Відео

Rename it to Donald J. Trump Space Telescope

She is just a contranarian.

“Boy, this racist pervert sure knows his plumbing.”

I’m imagining myself sitting in my living room, minding my own business watching Angela collier videos, and all of a sudden, I overhear my Alexa and my smart fridge talking to each other about me. Now that’s hilarious

Any "scientist" that says something cannot happen is not a real one. It may not happen your little world, but not in mine. A real scientist does not have limits in what they think could be, yet you do. You presuppose that life is your definition. I believe that anything could be possible given time. I do not limit myself to things not proven like you. There could be places where your laws do not apply. Do not rule out that possibility. Do not rule out GOD.

You need rocks to form a planet?

All from the point of you living on earth in your little house, saying something cannot be.

You say all these things you never saw and do not explain, yet you do not KNOW that there could not be life not based on carbon.

Have you been to another planet so you can prove that no life could be there unless made from carbon?

Did you graduate? I mean what you are saying is not provable and not real science. Can you prove what you claim?

Seems there are infinite combinations

Like only ten million? Who told you that? Seems you do not know math combinations.

Obvious we have to do that, right? Why? Like, like like?

For like what? Like what? Like? Like? Show me proof for the claims?

"The amount of energy in space can't change." Seems like it is heading to zero and that is change called entropy. Nothing is adding more but going to less and that is a change. If that is true then tell me what is adding energy to space as it decays?

Proof?

I need another dimension? Why? did you watch this or did another tell you this?

A lot of things you say, with no real proof.

Mathematics is the ONLY PURE science. Prove what you say, do not talk about it.

Because they told you so, but you never seen or proved it.

Like the bible?

Do you have any math proofs for it?

I love how those people didn't even define theory well. Have they heard of string theory? Or like, the bazillion different competing theories in psychology? A theory is an explanation of a set of observations, it doesn't have to be right, it's just one potential explanation. Just like humoral theory or idk geocentrism ffs

Seems we have dark matter here too. So, how much?

Or does it only exist out there?

How much dark matter is here in me?

In 1993 I was 17 and I was a nerd, and I was working in an organic chemistry lab. My professor suggested I go to a lecture by some famous astronomer guy, not sure who he was. I was wondering what really is “nothing”. The “famous” astronomer PHD guy said in a billion cubic miles there may be one particle (he did not say what kind). I wondered, what is nothing? How does a thing travel through nothing? If it is no-thing then it does not exist. He laughed at me and said I was like dumb people from the 1900’s. Saying I was talking about the eather, that they used to think then, Rather than answer me, he put me down. Then I said, “Is space a thing? I want to know what space it is not. You said it is nothing. But space is a thing. What is everything we can’t see?” Then, a few days later, I got my discovery magazine and it was about dark matter.

Hey Angela, just watched a video from Clint's Reptiles that was trying to seperate the terms theory, law and observation that could help with further explanations

A "scientific" issue for the lowest common denominator. The classification of an object is such a triviality. On the other hand, some might argue that Big IAU is batting for to reinforce European hegemony. I jest but less so about my initial point.

I predict that soon this will not be online. Because you told the truth. So many others just vanish when they speak truth. Thank you for your video. God be with you. If you do not believe in a God take this as a compliment to your REAL intelligence.

Are you single? No one has ever explained so plainly why "AI" is fake. Do we like artificial favors? NO, most do not. Artificial makes FAKE. So, FAKE intelligence. What part of "artificial" do they not get? My cat has real intelligence (as much as it can). my cat can survive in the woods and is not a robot. A fly can survive and reacts in milliseconds, yet is not intelligent. NONE of the robots made can even do what the fly does, a brain the size of a grain of salt, can do.

she's so confused and disappointed at the comments lol

LOVE YOU. When or if an AI chat bot can reprogram itself, then we are in trouble. All "AI" is, is a search engine of the 30 years of data they have been collecting to put out a mishmash of no creativity. Quora's AI bot has gotten 10 higher math problems wrong so far that I saw, many more I assume. All it did was vomit forth what Google search told it, but it was wrong. So many cheaters got it wrong. Even some PHD's agreed with the AI math, but I proved it wrong. Worse there is not way to comment on Quora's AI bot to tell it that it was wrong, unlike when a human answers.

