A Physics Prof Bet Me $10,000 I'm Wrong

well said, Lance friend.

He has a lower error rate than the professor himself at this point

Well my comment was deleted, but I still want to assert that the professor gave a real backhanded compliment in my opinion. Derrick doesn't really deserve to be talked down to and doubted like that and it's very gracious of him to take fault in botching the explanation but holy hell that uni prof needs to take notes from Bill Nye and just be nice.

I could say, Veritassium is already more than a simple youtuber/KRplus channel.

@@kevinlasher2812 I think the professor was overconfident, put too much weight in weak arguments (like Derek getting into Blackbird many times??), and was also condescending as you suggested. Maybe he thought he would easily win $10000. The already existing treadmill-footage clearly showed the cart wasn't being "pushed forward"; there was no "bias" in that sense (the bias was in the professor's mind that people would be as silly as to do the treadmill experiment repeatedly and always "unconsciously" push it forward). But mainly, "the video falls short of providing evidence that the motion faster than the wind occurs with a non-negative acceleration and that it is not caused by the wind variability. " Derek's treadmill experiment clearly shows there is positive acceleration relative to the ground. Unless he was suggesting that somehow the wind behind the propeller acquires higer speeds, or to vary so much so as to get the negative acceleration he mentioned. Again, clearly not present in the treadmill experiments.
It seems he is trying to look gracious "Oh well, I had to concede if I wasn't 100% correct". But he was just wrong. To me, the main issue was understanding how the "turbine" worked. In any case, he should have gotten himself fully familiarized with the problem (or maybe he actually was, and is playing dumb) before betting that amount of money...Apparently didn't even check the literature on the problem. The professor suggested the bet right? Kind of weird. Not sure what he wanted to get out of it. Maybe "school a youtuber"? Prevent the spread of what he thought was pseudoscience? In brief, arrogance got the better of him.

It's like... they want to know the truth regardless of their beliefs... Those crazy scientists...

That's what happens when you get people that want to be correct instead of just be perceived as correct.

There is something terribly wrong with scientists. It's like they want to be wrong!

Respectful disagreement works wonders in science, too bad "social" science don´t work the same way.

@@heiarhognigunason1206 Social science works the same way

The prof is a man- a (mensch?).

I wonder if he did all this just for the celebrity/spectacle.

Back when the video came out he made a big twitter thread stating he still didnt believe Veritasium to be right, but that he only conceded on a technicality

@@jpietersen519 bruh but veritasium made it obvious that he's right

@@michaelbread5906 and be proven wrong in front of all his peers? No way. He did this because he though Veritasium was wrong, but gracefully conceded defeat

Hello Mr Professor!

Same 😂

Samee it's sat too here

For real 8 months after your Saturday but it's my time now

Same here! Lol!

@Sanningen It is rare lol. Do you live in a cave?

No shame in making a robust logical argument and then dropping it for a stronger one.

Ya! But that can only happen when you are committed to facts and not committed to yourself ! And that's science !

The media bans and censors doctors who disagree with the media.

@@OGPatriot03 not to mention scientist getting payed by governments to sway the masses - Billy Nye needs to re-think Genders

Not just scientists, but people in general.

His admission was less than complete if you followed the discussion on Twitter. It was basically “I was right, but there was a stipulation to the requirements I didn’t take into account”

It's hard to argue otherwise when the result is evident...

most scientists are tho

@@threepe0 : Did he say what that stipulation was?

He never admitted he was wrong, he only conceded the bet. According to Cavallero ""He conceded on a technicality - that the vehicle moves marginally faster than the wind temporarily" "I offered him another $10,000 bet, because his technicality is entirely wrong, but I know I won't be hearing from him."

​@@dibdab7990 crazy right and to think this guy is teaching.

This is relatively obvious Physics problem.
Hope he doesn't teach Physics majors.

The problem was his initial response to the experiments. There were multiple examples, all with the same result. And he just refused to not only believe it, but to even bother to test it himself first. And I believe the only reason he was humble was because it was all public. He was so sure he was right, but got essentially destroyed.

