Comments by "" (@nightmareTomek) on "Veritasium" channel.

Independent woman don't need no communicator.
46
I'm not convinced. I think Derek's explanation is lacking something, the sheer weight of the rope makes air resistance negligible, a lighter rope could reveal answer C to be correct, and the majority of people don't just pick C because they're dumb, but because of experience. I think he's lacking the pull of the rope on itself. The higher the point on the rope, the more rope and thus weight below it. With the rope as heavy as 20lbs the air resistance on the lowest point becomes negligible compared to the weight. Also I wonder how the rope would behave when the helicopter were moving through a vacuum. Hm... Somehow I don't expect anyone here to have a discussion about this. Only giant explanations how everyone thinks he's right. Why's that, I wonder...
20
@swaggery Dunno, the math that they used 100 years ago to prove black holes makes a lot more sense to me, compared to that penrose diagram and parallel universes. I would have believed the former. The latter sounds like this: c = sqrt(a² + b²) means the hypotenuse can have a negative length and from that we conclude that there exists another triangle that's invisible to us. We call it the upside down.
11
What they talk about in a way like it's a fact is pure speculation. After watching hundreds of science videos I feel like the imagination of scientists goes over the roof. It's becoming scientertainment.
5
@MendTheWorld Damn, I forgot about that -.-
4
People are better at blaming than at listening. It doesn't surprise me that some who have the knowledge don't take the lead.
4
@ZenoSol_ Ok, everyone's dumb and doesn't wanna acknowledge it. I wonder if you considered that this might apply to you as well. (And me, but I believe you did consider this one). Anyway, there's still a phenomenon called "Wisdom of Crowds", it states that the average of opinions of a big group is or can be more precise than the answer of the most knowledgeable expert individual. Because of that I'm immediately suspicious, when someone simply says "the majority is just wrong". I still want to know if Dereks answer is complete or not, it feels to me like it's not. The weight on the bottom parts of the rope pulling on the top is what I think is missing. I want to test it myself, I'm just not sure how yet. I'm not exactly having a helicopter in my garage. Anyway, in case I were to find the correct answer and were to explain it here, I doubt anyone would listen.
3
@yellafella2718 If you ask like that. :) Sure. Well. This is very subjective and really just a minor criticism. But it feels to me like these science videos talk more in a way that sounds exiting than to explain as close to the truth as possible. Probably to entertain even those, who would have otherwise lost their focus, to get as many views and watch time on YT as possible. It's not like they're telling us lies or that I don't appreciate their and the scientists effort, it just that they're making the science sound more pop. It's still interesting, although I feel like my ears need to filter out the stuff that's meant to sound exciting. Wiki: "Popular science is an interpretation of science intended for a general audience." For example an anecdote: a friend of mine who has recently finished his physics studies, explained to me just a few weeks ago, that we have no means whatsoever to detect intergalactic black holes. So if there were any of these randomly floating trough space, they would part of dark matter. I've been waiting for explanations like these since forever, but on YT they either assume it to be "too much" for the average listener, or "dark matter" as sounding way more exciting and mysterious. The second thing is their phrasing, they formulate everything as if they knew for certain, as if they had seen the Higgs Boson or already unmistakeably figured out the Big Bang. Which makes it hard to deduct how much evidence they actually have, what other possible explanations there are and how probable these are. About the Big Bang I really want to know how sure they are and what makes them so sure. And... 500 years ago humanity KNEW that the earth was flat. You know. :P It's again just a minor criticism, but it's irritating me slightly. I guess what I want is just more details packed into it.
2
@yellafella2718 Hm, interesting. Probably though you imagine these changes in phrasing differently than I do. I actually think you would welcome them as well, if they were executed right. It's not meant to sound uncertain, but to give a more precise understanding about the scientists progress instead. Hm. It's hard to come up with an example right now. And as said, I don't want to turn it into a school lesson. In schools they usually repeat stuff over and over and it gets boring. Neither would I want to make the videos significantly longer. But as you correctly said, it's a risk and I understand that they don't want to take it. If I were in their shoes though, I would definitely give it a try.
