Comments by "Adam Bainbridge" (@AdamMGTF) on "Veritasium" channel.

  1. What would the 'crane' be made of?
    3
  2. Actually yes... Compared with the cost of excavation of the same amount of land by normal means. Using nuclear explosions was really cheap. Like less than a tenth the cost. But obviously the radiation threw a spanner in the works lol
    2
  3.  @xephael3485  yeh it's not difficult. You can do the same at sites in Australia where the uk tested their bombs :) well worth a visit. Even if there isn't actually much to see. Just to witness the power.
    2
  4. I ride motorbikes. This isnt a shock to me. In high winds, I 'counter steer' with the handlebar. This leans the bike into the wind. I guess on a bicycle you don't go fast enough to need to do this for a long period of time?
    1
  5.  @marklange531  your over thinking this. Rather than think of the atmosphere. Think of a lake. The further down you do. The more pressure increases. Why is that? As an analogy: Well think of it this way. If you stack a pillow ontop of another, then another. The weight of each pillow presses down. This is pressure. It's the same with the water. The weight of the water above adds up and creates pressure. It's just that water molecules are much smaller than pillows. So harder to visualise. The deeper you go, the heavier the weight of water is above you, this weight is pressing down on you. It's felt as pressure. The atmosphere is the same thing. So at sea level the weight of all the atmosphere above your head is heavier than the weight of the atmosphere ontop of mount Everest. The change in the weight of air gradually reduces as you go up and up until it reduces to nothing. There's no boundary where it's vaccum on one side and atmosphere on the other. I hope that helps. You should probably know that yute tube I think believes the earth is flat. He or she belongs to a group of people who reject what they consider to be "mainstream" and generally are conspiracy theorists. There's nothing wrong with that. But it wouldn't be wise to accept what they say at face value, when there are better explanations.
    1
  6.  @technologicalMayhem  think we've both been duped. The profile mark Lange was made 4 hours ago and it's only YouTube activity is to agree with Yute Tube about how atmosphere doesn't work. Pretty classic tactic for conspiracy theorists. Such a shame these people are so lost.
    1
  7.  @redcathode  as said. He or she can't and won't try to learn. If they did, they would no longer be special. It's a shame that people feel the need to believe in nonsense, just so they can be part of a group that makes them feel superior.
    1
  8. That's funny
    1
  9. Actually it could have drove off the road and would have been fine :)
    1
  10. Because as it breaks down it becomes another element. As is sort of explained in the video. Humans don't need to have seen the rock a billion years ago and then observed it ever since. It's just about measuring the rate of decay. I can't help more than that. I'm no chemist lol. But it's really cool.
    1
  11. Billions of years? What were you struggling with? It's always worth learning more. Even if it's difficult at first. Don't be discouraged!
    1
  12. The process doesn't involve sitting and waiting for a given element to reduce it's isotope life in half. It involves (as i understand it) measureing the rate of decay and how elements transform. I'm sure there are courses from world experts that can explain it properly. I've always been more interested in biology. The physics or radio carbon dating I leave to people much smarter than me! Whats cool is, as more and more evidence is discovered, the exact age of the earth, and indeed the universe can be revised and narrowed down (as one would expect from the application of the scientific method). I believe the age of the earth is now narrowed down to within several million years. Which is pretty awesome. I wish I had time to learn more :(
    1
  13.  @ungabungaable  didn't tag you in reply. sorry, plz see above :) have a nice day
    1
  14.  @ungabungaable  oh, and as for the newspaper. The important thing is what was the newspaper made from. The clue is in the fact it was CARBON dated. :) It's really difficult to imagine, but the universe is made up of such small elemants, atoms, particles etc that we can't see them with the naked eye. Did you ask the person who was doing the test to explain it to you? If they didn't have time then thats a shame. I bet it would have been really interesting .
    1
  15.  @ungabungaable  have you learnt anything new at all?
    1
  16. I barely understood any of this. ITS AMAZING. I want to learn more. Less amazing, more worrying. Some people barely understand this. They want to join a conspiracy theory forum and learn the world is flat.
    1
  17. They did the same for the Normandy landings. Model's help people practice for the most important things humans do. Were the Normandy landings faked because there were recreations?