"You can't actually get data, you're just getting vibes, and that doesn't belong in a scientific paper" -Angela Collier 2024

“Imagine youre BBC… the news company“ dying

i like how you even showed "lost in math" and yet not a mention about the, at least, equaly damaging attitude of particle physicists. while it is true that string theory is a shambles and wrecked havoc upon public opinion, the tenure of a few dozen misguided researchers is completely dwarfed by the multi billion dollar proposals of new colliders to find things like super-symmetric particles, gravitons, tiny black holes and, for all i know, pixies and unicorns, not finding any of those, only to say, well, on to the next bigger thing, then. that's quiet a lot of money for very little results.

click for the physics, stay for the dunking on grifters

Communication is a two way street. You gave us lots of information to explain why this information does not provide a conclusion. Thats complicated, that can require multiple rewatches, or a multiple follow up videos, or maybe even a degree and PhD(😮). But that doesn't mean you failed to communicate your point. It just means the point is harder to understand than you expected. Or that random people online might need to rewatch a few times to get the point. Or that there isn't a point, and more a variety of points that have pros and cons. Its a dialogue, as long ss people are talking and listening you're doing something right.

Me: Please explain where the universe came from and where everything in the universe came from. Scientist: It all came from a singularity that blew up in a big bang. Me: ??? So the universe and everything in the universe came from one thing that blew up and somehow contained everything? Scientist: Yes, basically. Me: Did space exist around the sigularity before it blew up? Scientist: ??? Me: Isn't space a major part of the universe and everything in it? Scientist: Well yes, but... Um... Huh. Me: The point is that with all your fancy physic equations you still can't undeniably prove that your theories make any sense or admit that your math is sometimes flawed or incomplete and most of science that delves into the way things formed is all based on theories that have yet to be fully proven yet. Therefore, when I see a "may have," or a, "could have been," or a, "maybe," in science articles and textbooks then I know that this literally means, "We don't really know," or, "We aren't really sure if this really happened." Now go find a science book and highlight all the, "mays," and "maybes," and see what it looks like. Especially in biology, geology, and quantum physics. There is a whole lot that science can not definitetly explain ptobably won't ever be able to explain. They also get things completely wrong frequently and don't even know until they develope more technology that can actually do experiments that prove anything they say. Basic physics is one thing, but quantam physics is a totally different subject and whatever they are theorizing to be true in quantum physics must be able to be explained in all other scientific fields because they are ditectly connected. But they still don't even know what exactly is happening with new particles they have diacovered and they may have to totally rethink what they thought before. Crackpots.

I think you're super wrong here. I think you're as wrong as you are cute. You could make a video using very similar arguments with human intelligence substituted for A.I. and it would be just as accurate. The deficiencies of A.I. are the direct result of the deficiencies of human minds, aren't they? We are the OG lying, biased producers of garbage. Maybe your opinion has changed in the last ten months. This would be a fun discussion to have, possibly over dinner sometime.

Its not intelligent, its logical, with a small l. We should be calling it Al (AL) - Artificial logic

I was especially taken by the "inflection point" graph, and I think I remember that incident, which is far too sanitizing a word for such a heinous act. On the plus side, youll have a hard time besting the horrible "like and subscribe" timing. Sorry if this is weird but I got home late from an amateur astronomy event and it's almost 4AM. Like your going to read a 2 year old comment. Maybe I'll skip The Adjunct Problem and just watch "Nanette" for the 3rd time.

I could be a crackpot but my response to my idea is this is why I need to learn physics proper. It will take years before I learnt enough to make proper rigorous models. Start before time with superposition of events, coupled with measure of probability each event occurring. Organise so highest probability is near and lesser is farther. Set a threshold of what is lowest probability of occurrence such that no measurable effects are as result. We now have a sphere where nothing outside it can exist. Here we find derive conservation of energy. In the middle we have an event so high probability to occur it happens this collapse superposition into a particle. This particle acts as an observer and causing other states on superposition to collapse like a sudoku puzzle. In an instance domino effect burn up uncertainty as structure energebces. First instance of time is as all this become certain and all energy of the universe go from potential to kinetic and big bang occurs. I propose that quantum fluctuations are these same particles but not enough uncertainty so no domino effect. In essence before big bang universe is ruled by probability and after big bang we are ruled by the physical properties emerged from big bang. Here I will develop a computer model that uses neural networks to simulate probability, and use a pruning method to identify what axioms play nice with each others. First step is selection what I call emergence crystals. Then the unfolding this is where the axioms interact with each other sorta creating theoreams. Math uses a similar process but the pruning is done by logic not probability.

Just scream laser and run away, LOL

Whos here after nelll de grasse nd terrence howard 😂

So basically MOND people are the equivalent of Creationists in science

Nice video. Thank you.

You see a small dimming of a star that you have no idea what it is... then you draw pic and make things up .. outside of earth, our solar systems, you have absolutely no idea .. but you people now everything 🙄

14:43 yeah but XKCD is basically like The Simpsons by now, I swear Randall Munroe has already written a comic about nearly every topic even loosely related to a science concept by now

People are sometimes greater than 180 degrees. Deliberately.