2
The subjects obviously move through a 4th dimension we cannot see. There's no other way to explain why some subjects cuddle and some don't.
2
Sounds weird, indeed. "There is something we can't explain. So let's make up virtual particles and voila it's explained!" And billions of hours of calculations won't help, humanity is still pretty stupid and in a 100 years these virtual particles can turn out to be something completely different. Just keep in mind that although it sounds like they already know everything about virtual particles, in reality it's still a mere idea of an explanation.
1
@Sesquiped xD Do you always scour the web for people you can insult? All this text and blatantly false assumptions. I mean, I could explain to you what my comment means, but I rather explain it to a wall because it's *less of a waste of time*. Stop using the anonymity of the internet to annoy people all over the world, you moron.
1
@yellafella2718 You might be right, but where else to look? :-P Except making your interest into a profession. But these "details" that I have in mind are basically miner phrasing tweaks... I don't believe it would make it harder to process, I have quite a lot of faith actually. I think you and the majority would welcome it. As long as it's not turned into a boring school lesson. What about you, would you lose interest when it would be harder to process? I'm also sure 10 or 15 years ago people were saying, that YT is meant to entertain and not educate. And the pop science channels are definitely doing both and are successful.
1
If I encounter evidence contrary to my beliefs, I would not be open minded but highly skeptical, and for a simple reason. Which is that my beliefs are already based on evidence of which I already encountered 100x as much, which would be saying the opposite.
1
I also think it's science fiction. It's like solving Pythagoras' theorem to get a negative value through square root in a triangle with positive value lengths, and then conclude that there exists a dimension called upside-down. Also the insides of a black hole being a singularity point or ring infinitely small I think is just rounding, just to make calculations easier. Probably there's another layer of degeneracy pressure that keeps the gluon clump inside the black hole from condensing any further.
1
well, I watched your video for nearly 10 times now (didn't have this topic at school, so.. :-( thx for the lesson btw.). I'm starting to get the theory, but I can't understand, how the wheel is kept in the air with no arrows pointing upwards (Torque x Angular Momentum???). And how you can predict the direction of the rotation of the whole system...
1
The electrons accumulating on the cable's surface, has this been demonstrated somehow?
1
Is this available in german? xD
1
They also needed decades to solve it.
1
How about Hydrogen and remote control for those cargo airships?
1
The second riddle with the speed never specified, that the total average included the duration how long you were running with each speed.
1
Neither the wave function nor superpositions are actually in reality. The wave function just shows us the probabilities of where the particle could be, but it's still just a particle and at a single point in space. Collapsing the function makes us find out where the particle was all along. Same with superposition, it's a way for us to calculate with all the states the cat can be in at the same time. But the cat isn't truly in two states and doesn't pick one when we open the box to measure it.
1
I wonder if this can really detect gravitational waves, or just micro vibrations of the silicone threads. Is science getting in over it's head?
1
@lilaclizard4504 Yea, I'm going to test it with ribbons hanging from my bike. I also wonder how the rope would behave in a vacuum, would it simply go straight down in a line (answer a)? But yeah, the helicopter would... I got that finally. It also doesn't get to me how the rotor wash is negligible, but the air resistance isn't. Isn't the rotor wash stronger? Maybe people indeed picked c with that in mind. Also if you have a rope which is so long it can't hold it's own weight, and you let it hang.. where does it rip? At the bottom or at the top? Although the weight of the rope is the same throughout the whole rope, the pull of the rope on itself isn't the same everywhere. Maybe Derek's right. But I feel weird about it. A puzzle piece is still missing.
1
@lilaclizard4504 Well, this time you dedicated a whole paragraph to talk off my topic. I don't wanna add any kind of weight or force to the rope, that would indeed result in random snapping locations. I want the rope itself to be long, weak and heavy enough, so it snaps from it's own weight. A chain with alternating heavy and weak links for example. Then it's should be less random. If you hang such a chain, the upper links experience a higher pull than the links at the bottom, so it's more likely the chain breaks at the top. Isn't it? The same effect should be happening with the helicopter rope. I think the rope experiences a greater pull by itself on the top compared to the bottom. I wonder how that affects it's shape. It's just that because of the weight of the rope it's negligible, as is the downwash and air resistance. But what if the rope were so light that it weren't negligible?