Thanks for both of your comments. Love different opinions.

​@@VicJangBro is the ultimate pluralist.

I would fire him, he clearly does not know anything about physics if he got this wrong

ill watch the hell out of it lol

HA! That would be the greatest show on Earth!

​@@DyslexicMitochondria Hey bro i watch ur videoss. Love ur channeI

Veritasium sounds like a science thunderdome anyway :D

i think a lot of people would put money on the table to watch it ;)

It's hard to know who is right and wrong in politics. Was an outcome directly caused by a policy or was it something else? In the world at large there are so many factors that it's almost impossible to show causality.

And there's no such thing as "settled science" else you've moved beyond science and are in the realm of cultism.

Politics is an Art of Deception. It cannot be handled in a reasonable manner because it's easier to fool people than to tell them they were fooled.

The main difference between politics and science is science deals with matters of truth, while politics deal with matters of morality. The ultimate goal of politics is to create a society that maximizes justice and comfort for the individuals in that society as well as determine who or what that society is. In a melting pot like the US with such diverse opinions and ideologies pepole will naturally butt heads.
If you reached the end of this then thank you for reading and please share your thoughts I like discussing this stuff on the internet, it's fun :)

@I love you but You can talk about the past though, and it's still hard to show direct causality. Look how many people still argue that communism and socialism would be good for people even though every attempt at it has ended very badly. The only people who seem to be able to convincingly draw conclusions of casuality from policies are largely ignored- Thomas Sowell for example. And even then it isn't FACT, it's just conjecture and anicdote.

The professor got conned by a f-n trick ?

Great point. We need more public debates like this

Kusensko's a terrible scientist, he never admitted he was wrong, he only conceded the bet by blaming it on a technicality. "He conceded on a technicality - that the vehicle moves marginally faster than the wind temporarily" "I offered him another $10,000 bet, because his technicality is entirely wrong, but I know I won't be hearing from him."

... in context, it sounded like a thinly veiled insult to me ;)

@@jonathanjomen This. But I could buy that it was not intended as such, and was intended as an honest compliment; which all holds together if the smug cockiness is embedded in his base personality.

@@FlyNAA ... which it probably is ...
He intended it to be a compliment - it just didn't sound like one to me.

@@jonathanjomen Yeah, the professor was intimating that his own error rate was lower that his opponents. I guess error 'rate' is not determinate though.

It's called a backhanded compliment. They are very common in my blue collar line of work.

It hurts even more when you present such a thought out argument and 10k

@@americankid7782 ain’t that the truth!

Exactly, go back 100 years and the great debates and clashes around different quantum behaviours.

Where was that acceptance? I didn't see any.

Read the supplied slides from him, he made it an all or nothing bet so it took just one error for him to lose the bet.

If you don’t mind me asking how much did nasa pay you? Above or below 5?

@@bobbythomas6520 80k to do math & physics all day. Keep in mind I have a 25-year hole in my resumé raising 6 children. My daughter working on the ISS with no hole in her resumé but about the same 14 years experience makes a lot more. Being good at solving equations and good at math & physics pays off. 4 of our 6 children are engineers. The other two are therapists. They say engineers are crazy. They’re not wrong. We love our work.

but that's not what happened in reality, it's always more than just disagreement, ....ridicule, group bully, and personal insults are just some of other thing that got involved

@@electronresonator8882 It's view on science, don't relate it on past thing's 🤷...

"WHatever i said is immutable"
--- A stupid politician

I was like. Derek Muller... Damn dat name seems so fammiliar... I know it from somewhere... Oh...

Goosebumps

"The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible." Clarke's second law

@@maskettaman1488 the professor took his extensive knowledge on the matter and looked for issues in his video, this made him believe that this was misguided when it really was using a more abstract way of thinking that he had not thought of to that extent.

@@maskettaman1488 The old Russian dude said something was impossible and was wrong. It’s relevant.

I think it has a lot to do with this video

In other words, "Ok, boomer."

American politicians because they are mostly trained arguers (lawyers). Japan politicians for instance are mostly trained engineers and look how well they solve problems in Japan.

