Neil deGrasse Tyson - Debating Aliens, Time Travel, Speed of Light - Jim Norton & Sam Roberts


Generating download link, please wait . . .


Downloadable link generated


Published: 3 years ago
Subscribe: www.YouTube.com/JimandSamShow

Follow @JimandSamShow on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat.


Share:


comment  Comments

Neil's mind: These guys are the fuckn Idiots

2 days ago

21:50 I have papers from grade school where we use a movie as reference. And I used that movie as one. Nobody back then said it didn't exist. And where would I get the idea back then if it didn't? We, my entire class, also remember talking about it many times throughout our lives, either in jokes or says in the movie. We can individually name which costume party one of us came as the Sinbad Genie back in the 90's. There are photos. You can find them online.

3 days ago

What about the humanoid civilization centered around Antactica.

3 days ago

How about this......the actual evidence of aliens or not, has been so lost in the confusion of pro or con, that the real events have been lost. Does anyone think that it's a possibility that any outer world intelligence may know there will be confusion, and expects it to keep their identity unknown.

3 days ago

Most Alien abductions they`ll carry these subjects and never ever return......................

3 days ago

I used to watch The Sinbad show when I was young and the only reason people say he was in a genie movie because of the trousers And close he used to wear Go see for ur self

4 days ago

Does Neil even know what he is talking about? seems like a lot of jargon and verbal diarrhoea.

4 days ago

The Steve jobs comment annoyed me

4 days ago

Just bring me an Alien... It’s just a little bit more complicated than that, Neal.. lol. I get his point though ..

4 days ago

I didn't know Tyson liked to visit special ed schools.

4 days ago

Neil De Grass Tyson is such a cool guy when it's all about science, and respecting religions because they had great scientists (calendars, "AD" and "BC" terms, "God Speed", etc). But when it comes to a reality that he doesn't want to hear, he changes into a perfect asshole requiring proof if you want to only THINK you're right. You cannot have seen something, you have to PROVE it, to HIM, and to all skeptics. They're the center of the universe. They're the alpha and the omega of the mind, of the reason. Reasoning can't be, as human and respectful communication based on trust, if you don't have proofs.


You have been raped and you got no proofs ? You can't say neither think you have been raped. You've seen a UFO ? You can't say it neither.
You can only THINK it if you don't EXPRESS it, because NDGTyson won't know it, and he will have no clue you're really thinking it. So he will sleep better at night.
And as far as HE knows, all your assumptions, assertions allegations, reasonings about the origin of what you saw are wrong, because you cannot be that good that you could deduce that if it's not a helicopter or a plane or a satellite or a bird or a ballon or anything and it's moving that way and that fast, it must be some sort of extraterrestrial intelligence. You CAN'T, because you're too dumb, or ... oh no : let's be polite, and let's just say you're not formed to the scientific bullshitting and mind controlling to restrict all the possiblities to the already known area of explanable things (who said that an alien spacecraft wasn't explanable ??). And add on the top of this that you have no right to say him "you can't prove that something doesn't exist", because by a fancy reversion, YOU have to prove something before EXPRESSING about it. Like that, you gentle pet ! Now you're silenced, good dog. And of course, never the skeptics has to PROVE that we can't think about the existence of a thing without proofs : no, they don't have to, because if that was the case, they would have to open their mind to a POSSIBILITY. They would have to cease closing on themselves and stop acting like pricks who play retards by not being able to deduce things and be frank, apart from proving them.


So, here's a checklist of answers to give those bastards a hard time each time they move their ass on TV shows or radios, and to confine their bad faith to their own person, as well as stopping their poison to spread in society and inflict pain in hearts like sadistic selfish retards trying to limitate minds they interact with :


1. We don't need proof for something we've experienced. YOU need proofs. Experiences are not submitted to proofs, and discussions on their side don't have to be always parasited by the need of proofs, especially when the topic has inner mechanics involving that the thing we observe is uncachtable. There could be some subsequent point to mention, like the the rule of "pragmatic non necessity for proof in basic interactions" : indeed, if we would require some proofs for everything, human being could simply not communicate at all.


