Is Wrong" Creationism!!

[@twozzi]

Hi there is there a way to bring back free shorting or to disable auto-arrange in Windows 10?

[@v1ggo1]

Very good!