Love this comment, if everyone could have the same mindsett about everything we’ll be flying cars to mars at this time (srry, bad english I’m from Norway)

You don't know much about the scientific community they attack and harass anyone who has a differing view from the herd. Even when the person has loads of evidence to support their claim they shun them and try to discredit them without any evidence to back their own claims. They are afraid of change and stuck in a dogmatic view on many fronts.

@@LightBender777 you're right, but that's more an issue with scientists, not science

@@LightBender777 It isn't only scientists; it's human beings in general.

i'd like to see verita talk with nye about basic human biology such as how a man is a man and a woman is a woman and you cant swap between them then watch as a disagreement suddenly turns into a problem

Nah, this is an old topic with tons of papers about it, more like the popular tubers bribed the professor for another hit.

He is not a flat earther. That is all. A decent human being

That's why science has brought us where we are today because the ultimate goal is not beeing right, but finding out what's right.

@@moenibus Nobody is flat earther. We knew radius of the Earth since the Romans. It's a made up concept to divide and conquer America. If you don't fall for that, well ... rich vs poor, white vs black, man vs woman, gay vs straight ... something, somewhere, we will destroy America, one cr@p at a time.

Ikr XDD

Also those who treat burden of proof as a law rather than rule of thumb

(flat)

Fault*

@@Liftium Flat*

Derek Chauvin - "I ain't mean to kill George Floyd he was actually Harambe, in the flesh"

We would need this kind of science for researching Coronavirus, and not this political mayhem.

Yes, it also shows that scientists are never authorities on truth, nobody is - the argument from authority is still a fallacy. Everybody can be wrong. It's morally wrong to censor "misinformation" based on personal opinions of scientists. This will not only corrupt scientists because power corrupts, but it destroys the only viable way to get to truth: Discussion among honest actors. KRplus's anti-misinformation guidelines are very misguided and dangerous.

@@thulyblu5486 yes and no, there are some things we know for certain. How Neil Tyson said "we know the earth rotates around the sun, no one is going to change that. Now that we know it we can make more refined questions, lije what kind of orbit is that?". There is neither an universal truth or "universal lie", yes most things are debatable but not everyone has the authority and should have the power to do so, flat earthers do only damage and keep on beating a dead mule, sorta speak. Not saying you are or that im angry at you or something, and sorry if im rant-y, have a good day!

I agree. It starts with disagreement about what we see or understand, goes on to hypothesis, construction of experiments to test, and then refinement of understanding to explain it. it's a process, not any one result.

@@oammaslastnamethei3063 wrong... the point you miss is that sure, tyson is certainly right about the earth... but the point is that if joe bloggs the bartender with no scientific experience came along and refuted the claim with evidence to prove it wrong, tyson would happily concede and the science books would be happily rewritten...
I.e tysons perceived authority in science doesn't mean jack .. only his ability to back up his claims..
The idea you think that not everyone has the authority to debate a scientific principle goes against the exact thing that drives progress in science.... EVERYONE can and should debate all scientific principles if they can back their claims up... no matter their percieved authority

Yep, people like him need to be celebrated, it is okay to concede for science.

The sign of a true scientist

I mean scientists are used to it. Theres always new evidence

but did he actually do that....or just secretly pay the fine and slink away without going on record(in a video reply) to announce he was wrong - I'd like to see the final response from Nye and especially Tyson too

@@benjamint.minkler221 No need to flog someone over it. Conceding is enough; humans are still human and it always feels bad to be wrong.
Scientists are special in that they’re good at swallowing that shitty feeling because they know it holds them and the rest of humanity back.

You forgot "and won the bet"

Gigachad

Derek can just go "I know a guy..."

Better was that they all say his videos in general are accurate as well

Well everyone has a cirof friends... the most of us can call Derek the Weirdo, Deina the soccer mom from the Hood and the little Sku who actually ask for money to participate!

