Comments by "TotalRookie_LV" (@TotalRookie_LV) on "Veritasium"
channel.
-
7
-
Kamil's View
Haven't watched the whole video, but I read the list (have you edited your post?) of "25 facts" on ancient-code site and what was on Wiki about "incredible precision".
First, I'm still puzzled how one can talk about ratios and precision, when whole 7,7m (25,2 feet) of it's supposed height are gone, meaning it has never been measured with sufficient precision, only speculated.
Besides, almost 6cm average error between four 230.4m sides (58mm, making ration of error 58:230400) is bigger than precision demanded from first or second year students after a couple days of tinkering with an old teodolite and a good old measuring tape, it's 2cm per kilometer (error ratio 20:1000000, which means, students with no experience are expected to do work 12.58 times higher precision than that achieved by ancient Egyptians, no lasers, no GPS, just tape and an old theodolite.
Again, it's not that we can't achieve it, we just can't afford it, nobody is going to pay for such work, we have limited budget and very short deadlines, unless it's a scientific or military project.
P.S. I do realize, that measuring is much easier than actually building. But asking for doing job more neatly is always answered by the guys on site the same - are YOU gonna pay me for extra work?! BTW, Egypt too couldn't actually afford this, after building the Giza complex pyramids Egypt went bankrupt and there was some turmoil for a while, later that they went with smaller scale objects.
5
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
bigzzzt
Wasn't cooling or at least lack of warming also human driven? As far as I know, it was caused by aerosols, small particles we threw out in the atmosphere.
Cool! (no pun intended) So let's just do it again, and the GW is gone! Ehhhh... No! There was that "little" side effect - acid rains, since particles driving cooling effect was of sulfuric compounds, which then turn into sulfuric acid.
P.S. Also, talking of being tired of doing googling for others. How many times you have been reminded, IPCC does NO RESEARCH on climate change? If none, I'm happy to inform you. It only makes a summary of research done by scientists, so this organisation can't make shit up, unless it contradicts "scientific consensus".
1
-
Demeter Ákos
Care to give his own explanation (a bit awkward one and sounds like an exuse, I admit) to this quote?
"If excessive smoking actually plays a role in the production of lung cancer, it seems to be a minor one, if judged by the evidence on hand.
A cautious statement indicating that evidence was, in 1954, beginning to point to the connection between lung cancer and smoking." — Wilhelm (William) C. Heuper
But this is exactly the reason why opinions and commentary should not be quoted, only the actual research should, otherwise, as it has happened and will happen again and again, research results will get twisted and misquoted. Just last year (or 2 years now?) media again loudly pronounced a research claiming a coming of a new ice age, except the research actually was about rising temperature, the ice age was only a fruit of some news outlet's fantasies.
1
-
Demeter Ákos
That's just a half story AGAIN 8D
See, I was listening to podcasts from Australian expedition sent to take samples from that ice sheet, they got stuck and were rescued by Chinese.
First, Al Gore doesn't matter, he s just a guy I don't give a ... about, not a scientist.
Second, sea ice has grown only in Eastern Antarctica, not the rest of it.
Third and most important, it's not continental glaciation, that has shrunk insanely small, but sea ice, not icebergs, it's volume, contrary to area, is minuscule compared to continental ice. And don't forget, Arctic ocean s losing ice cover, Scandinavians are already building sea ports for a northern route to China.
There are several speculations: winds, currents etc. I suspect, part of it is melting of large glaciers, since they are made of fresh water, which freezes sooner and melts later than salty ocean (there is aprox. 2°C difference or 4, if you sum it both freezing-melting cycle directions), therefore ice cover stays longer, actually it stays whole year and accumulates new layers of freshly frozen ice, so it get's thicker and thicker.
There is another hidden catch, since this ice serves as a blanket to the water underneath, ocean is actually WARMER than it was normally, when ice melted during summer, it keeps heat accumulated because of ice, basically an insulation layer, prevents air from cooling ocean.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ohyea354
While Joseph is wrong abut us having evidence for each and every culture there have been your "answer" wasn't any good either. Yes, you are right, Internet has contains a lot of information, but so does tabloid newspapers and celebrity "news', that is - most of is rubbish, something like "death rays from microwave oven destroy all nutrients in your food!!!". Besides Joseph was somewhat right still if it comes to advanced civilizations, because they use... well, supposedly use materials that can stand the test of time, unless there are some other cultures that "recycle" older artifacts, like Arabs did with outer layers of pyramids, or ancient Greek bronze statues that were molten for their metal (that's why we mostly know about them from marble Roman copies). That's especially true for anything made of silver, gold and gems, like Mesoamerican and Andean cultures. Where if the culture is primitive in the technological sense, the evidence will mostly rot away as it's made mostly of organic materials.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If the difference doesn't manifest itself in any way, then: 1) I don't care; 2) likely there is no difference. Besides, I'd shoot light in various directions, to see if two-way trawek time doesn't change, if not, then it doesn't really matter. You know, like moving along a wind, against it and in cross wind direction... hmm, sounds like that experiment, where guys tried to test the aether hypothesis, doesn't it?
1
-
No, fission alone does not make an atomic bomb, to get explosion, there must be enough of atoms doing that at once. Even if critical mass is exceeded, that will only start chain reaction, not cause an explosion, that's why a nuclear powerplant can't be turned into a bomb. To get a bomb, atoms must also be pressed together, or else it will end in a "fizzle" - end in a small (well... for a nuke - comparable to a couple of 18-wheeler trucks loaded with explosives going off) explosion, that will destroy the bomb, so they got to figure out the mechanics of implosion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1