2. We don't need for you to stalk us everywhere in the public area, just because you NEED something. A healthy mind woud not enter any room or conference by saying "I need this or that", and I would certainly not enter a Einstein's discussion with Niels Bohr by saying "you're full of shit you nerds LMAO I need proofs". So scientists should stop acting like kids wanting something and wanting only, especially if they don't help searching for those proofs, and moreover if they deny them when we bring some. As far has we know, all picture or videos, wathever their definition, are always rejected, wobbly contradictions are made, all solid proofs like the Starchild DNA are rejected too, just by using ad-hominem and suspicions about the backgrounds and track records of the laboratory and/or the scientists part of the team. And that's not because of the solidity of materials, but just because of sophist mental patterns like "jeez why it isn't like my iPhone or my 4K screen", or "still no hi-rez in 2020 ?", with no reflection about the quality of common devices spread around the world, nor the problem in optics (ex : ISO in photography and lack of light at night). Basic science fanboys are even often playing a "no, not enough" game with videos we can bring, without even watching them, to the asburd point where the "christmas depression" syndrom occurs : when the video is too good, the spacecraft is a fake (and of course most of them are fakes, for christ sake, but is this a reason to ask more definition if it brings more deny ?) ! So a decent behavior would be to shut up and move yourself to get some proofs. And strangely, when scientists move in the UFO topic to get some material, they chill and lose their confidence in shutting people's mouth by use of vaccum. There's radar interaction, there's military jets chasing UFO, there's mass witnesses (I'll talk about the validity of "testimonies" further), there's traces on the ground... There's even NASA clips, and a professional analyzing those so-called "ice debries" ! So damn, go on it for yourself, instead of demanding like infants. And don't isolate each of these materials : combine them in synergy, instead of losing your so-called "scientific logical superiority". But yeah, it requires to point your finger on your psychological problem with alien life, and work on your grief with religions wich leads you to mix two different topics as if we were still in middle-age and you needed to fix people's addiction to supernatural. Finally, maybe after saying one with your own eyes, or just by using a fine sense of deduction as I did since I'm a kid without seeing one before my 28th year, you will be able to appreciate some videos of the most realistic UFOs, who are mainly yellowish-orange types of orbs shape-shifting in the atmosphere like interdimensional ships, instead of hollywood spacecrafts hovering palms in california, made with CGI during the dark age of Youtube and posted by retards like you to masturbate on their sense of "debunking".


3. The laws of reasoning and of concluding aren't bounded to proofs, neither imagination wich apart from its connotations is the capability to assemble some mental projections, and wich is often used at the begining and at the end of a research, wether it is a scientific one or not. Imagination is done daily in physics, and wether or not it needs a solid theory model, we cannot kill any imagination we feel by invoking the lack of proofs. Physic wouldn't establish any hypothesis neither any model that wait for further data to verify it, if we would need proofs in the very begining to even have the right to make the hypothesis. Now, if you feel the need to go back on the difference between an hypothesis and a conclusion, just wait for the next points, they will teach you the right of deducing even without tangible and material proofs.


4. Science is not the essence of logic. Science is a part of logic, but logic is not a part of science. Logic is done everyday in brains and communications, by the time we are placed at school and start to talk and exchange some reasonings. We didn't need science at the time, and as a matter of fact, if having a science degree was required to be considered intelligent or capable of reasoning, every individual doing science studies could be considered as dumb during that process, wich is a paradox that we can agree is a non-sense. Intelligence is in minds in essence, and at the very begining. So the science fanatics has to stop invoking science everywhere as corner stone of the logical process in reasoning. Moreover, bias are not the only problem of non-scientificaly educated people : skeptics do a lot of wrong reasoning, principle petitions, etc, and having some of them listed during their studies does NOT garantee that they memorize them perfectly, neither that they can see all their combinations in any structure of thoughts, or even spot the contradictions in invoking some bias wich does not cover all the exceptions.