Science was the winner in this argument

@@DyslexicMitochondria Hey bro i watch ur videoss. Love ur channel

$$

Yeah and me, just some dumb guy here watches the first video on this, and i'm like "yeah of course", then i watch the professors rebuttal, and i'm like "yeah of course", then the video finishes and derek puts the issue to rest, and im like "yeah of course"
so pretty much i get it

And I must say his points had a good foundation. Stuff like gusts of wind, different wind speed at different elevation over the ground, etc.
I don't even think he is wrong with those arguments. Which are basically about external influences on the experiment. That is the reason experiments have to be repeated to assure that the result is not just based on those external factors.

especially since some of his concerns/challenges are actually valid concerns that should be tested for, with a "fail condition" (i.e. how the hypothesis can be disproven)
the wind gradient for example, is a really good challange, because there is a diffrence in wind speed as you go higher, and a tall land based wind powered vehicle could make use of that to travel faster than the ground wind, even if the operator doesn't realise it.
to disprove the hypothesis that the wind gradient is causing the vehicle to appear to go faster than the wind, you just need to show that the vehicle is going faster than the wind at the highest point on the vehicle. (or test in an enviroment where the wind gradient is minimal, like in a hanger with a fan model and a treadmill, probably with a treadmill set with a variable speed control to simulate the vehicle moving across the ground. that way twind speed, and the vehicle speed.)
the gust hypothesis (a high gust of wind pushes you faster than the "normal" speed, which may look like you are traveling faster than the wind. The treadmill set up would also be a great way to disprove this hypothosis.

@@Reverend_SalemThe treadmill test is flawed though. By holding the car on the treadmill, the force the person imparted was greater in the beginning as it not only kept the car at a constant speed but also used the resistance of the wheels to build up the speed of the fan to the point where the gust from the propeller exceeded the resistance of motor powering the propeller at the treadmill’s speed. As the fan got faster and faster, she had to use less force to keep the car still, and eventually had to use slightly more force in the opposite direction to keep it still . She was essentially charging the propeller like a battery.
This would be like if there was a 30mph wind gust, but the resistance of the gears is increased such that cart can only reach 15mph and the rest of that energy is used to power the propeller. Then the wind gust drops to 15. You reduce the resistance of the gears so that all of the wind gust goes to pushing the cart forward, but the propellers still have inertia so they push forward with the energy built up under the 30mph wind gust. The cart will lurch forward faster than the 15mph wind gust, just as it did on the treadmill.

@user-vt4up5ij9d i ment a tredmill test where the fan pushes the cart forward, and the treadmill is calibrated to keep the cart relitivly centered. (i.e. the treadmill is reacting to the cart.)
basically, like chasing the cart with a fan. the fan is actually the thing doing the pushing, the treadmill is mostly to make it so you dont have to run around a large area with a fan.

what a professor he is . without analysing through and through he came to bet .

​@@user-vt4up5ij9d brilliant comment. 👏

It's also an excellent demonstration that no matter how much you think you know about something, you should always be willing to entertain the possibility that you are wrong.

@@maxstephen2324 I’m saying

Neil came to osan airbase when I was stationed in Korea it was pretty cool

those 2 arent that hard to summon

Nerd Whisperer.
Lol it’s a joke. Don’t @ me

@@Pixel-bu4on It is.
I’ve been expecting you.

I used the professor to the professor

@@brodypaine i use professor to beat professor

What if they end up agreeing? Who will you get?

I learned that a perpetuum mobile randomly trumps any level of professor.

@@TheAllMightyGodofCod I’ll get an idiot to agree with me

Damn, just got spoiled

yes. he believed in himself and bet 10.000$ and that's something

Paid*

@@jd1800 Peighd*

The confusion of the physics professor is very odd to me, it is an interesting effect but the dynamics are not particularly complex, it's just somewhat counter-intuitive. My guess is that this was something of a publicity stunt on his part, a chance to play devil's advocate in a public forum, not an honest disagreement on how the device functions.

You probably could if in the area. Scientists and professors are usually approachable especially to those with genuine interest. When they do get media exposure it tends to be overwhelming, but day to day they will often just talk due to their passion (outside of celebrities).