1
@kamkamkam_ I think you made that explanation up all on yourself, because I've never heard that at all and it doesn't make sense to me either. And when you say stuff like "we know this", you're making use of a very, VERY common strategy of telling your opinion like it were an established fact, essentially lying. Let's be honest, 99% of people on the internet use this strategy, they present their opinionated guesses always as if these were scientific facts, which they nearly never are. Who is "we" and where exactly is the proof? "We" as I know it doesn't even consider the existence of the wisdom of crowds. This wisdom usually doesn't work when the group is biased. Lets take the latest video of Veritasium as an example: the population has been taught a simplified model of electricity at school, thus making them biased. On top of that the social pressure causes people to stick to what they've been taught. On the other hand, if you had asked a probabilistic question like "how far away is the sun" a thousand years ago, I believe the wisdom of crowds would have utterly failed, too. And I think the wisdom of crowds can apply to non-probabilistic questions as well. Your explanation sounds insufficient, so I have to ask again: why not? I think people can have a feeling for the right answer out of their experience watching everyday things. And they've forgotten what they've been taught about the rope problem at school, so that's why they're no longer biased, and this makes them picking this answer... was it C? Very interesting. Maybe they're indeed wrong just like the crowds would have been wrong 1000 years ago about the distance of the sun. Then again Veritasium is putting out a lot of videos lately with "you never understood this correctly" and "you always understood that wrong", this makes me very sceptic. For his first video of electricity he received the well deserved backlash, he did a bad job explaining and didn't show any testing, like in the 2nd. For the video with the rope he simply didn't receive backlash. So I'm wondering... should he have?
1
@tjay5837 I haven't tested it yet, I have to admit, I keep forgetting. Not enough sophistication for all the scepticism.... But when I do, I'll remember to tell everyone... (unless I'm wrong, ofc. xD No, I will do it anyway...)
1
@meta02 Or maybe you are just wrong? I keep forgetting to test this, life's getting in the way, although I have an idea how to do it. Thanks for the reminder. I think Dereks test is insufficient, good science needs to be repeated anyway, and Dereks also has been trying to convince people of his unverified opinion a few times after he made this particular video. And there have been endless cases where teachers did mistakes, too, they were convinced of their answer being correct, while in reality it wasn't. My skepticism is well placed here. Everything else I already explained, which you seem to have just "forgotten" to read or forgotten while reading. You seem to not be a worthwile conversation partner, you kind of talk like a stupid d (typical YT experience, right?). I'll repeat once more, what I said, but if you keep being a d, I won't read any more of your comments, but put you on ignore. I believe the rope weight pulls on itself, and Derek has negleted that. The rope however is overall too heavy for the effect to be seen by our eyes, because the guys don't want the rope to fly upwards into the propeller (or how's that called?). This remains to be checked.
1
"If we question the status quo by rejecting what those around us accept as true, we jeopardize our place in society." Funny how I came here from Sabine Hossenfelders video about how they don't make any progress in fundamenal sciences and don't take kindly to criticism. Also, red pill.
1
I'm not convinced. Something seems off with the explanation. And I think because of the channels reputation nobody is questioning it.... Hmmm.... I think the weight of the rope is the problem. The bottom of the rope pulls on the top as well, so there is less pull at the bottom. But with the rope being as heavy as 20lbs it doesn't matter, at the bottom it's still much more affected by gravity, and the air resistance is negligible. Also would you expect the rope to have a straight down line (answer A) when moving in a vacuum?
1
These people 200 years ago were getting vaccinated without involving animals.
1
I think Derek's explanation is missing something. So maybe you would have. I also don't think the majority picks C because they're dumb. Ever heard of the wisdom of herds?
1
I think it's irrelevant that the electrical field influences particles outside the circuit, too, and that energy might be transferred that way. Energy is transferred IF the circuit is complete.
1
I'm watching too many laughing about flat earther videos... :( This here is like 10000000x more interesting.
1
What about Gyroscopes?
1
Hm, over half of these things don't work on me...
1