(suite on the first comment of this post)

5 days ago

6. Now that I demonstrated that logic isn't confined in the science side, I'll debunk one of the most important technic they employ, wich arise from their epistemological mindset : the VOID COLLAPSING. Let's be honest : I've just invented it, based on the concept of "wave function collapsing" in quantum mechanic. But I'm gonna explain a less complex thing, despite the extreme difficulty of making it possible to pop up clearly in my mind even after all these years of trickery. The work is huge to be capable of clearly identifying that concept, due to all the reflection acting like in a mirror palace. But it finally appeared to me. So here's the picture I need to place before coming to the actual "collapsing effect" : scientists have this idea of a "knowledge sailing", in other words a "shadow of unknown but knowable things", and they invoke it as soon as they need to counter the supernatural things. Concretely, we morons talk about "supernatural", but scientist, who are more clever than us, at the opposite considere that it is just a "temporary mystery", and the knowledge moves on and the shadow shrinks. In short : the human knowledge just extands ! That's okay at the begining : I mean, I totally agree with that concept. But the difference is I still let a place for a thing to be "OUTSIDE" this paradigm, like something "out of our dimensions" and "that we could never understand neither control" except if we pass the line between it and us. It may look similar to the previous concept, but I won't enter details now or it would dramatically enlarge the demonstration.



And here's the problem with that "sailing" concept : since the science schism with religion, thinkers have made possible a consensus to emerge, saying that to CLEARLY establish a new epistemology, we had to cut the shit with "non experimentable things". Meaning that what is outside our sense isn't interesting to make truth to emerge. It's even dangerous, because we can't VERIFY it. So they just dumped it. And that's super handy when it comes to sanitizing the domains of what is science, like medicine, and what is just "talks" and "allegations", like voodoo. But here's my main problem with that mindset : while the supernatural is said as "out of control" (in both proper and figurative sense), it is absolutely not "non exprimentable" as they say. At the opposite, supernatural, as a concept, says that it can be experienced one way, and then suddently disappear as it comes, as if it was out of this world. That's even what made some people to report having experienced supernatural things, and not just natural things ! So, it's kind of a funny contradiction to remove that essence from the definition of the concept just because we added a zone of expertise, isn't it ? But what's even more mind-blowing is that despite the advance in science and in mathematics, and appearing of things like "flatland" in the pop culture, pseudo-thinkers in the so talented scientific community still ignore that it's not all about "god", but it can be about "life in other dimensions" ; and the unilateral way of those supernatural experiences could be explained because of the geometrical set of our worlds. Yeah, what a tremundous news, isn't it ? I would even say that, in fact, theologians since centuries have done nothing more than talking about dimensions, as in words like "hereafter", or "beings from the skies". Isn't it curious, coming from people who thought the sky was a dome : how would they think about this place outside the dome, if not by an intuition of a space ? But it even brings me more view about human world, and as a real thinker, I would take the risk of launching an uppercut with a wonderful question : who's limiting the world now ? Eat that.



So, I think we can "restrict" ourselve when we do SCIENCE, but we don't have to restrict ourselves in term of general THINKING : because, that's purely submitting to restricting LOGIC itself. The world isn't the science, science is part of the world.That's again a confirmation of my previous points, all embeded in this new one, and reformulated as "knowledge is not limited to science" (I chose my words when I say "knowledge", but you'll see it at the end of the argumentation). When we think, when we interact, we use logic. Talking, thinking, making PHRASES requires logic. And this persists wether or not we can state that disagreement is a proof that one of the speaker is not logical (for facilitating purpose, I exclude the two other possibilities wich are that both are right or wrong): because it doesn't kill the idea that one of the two motives is at least logic, and that its counterpart, absurdity, is still bounded in a logic dynamic, even if that dynamic is kind of cannibalism if you mind me placing a gnostic joke here. ;)