Yes, very impressive. That is probably the biggest findung here, that there is at least one scientist left with integrity.

The Florida man would call it fake news, but fortunately he does not dabble into complex stuff.

Derek: willing to be wrong, even when he is sure he is right
Prof : Willing to bet he's right against popular and proven
Both : Learning from it ...

@@FelonyVideos What are you insinuating here? That most scientists are not honest? That's really a disingenuous and gratuitous comment to do, especially since I suppose you don't have much contact with the scientific process and research.

The prop is driving the wheels. Big gear drives little gears faster than the rpm of the big gear.

Not just that, but why it is absolutely a crucial part of the scientific process.

the prof hasn't improved. now he's just angry

That's ACTUAL science --- scientists super open to all challenges in order to maximize it! (Unlike this "pandemic")

But I don't have 10K to bet If I'm wrong or not

That's how science works.

Only topped by the fact that apparently they both watch him

@@mcstench8913 I don’t think you are understanding what “a flex” is then.

What? You don't have both of their numbers in your phone? I thought everyone did.

Bill Nye is not even a scientist 🤡

@@prasannadahal5512 He is an engineer who a few years ago infamously, unashamedly spruiked for Monsanto.

Except when it comes to today’s politics and religion

@@Pastor_RogerSherwood or people with no common sense

@@exudeku wdym "or", theyre the same thing

@@exudeku true

@@exudeku
Common sense is not really Common in some people

That experiment broke my brain. I get why it works, but think if I did that at a 6th grade science fair I'd have been burned at the stake for being a witch.

That was beautiful

there is a similar one about pulling a cord tied to a bike pedal from behind the bike and which way the bike in moving.

This ^

Yep, that was the demo that made it click for me!

Yes, this is definitely a quotable quote. I'm saving it for future uses.

@Naughty Spicy Editz So, how you feeling

@Naughty Spicy Editz can i get the 20k

Bill Nye the science guy.

Everyone, really? 🤣🤣🤣

@Naughty Spicy Editz Not everything can be explained in laymen's terms. We do not understand science to the extent we think we know. I believe we only scratched the surface when it comes to science. There, that is another statement with no proof. But anyway, I will go with it.

not quite as in your case the car wouldn't move away from the wall

More respect that he actually honoured the bet!

@@StaK_1980 As if he had a choice. I can't imagine how he feels about this, R.I.P. Professor Kusenko

I think it is important to also acknowledge that being a skeptic isn't only about not believing what you are told. It also requires one to offer a counter explanation for a phenomenon and conceding when the evidence does not support your model.

So...if the wheels are turning the fan, once it is moving do you still need the wind?

@@andrewjenkinson7052 Yes, think about this from the perspective of the treadmill where the "wind" is just still air, and the ground is moving instead. From this perspective, "removing the wind" is equivalent to placing a fan that blows against the front of the car. This means the car will stop because it is not being pushed and the propellor is ineffective due to wind direction.

ucla has a prof that believes in perpetual motion devices lmao.

He also did utterly fail to do any research. The science was established beyond a reasonable doubt.

The professor is going to be publicly known as a fool after this. He's going to be hearing jokes about this from students for the rest of his career. Even his wife will be pissed at him for losing $10k. I had a professor in engineering school that said it is impossible for an electric motor with a propeller on it's shaft to be able to lift it's own weight. I wonder if he ever sees these drones flying around and has reconsidered his position.

​@@alexkram No. The professor was correct that the explanation was faulty in that there was a singularity issue. This prompted him to rethink a model which led to him believing that it wouldn't be theoractically possible. Turns out that if you use a nonlinear model for force and momentum, you get a perfectly convergent model for the power transfer.

Ok

You mean the couple of paid actors...

science dads

I love how he can just randomly call them up and ask for a favour.
How many people can do that?