    1
  18.  @boatis5958  why aye pet
    1
  19. Yep, arsenic was used as a cosmetic as well. As was lead. They didn't live so long......
    1
  20. How did an American company supply a chemical after 1941 (and how did they do so before '41 while the blockade was in force).
    1
  21. please re do this experiment without the ability to turn on a light. I'd love to hear the result in anxiety (maybe monitored by BPM?)
    1
  22. Why would anyone? Lol
    1
  23. Oh god. No. No you can't. I agree your stupid to buy bottled water assuming your country has safe drinking water (as we are lucky to have in the UK). But lead is a persistent element once in the body. As explained in the video. That's why it's dangerous. It's ingestion is commulative.
    1
  24. More than one metre. But yes. Underground
    1
  25. YouTube decides where to put adds in what videos you know. Not the creator. The most they can do is choose the subjects the video deals with and weatger to monitise it or not
    1
  26. Actually... No, your not.
    1
  27. It doesn't.
    1
  28. You may want to learn more things.
    1
  29. It's worth pointing out that there is a big difference. A person using science to work out if something is harmful or not, is very different to a conspiracy theorist. In the most basic sense. A conspiracy theorist will decide on a theory. Say "smelling newly cut grass causes people to believe what they see on sky news". Then they will look for any way they can of proving that to be true. No matter how much evidence is against them. They will be more and more entrenched in the theory they have come up with and anyone who says otherwise is part of the conspiracy. On the other hand. A person trying to discover the truth will conduct experiments, collect data and once they have as much information as possible will then show the world the conclusion that they have drawn from all the data they have collected. The next step is that anyone and everyone can look at the entire study and look for weaknesses. Problems and therefore the amount of data grows, the conclusion can be refined or even changed. The result is truth, arrived at by the constant challenging of what we think that truth is. The same method is applied to fields other than the sciences. For example it's used in history. If I write an article, it will be peer reviewed in the same way. My point? .... Confusing conspiracy and science is really dangerous
    1
  30. There's no difference to how humans behaved a century ago. The industrial revolution polluted cities. It was bad for health but good for human advancement. Nothing changes.
    1
  31. I didn't have a as brake there. Of course YouTube puts adverts in based on region etc. So mine would be different
    1
  32.  @joshuah.4496  I'm so glad your wrote that. I was really confused by the original comment lol
    1
  33. yes AND no
    1
  34.  @ludwigdreyer3832  why does a bowling ball sink in water?
    1
  35.  @ludwigdreyer3832  because it doesn't make sense. I'd be interested to know why you say gravity doesn't exist. When all learned experts for hundreds of years have agreed it does? And when there is so much proof? You must have a good reason.
    1
  36.  @ludwigdreyer3832  after spending time doing some more reading. I'd like to know. Is there anything I could say, that you would accept as proof that gravity is real?
    1
  37.  @ludwigdreyer3832  I don't need to answer. I accept that people more educated than either of us have proven it to be the case
    1
  38.  @seigeengine  exactly. In the UK we had the same thing. Known for decades as the BBC accent
    1
  39. Because most of humanity use metric and it is the universal standard in technology, science and industry.
    1
  40. Pencils don't contain lead....
    1
  41. i enjoy making things out of metal. i want this type of grip to replace my vice grips (called mole grips here in england). I love science
    1
  42. edit...... can this replace the need for bareings in a engine?
    1
  43. If he was warding a orange hi-vis. He'd be fire proof True fact
    1
  44. It was. As is mentioned in the first minute of the video :)
    1
  45. Then your fine. It didn't have any lead in it.
    1
  46. Material wealth... Its been the same since the first humans traded a nice leather/furr blanket for a pair of sturdy foot wraps. Nothing has or will change unless human nature does at its core. And that's not happening in the next thousand years or so
    1
  47. Yes. Because remote cameras didn't exist in the 50s....
    1
  48. Not just Americans. Lead fuel was used worldwide
    1
  49. That's why the use of jet engines are much better than piston engines. No lead in jet fuel. It's why some airports don't allow piston engine aircraft to land at them. The risk of lead pollution isn't worth it (from a public health/litigation/insurance/public relations standpoint. Depending on how cynical you are)
    1