Now that I have placed all that story, let me give you the fatal stunt : when you talk about UFOs, despite the quality of your argumentation, they always come back to that shadow area of possible knowledge by saying you "You don't KNOW ! So don't make any conclusion", with a big smile of contempt. As if, despite all your capability to deduce things with more facility than them (see point #5 and the "partial listening effect" due to bad-faith), they were annihilating your LOGICAL PROCESSING with a deny, as always, but now nested in their area of temporary unexpertise but very probable (if not certain) future expertise. It took me years to put the words on that trick. I mean, DENY is one thing, a constant process in background, okay. But connecting it to that rejection of supernatural and a "sailing" technic took me a while, because it goes waaaaay beyong the simple reversion : it is a perversion of the concept of intelligence "revealing the sailing" itself ! Indeed, while you took yourself for being smart in suspecting an hidden thing, they just deny it and at the same time STEAL IT for their own purpose, incidentally with a stunt effect consisting in just submitting yourself to their... NON-EXPLANATION FULL OF THEIR POTENTIAL ONE. In short, they have NOTHING (VOID), but like good scamers they don't want you to process any LOGICAL CONNECTION in that void : they want you to submit to the void, and stop deducing, imaginating, and reasoning. They want you to be in their side, and to stupidely rely on a rock, a gaz, a plasma, or ANY future things to prepare what, you know it, can't stand in the natural phenomenons, or in any category excepted the one of BEINGS. They want you to think about an atom, a cell, eventually a cloud, but certainly not an INTELLIGENT BEING. And that is done by a systematic partial listening, combined with a pretention embeded in a limitation. And the funny part is : they don't even know why they doing that, neither that an intelligent being, and a spacecraft, isn't unscientific at all ! It can perfectly be made of metal (even an unknown one), it can perfectly fly because of actually unknown laws of physics. But they don't care : they want you to think about NOTHING, and to TRUST them that all will fits into their periodic table, if not their agenda.



And when you see dickheads like Richard Dawkins, you see what's the agenda : cells, bacteria, eventually algae, but not a bipedic humanoid. The most tragic is that those guys will have descendants watching them in videos, and probably thinking about their ancestors : "Wow, he was really limited and manipulative". But they don't care : all his about their own capability of projection, comfortably hidden behind the "requirement of a scientific proof", as if the proof was more important than the plausibility, or the honesty.



So in the next point, I'll talk about the non-necessity of a proofs to DEDUCE things, and how to shoot them right in the balls.
They're probably already laughing and trying to avoid the connexion with the previous points (#1, #2, #3, etc), like I SAID THEY WERE DOING in the "partial listening effect" (#5), because they try to avoid the complete lecture of the problem and to face a reality that may engage a possible error. But what's cool with a bullet-list carefully prepared is that you can print it, show it, put your finger on it, and draw the lines if they don't get it. I think I'm even gonna take time to talk about that fear of making a mistake in the point #8, as there's a big psychological problem explaining why they're stuck, connected to their pretention and limitating rules.

5 days ago

I absolutely love listening to him.

5 days ago

What a bunch of fucking dumbasses. Please cancel your fucking show

6 days ago

i wanted to dislike the video bocoz of those three dumb fcks but that would be disrespect towards Sir Neil deGrasse Tyson, so i didnot react at all. Salute to his patience and humble attitude.

6 days ago

poor neil having to put up with these 2 dickheads

6 days ago

The dolt who came on to explain alien abductions to Neil was so caught up in emotion about it that when he started talking about "people" who have "been abducted," that when Neil interjected "Oh people ok" is so thickheaded and emotional he doesn't even get that Neil is simply implying that he has no actual documented evidence to back up his claims and takes it personally. And then bolts at the first chance without even acknowledging neil.

1 week ago

Aliens are inter dimensional beings who control this planet. They created time and space and imprison us here feeding off our emotions and suffering. We only see what they want us to see through mind programming. Of course there is no “scientific evidence “ because they created science and all belief systems and religions. Just my opinion

1 week ago

Wait! So it's not DJiga watt?


I knew it. Doc Brown is a scammer!!!

1 week ago

I once saw two of those flying fire lanterns in the sky and was convinced I was seeing two ufos for about 3 mins until I realized they were much closer than I had thought. Perspective baby!