@@morpheus587 Bill Nye is never an Actor, while he may be payed for the appearance

@@gerdsteinwender7758 keep telling yourself that 😜

I feel you. Every time you question anything in business context you are marked as a negative influance, and often get met with attacks on your person and motives as a response to honest inquiery.

and god forbid if you applied logical evidence based analysis and scrutiny of every evidence to the victimhood claims of women or non-whites. Lol they come with harpoons wanting to kill anyone who tries to fact check them

@@sweepsweep5572 Strange, I find most people who claim to be using "logic and evidence" against victims of discrimination presume to know more about someone's experience than the person living it. Every single time I've witnessed someone claiming women and people of color don't face discrimination, it's only because they themselves are ignoring the mountains of evidence that the discrimination is real, dangerous, and deadly.

@@davetoms1 that's definitely not ALWAYS the case. Especially in this age of Smollets.

@@Nostalgia_Addict which is why I wrote "most people" and not "all people", despite it always being the case for my experiences engaging in those conversations.

lol I thought it made him sound like a patronizing smug you-know-what. Can't bring himself to say "you're really intelligent", just "you're less wrong than most of what I watch", which implies he can discern all of it and just knows all the things.

What about vsauce?

DSFG

@@kevinlasher2812 Neil DeGrasse Tyson is the infallible arbiter of all truth, apparently.

@@lastpercent15 U got me ma bruda, about to say that exact thing

Exactly my thoughts, also 10k is a bit too much, this bet should be over a dollar so next person won't be afraid to bet.

This guy was my professor for an intro physics course and he was amazing

@@TheElijman Well, if you're ever in a position to bet Derrik then you can tell him that. Although if you were in such a position I would assume you would actually have $10,000 since you would be a physicist.

Agree. Hats off to the Professor!

@@kimyapeyvan654
I know! I love Professor Kusenko. Took him for Physics 1A

_Howard W._ Newton

You mean the guy who had no friends?

@@juanpablosanchezaveleyra6454 you are the type of person Newton was talking about, Pedro

that's a great quote, but Newton didn't exactly practice those words, ie. Robert Hooke (who was not exactly the epitome of diplomacy himself)

@@Dan_Kanerva Congrats, now we are two, ironic right? LOL. At least I was making a joke about the ERB video where Bill Nye calls Newton a guy with no friends. Besides who Was I being mean to? Newton? I don't think he will mind a little joke.

Definitely the best demonstration

Agree

In fact those who're familiar with yoyos should've experienced phenomenon with the same principle.

That's the easy part, it's just gear differentials. The part that's hard to wrap your head around is where the extra energy comes from.
If it was just gear ratios, you could connect the rear wheels of a car to the front wheel with a gear ratio between and use that to accelerate the car. That doesn't work. I can guarantee it.
The real trick is extracting energy from the lower difference in wind speed and the car, compared to the car's speed to the ground.
Which you can do using gear ratios.

Agreed 100% everything clicked there

sad that his conclusion was formed by learning an incomplete "shortcut" equation regarding prop force.

True

@@timq6224 can you elaborate?

@@FrenchcoreFlava The formula presented in the minute 5:16 is a "simplified" form of the formula presented in the minute 13:40.

​@@FrenchcoreFlava The equation for the propeller force is just an approximation based on the velocity of the wind and the vehicle. So the fact that it gives you an infinity when the two velocities are the same is because the equation is not "exact" but only a (first-order) approximation and not because the scientific basis of deriving it is wrong.

Lol

so what they r?🙄

"Props" to this prof for honor and respect. Quite a stark contrast to a similar dispute between a professor and electroboom.

they always were outnumbered by morons though :(

reminds me of death note

If more people were thinking this way, the world would progress faster. I want to congratulate Derek for his tangible contribution to the very evolution of mankind!
Also, thank you for reminding me of what I love about science: I hope that I will be able to instill in my own children the value of always examining the facts, no matter how firm our pre-existing convictions about any topic may be.

Yeap. To some of us the personalising of outcomes is plain weird too, but not altogether unconstructive. A nice way to think of it for those who may or may not possess a competitive mindset but don't see a role for personalising things is to consider generalising about the outcomes: if either definitively 'win' such a bet, humanity wins - it's a distributed outcome of further knowledge, which we assume/hope continues to be a mostly positive thing. Personalization (to a degree) can often be a catalyst for increased motivation to solve things. Though i personally believe curiosity is a more enduring/compelling motivation which is far more constructive to foster, generally speaking.
In general too I think people learn more from losses and losing in these sort of situations and are more inclined to be attentive in such scenarios. So much can be learned by seeing what went wrong in a misunderstanding.

