See how long it takes for her to go off the rails. Provide the mm:ss of the first critical FAIL. Be sure to keep beer nearby to sooth your headache, should you happen to understand a smattering of physics and this video reacts violently to that knowledge of yours.
I think around 01:46 is when my laughing became distracting for my fellow cubemates.
Geoff said about 2 hours later
0:25 - I'm going to explain to you exactly, actually how it works.
GJ said about 2 hours later
0:25 was the condescension warning, but she hadn't quite gone overboard yet.
Geoff said about 3 hours later
well I'm not sure where she is getting her calculations of the universe, but I'd say she should have stopped talking when she got into the mass of the universe being the size of a ball?!? I believe mass should be a numerical measurement of the amount of matter in an object...for example, 3 × 10 (to the 52 power) kg....which is actually one guestimate for the mass of the universe.
Marc said about 3 hours later
It's perfectly fine for the universe to be the size of a ball. It would just be the most dense object ever (although she's making me question even that statement).
The H2O mention was ultimately pathetic. Anybody who's gone to school knows that and if not, they've likely seen The Waterboy.
Geoff said about 4 hours later
Yeah but the mass of an object has nothing to do with it's size. A brick of gold has more mass than beach ball, but is smaller. Who cares what the size of the universe is, it's mass is not insignificant, and thus can't be "crossed out" from the E=MC2 equation.
GJ said about 4 hours later
Marc's right, Geoff, your understanding of mass is pretty much on par with someone having no physics training. Which is another way to say you're mistaken, but I wouldn't expect you (or most people) to get it right, because in your day to day life it really doesn't matter. Ahahahahah, I made another pun.
She was making the (correct) point that our bodies are not as massive as we might thing. The cells that we're made of are pretty sparse on the atomic level. Compare us to, say, an android made of lead, similarly sized. Lead is waaaaay denser than what we're mostly made of--water. However, lead is nowhere near as dense as the core of the Sun, for example. However, her point that you could squeeze all the matter in the universe into a bowling-ball sized field is dumb--you can put in into any dimension size/shape you want, it just alters the density. There is no real upper limit on that density, so it could have fit into a golf ball sized object.
Worse, she's making the argument that because all the matter in the universe can be squished down to this relatively tiny object (not like she can even verify the amount of mass in the universe--something astronomers still dicker about today), she says that it can be discarded from Einstein's E=MC^2 formula since it's almost negligible in size compared to the other two entities in the formula, energy (E) and the speed of light (C). Lady--if mass was effectively zero, you can't just drop it--it is multiplied by the speed of light. If you treat it as zero, then the energy of the known universe is ZERO. Ummm, observationally I can pretty much rule that idea out. :)
Bingo--that's the Idiot Point. Just got worse from there.
GJ said about 4 hours later
Oh, sorry, I didn't give you a proper definition of mass. It is the measure of stuff in matter, but since the density of the object can vary wildly, you'd have to convert it all to the same kind of material to "weigh" it. Or, just convert the whole universe to heat energy and measure that heat--same answer. In any case, because it's matter, it can be represented in any particular form of any desired mass (well, until it gets so dense it becomes a black hole, then it's kind of hard to deal with) and thus it's final size is pretty much an malleable concept.
Geoff said about 4 hours later
my point was, she was representing the mass of the universe as a ball...and the mass of an object has nothing to do with the size or shape of the object, correct? She made no mention of matter in that statement I don't believe. That's where her idiocy began I believe. Correct me if I am wrong. If she had said ALL THE MATTER in the universe, I might sorta say different, but she said MASS :)
Either case her point was stupid and she only used mass because that is in the equation which she attempted to poorly debunk(?)
Geoff said about 4 hours later
and Physics...is a woo science I tell you. ;) That shit did not make any sense back in high school.
GJ said about 5 hours later
Physics in high school amounted to little more that applied algebra. Low on theory, high on simple math problems. Where's the woo?
Mass doesn't dictate the size nor shape, but she was making a point about quantity, not the size and shape. Unfortunately, while she started with the right idea, she veered off into imaginary land very quickly.
Geoff said about 22 hours later
I would think matter would be more about quantity, vs mass. All the matter in the universe makes more sense than all the mass in the universe, no?
I was good in Math...physics in HS made no sense. I took the simple equations (or relatively simple...the satellite trajectory stuff was a bit more fun) and never got the answer in the book. They would have made up numbers appear...F=MA right? Well to solve their problem it would be F=MA/Capn'Crunch * pie+MC2 to get their answer. I kid you not. And to boot, I watched my teacher spend an entire class day trying to solve an equation, and HE NEVER SOLVED IT! Are you kidding me? lol
Marc said about 23 hours later
Matter is actually more about the substance that makes up an object and it's also typically used to describe its current state (solid, liquid, etc.). Think of mass being something very low level, where it's describing, for example, the weight of proton. Matter is more a description of the types of masses in a particular object (as in, all of its molecules, their weights, shapes, bonds, etc.) So essentially, matter is usually associated with a volume. So in the case of the universe, there's plenty of mass, but it's spread out over a huge volume.
Saying all the matter in the universe vs. all the mass in the universe gives you different answers. Universe as a whole is made of all sorts of matter, but I don't care what this lady says, no matter what way I arrange that matter, it's mass will always be important in the equation. As GJ said, we're multiplying it by the speed of light. Any time you multiply, you can't just say "Eh..it's rather insignificant, let's drop it". If the equation was something like E = M + C^2, for extremely large values of M or C, you *might* be able to say the other value is so insignificant that E is nearly equivalent to the large value.
Geoff said about 23 hours later
good explanation. I'll go back to making matter with a mass amount of animation look pretty :)
Abby said 1 day later
3:03 -- sorry, last time I checked, human cells don't have cell walls. :P
3:20 -- and I'm also quite sure that protons, electrons, and neutrons make up atoms. atoms make cells. you kinda can't skip that step.
see, I do pay attention in science class, contrary to what my teacher seems to think. hahah. crazy lady is crazy.