1 week ago

About the aliens...I feel like new technology comes with complacency almost hand in hand. I was so terrified when I saw what I "believe" was an A.C.130 being disintegrated midair, that I didnt even think to try to record it on my phone. Ughh...god I wish I did.

1 week ago

I believe you and your cells would age during time travel relative to the other cells and other particles and mass that make up the body. I think if it takes YOU, 20 years of lightspeed travel, YOU are gonna age 20 years and it wont be altered by your travel time. If you travel in one direction for 20 years at the speed of light using a mechanical stopwatch, and the people at the launch base do the same thing, and then you travel another 20 years back and follow the same procedure it should be the same. The 20 years should be the same for both. I dont see how traveling at light speed would effect the machinery of the watch any differently other than from causes like extreme inertia or gravity. I dont comprehend how it can speed up or slow down a mechanical function, and if it DOES effect that, then how could we ever make a MACHINE that can accomplish the light speed task without altering the craft itself.

1 week ago

My understanding is that the closer we get to the speed of light, time slows downing a linear fashion. So the person traveling, yes it would take them 20 years to them, to get to the location. But the people not traveling, 100 years or something would pass by. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

5 days ago

Agar ye Bhaisaab samjh gaye na ved me ya kisi bhi book me kya likha hai. Ye teerth yatra pe nikal jayenge. Morgan Freeman himalay chala jayega. Mansarovar me doobki lagata Mar jayega. Pope khud ko goli Maar dega. Mecca ke log jai shiv shankar bolne lagenge. Jews Saare ganpathi baba moriya gayenge. Tamilian Saare Pandora ma bula ke neem ke jhaad pakkad lenge. Periyar zinda ho jaye aur ram Bhakt ban jayega. Aur apne aap ko daily 200 jute marega.

Saare African bhootnath ki jai bolne lagenge. Itni fatt jayegi Bhaisaab aap sab ki. Aap to ye bhi nahi samjh paaye woh Saari kitabein 3 world's se connected hai. Sab samjh lo. Kuch samjha bhi nahi bhuja bhi nahi. Bhagwan ke chappal maroge. Ajeeb insan ho Yaar.

English nahi likhunga. Thoda mehnat to kar lo. Inme bohat kum logo ko pata hai. Me ye manta hu ki ye inka journey hai. Per inhe behkaya ja raha hai. Inka dimag kya sab kuch band hai. Thoda sa me bata dunga. Baaki ye karenge. Baaki inke sar pe. Nahi seekhe to inka jayega. Mujhe to Shanti mil gayi. Haan bedi mil gayi. ROFLMAO baki inke haal pe.

Mujhe jo karna tha mene kiya. Hazar baar karunga. Dekh le. Sankes. The difference between me and them is the understanding. Even Jesus told them to be as wise as a serpent. So does it mean snakes are idiots.

1 week ago

Neil.

Charan kaha hai bandhu. Kash ise bhi hindi ati. Abhi ad ayega. English kyu nahi seekhe. Past perfect to Cotinuous perfectum. V3 yil IV kodkuka. Pavam amma. Sistere. IV kuthu. Dappan kuthu alla. IV kuthu. Angane Grammer sheri avum. Ayi. Sister vannu.

1 week ago

Is calling someone "your boy" racist ?

1 week ago

I'm gonna fuckin miss chippa. He always got space in my hawt....as well as my pekka..

1 week ago

Neil was a complete dic

1 week ago

Yeah so these “chips” Neil is talking about are called Space Pigeons at ASU XD the concept is near identical. Theoretically you could have a Space Pigeon actually reach the speed of light with proper propulsion. Proper propulsion being a (very) limiting factor.

1 week ago

i see three aliens and 1 human in this podcast

1 week ago

Wow, how patient Neil is with this guys, you don't need to be a scientist to know some things this guys just totally ignore. "So, that planet isn't in our universe" lol

1 week ago

Neil has been proven wrong time and time again. He overtalks everyone who tests him against his close minded doctrine. He must know that science cant explain simple things such as conciousness and how memories are stored; much less what makes the sky blue. He sucks.

1 week ago