I think Derek is wrong, the professor who conceded defeat also didn't understand the problem well and his math not good enough to prove Derek wrong.
Reason: The way Derek is proving his theory was by using a threadmill, this is wrong to begin with, they didn't see a simple problem with the experiment where the treadmill is actually providing an extra force/torque to the wheel powering the propeller, this is basically cheating, the torque generated by the friction between the wheel and threadmill is similar to having a battery on board the vehicle/trolley.
If they would have had carried out the experiment with vehicle/trolley just powered by the wind. They will see the trolley speed can never exceed the wind speed.
The reason because, 1) the car will never gain enough push from the wind to get up to speed with the setup they showed in the previous video. 2) the backward force generated by the propeller will be cancel out /reduced by the forward push by the wind thus generating neglegible force to give extrac kick to the trolley.
Unfortunately we need a very good mathematician prove the above. There's no physical experiment that's fair enough to prove who's right and who's wrong.
I hope someone can see my message, then convey the message to Derek, so he can correct his mistake and return the money to the professor.

I'd take this one further and extend it to failure and mistakes. Especially in education, tests treat failure states as a bad thing rather than embracing them as learning opportunities.
And what is a failure state but a disagreement between how the student understands the subject and how the teacher does. Rather than taking these opportunities to teach and learn, we instead punish the student for failing. Which typically does not generate a desire to continue learning - especially with repeated failure.
As technology advances we're creating more and more ways to support teachers and provide them the time needed to actually teach while taking away the time-intensive tasks that do not directly teach the students anything.

When people know how to talk respecting at least the time for the other to speak, it works perfectly!

Religious people hate this kind of think

Just keep Politicians well away?

@@whoooshmeifyougay4482 Funny because Richard Dawkins calls "why" questions silly.

@@whoooshmeifyougay4482 you got a story to tell us buddy?

@@mohammedyasin2087 not really, only disconnected "why" 's are silly

Science at its best!

Answers are parents to questions :)

More is to come .
Stay tuned 😆

there's no debate that this is a hoax.

@@timothinev9444 a free body diagram proves it. corrupt profs & chatbots can't draw them.

I would be happy to be proven either correct or wrong, it really puts an end to a never ending knowledge struggle.

Maybe this will serve as a lesson to college students to not blindly believe everything their professors tell them

Hello friends 🥰
Because I'm not famous like other singers that's why no one see my music videos. Please see once and then decide ❤️
.. ✨..
.... ✨..

Nice pun

Hard cheese - they're only human, and we humans ARE fallible; that's the whole thing about learning - YOU LEARN things you didn't know before. Anyone too arrogant to be open to change of mind, is a fool.

It is a good line, but does not describe science today. With Covid19, we learned that disagreements in the scientific community should be shunned and banned from public discourse.

the covid19 problem is ignorance rather than disagreement

Don't try to convince a climate "scientist" that disagreement is an opportunity to learn....lol, the science is settled, just ask Mr Hockey Stick Mike Moore or Cook the Books John Cook. Academic fraudsters should face punishment IMO

very much so, and especially in science. Science has to be willing to accept disagreements understand that point of view and be willing to prove it or agree w/it. that's how science is supposed to work.

@@tric5122 Unfortunately that is not the case with todays "science." Today, the word science is just a useless word used to throw at someone that you politicly disagree with.

I have a big... BIG... BIIIIGGGGG... muscles!!! HAHAHA!!! What did you think I was going for? That's so DIRTY of you! GAGAGAGA!!! I am the funniest KRplusr ever! Maybe that's the reason why I have TWO (!!!) HOT (!) GIRLFRIENDS. Thanks for being alive, dear jo

That's why he's a professor most likely!

@@AxxLAfriku wtf?

Mad props? Is that pun intended?

Imagine how much Bill Nye regrets that email though. He made the very same mistake that he explained in the email, again!

these days?

That's because it's real science, argued with real facts, not social "science", argued with FUD disguised as facts.

@@carlosandleon well at least in my youtube recommendation. The title is about debating some theory and application in real life but turns out to be an ad hominem and that’s not a good way for other people to learn in my opinion

I disagree a bit here. when established research gets confronted with a new theory which fits better you will still see friction from established research groups. Because they are invested in their theory, mentally but also in capital aspect. And that investment makes it really hard for the new better fitting theory to really win ground.

Totally agree man. This is fun. That’s how disagreement should be , constructive !

You are correct. Just like the keel on the sailboat, the airfoil gearing constraint to the wheels ensures that for every unit of downwind travel, the airfoil is forced to make some specified unit ratio of crosswind travel.
Remove the keel effect from a sailboat and it merely drifts downwind at some speed less than the wind. Cut the chain to the wheels and the Blackbird does the same.

I'm still working my head around the forces involved there.
So you apply a forward motion to the object, and that makes the wheel spin backwards propel it forwards at a higher speed than the force being applied.
Saying it out loud does make it work a little better in my mind, it's just the top wheel rotating backwards that feels strange, since how is it applying the forward motion when the wheel is moving backwards. Friction working oddly?

And thoughtfully put at the end of the video after all the complex explanations like the last nail in the coffin

@@Quiczor the top wheel is "rolling along" the board -- as in, it is using the force from the small wheels to traverse the board, as if the board were the ground on which it is moving.
While the board instigates motion in the system, what scales the speed is the gear ratio between the large and smaller wheels. This gear ratio is what enables the large wheel to sprint along the board, rather than *only* reacting to the force the board is applying to it.

Same

@@WarrenEnstrom understanding that gears are levers which give a mechanical advantage proportional to the gear ratio is the key to understanding what is going on here.

Ikr! That's totally badass.

imagine just being able to casually say that

@@jbaer8 Interesting. We called Gordon Ramsay and Jamie Oliver for that.

Well veretasium has almost 10mil subs

You mean for refusing to admit he actually got it wrong, when he very definitely actually got it wrong?

All of us are.

They're now both Felons for illegal unlicensed sports betting at an amount of $10,000. Enjoy federal prison boys! lol!

I have a PhD in mechanical engineering studying fluid dynamics, and I still dont understand this concept.

@@arkie87 Look at is as purely mechanical advantage. So much force applied to an area, and then that force is converted elsewhere. The confusing bits are when people try to confuse the issues with things like passive propulsion like with sails or hot air balloons. If it helps, think more along the lines of thermodynamics. Like with solar powered refrigeration.

@@arkie87 Imagine we have a wind turbine spinning at 40rpm on a planet where the wind speed is fixed, can it go faster than that?
What if we added another wind turbine, that is attached to the main one with a gearing system and is accelerating it, now the main turbine is going faster than it used to.
I hope this helps

Though it's not really that honorful, it's just how scientists do things. If he wouldn't concede it in the light of overwhelming evidence, he'd actually lose respect from his colleagues.

@@Todestuete There are thousands of scientists rather lose a bit of respect from their colleagues than give up any amount of money. While like many others cases it can continue, with the Professor making new claims, continuing it. Though he didn't, that what makes him honorable, he a rare individual who goes with any claims they make.

Derek I implore you to make a video attempting to find flaws in the validations below; this would be the singly most important video you could possibly make and would be noted in the history books.
Visit Brilliant Light Power's site for the validation reports. I'm sure that Dr. Mills would be willing to accommodate you.

@@byoshizaki1025 why are you writing a message to Derek in this thread? He's not in this thread.

Actually he did not conceed, he just gave up implying that veritasium was tricking him with technicalities

Lol true

He was incorrect though.
*Spoiler alert*

@@saviodias3803 n he accepted it unlike Twitter keyboard warriors

This comment use to say "prof professor" but @dgnt edited it. What a stupid mistake

@@alice_in_wonderland42 Exactly.
Legend. Man of science.