A thought on the center of the universe question. We are at the center of the observable universe (the part of the universe we can observe) - which has continually grown over time as our capability to see further and back in time has grown. However, that doesn't mean we're in the center of the actual physical universe - and almost certainly are not. Any other alien race would also be at the center of their observable universe, and they may not even see our galaxy at all. Bottom line, there is almost certainly way more to the universe than we're remotely aware of, and where we are in that larger universe - we have no way to know. Mind bending stuff.
Right. A good analogy is swimming somewhere in the ocean with no land in sight. There is no way of knowing, where you are in the ocean, but from your perspective, you are in the middle of the part of the ocean that you can see.
Well said. Most likely, the universe doesn't even have a center. Unbounded spaces, like Euclidean 3D space, don't have a center. Compact spaces without boundaries also don't really have a center. Many of us imagine the Big Bang as a giant ball of expanding matter and energy with a propagating boundary to that explosion, but no one knows whether or not the universe has a boundary.
Yeah i think the Big Bang idea messes with people. Its not (as i understand it) that the universe was a single point that then became infinitely big, but that the universe was still infinitely large, and all the points in it were "on top of" each other. That probably breaks your intuition because we dont deal with infinites in our daily lives
We should just say that "the observable universe" is synonymous with "the universe". Since, for all practical purposes, they are the same... at least for now.
@@zakkus What if there is something bigger than the universe? What if our universe was just a grain of sand in a desert of many universes, each being reborn and recreated?
Hey Joe, PhD candidate in physics here. About the center of the universe stuff there are some things I need to explain, first we don't know the shape of the universe, based on current models (FLRW stuff for who wants to search) it could be 3 things: A 3d hypersphere with constant positive spatial curvature, a 3d plane with zero curvature and a constant negative curvature (called ADS space), the latter 2 would be infinite and the first, based on observations, should be 150 times bigger than the observable universe (at least), but in all cases we could consider ourselves in the center of the expansion, as well as any other point in the universe (because the big bang ocurred everywhere) so your explanation was right all along!
I like to try to think 2d, if you told a shadow being that everything was on the same plan he would not be able to wrap his head around it because he is on this plan everything else cant be here.
Exactly. The "observable" universe only means what we can observe from our point of view. Our point of view will always be the center of our observable universe. Now are we at the center of the universe itself? Probably not, but how could we possibly tell when we can only OBSERVE so much?
I find it bizarre that the phrase “don’t think about salad fingers. Think about [I forgot, probably corn or some other word that starts with a C]” popped into my head less than a week ago and now I see you commenting on a bunch of videos, as well as salad fingers in general.
A video about the center of the universe would be a great opportunity to talk about the "shape" of space (which has always been an intruiging thing to me). I'd watch it!
Right off the bat before I watch the rest of the video, I have to thank you for giving temperature in both Fahrenheit and Celsius. As a Senior Canadian, We have to understand both. They are so different in feeling. You are in Texas and have gone through wild temperatures yourself. Zero up here in Toronto is okay. Zero down there is bad. Real bad.
Saddens me that due to my financial circumstances I will never see my own questions ever even come to light on this channel. I adore Joe and all of the incredible work that he and his team do for the subscribers of his channel. But, unfortunately, it does make me sad that (and this isn’t exclusive to his channel) no matter what…my being thrust into poverty (gotta love that a dance and theatre instructor cannot afford to live outside of the poverty level that I am stuck in at this time) leaves me somewhat invisible to my favorite channels. So, all of you who are financially capable of funding this channel, I do so hope that you are able to continue to ask the questions that are at least interesting to the rest of us! Now, on to the video! Thank you, Joe. And thank you, to those who can ask these interesting questions!!!
Same but he's only one dude and i think he's trying to make what he's worth. These channels are a business in the end. We're just fortunate we get to watch it for free.
You typed all that out and never posted you question. There are lots of intelligent people out there that will be happy to answer your question thankfully that they get to help someone! You'll probably have to ignore a couple trolls, which are extremely annoying, but you'll also get your answer because you deserve it! The way teachers, especially arts, subs& special education, are treated is horrific at a minimum and self-sacrificing at the worst! Why take our most precious gifts and hand them to total strangers to raise for 7-10hrs a day 5-7 days a week without giving them a living wage and worse you aren't even given what you need to do your job, so you end up buying it out of your own pockets!! On top of being a DeFacto 3rd parent with no actual rights or protections other parents have it's disgusting and I'm sorry you aren't treated better!! So all of that to say thank you so much for helping to make the next generation better than the last and please post your question and see if someone, maybe even me, can answer you!
I follow about 30 creators but Joe Scott has probably some of the best stuff out there. The stories are super interesting and Joe has such a great sense of humor. Thank you UA-cam algorithm!!
I have plenty of friends who get called by their last name and their last name isn't even close to a first name for someone else. Being called by your last name is no big deal. There is the question as to whether or not they're mistaking your last name for your first name in your case, but it's not uncommon for people to be called their last names instead of their first, depending on all sorts of factors.
I've been accidentally "intermittent fasting" for like 30 years.. Found out in late elementary or middle school that breakfast doesn't really agree with me, and I'm usually too busy to ever eat lunch. So from then on (and I'm almost 40) I've really only ever eaten dinners. Occasionally if I'm really physical some morning, I'll eat an energy bar or something for lunch, but that's about the extent of it. Joe is completely correct, after a while, you just don't feel hungry. I never feel hungry until around 6pm, and I usually eat around 7-8pm.. But waking up, the whole morning and well into the evening, I never get the hunger signal or really even think about food. I've just become so used to it that breaking the cycle and eating a lunch tends to actually make me sick anymore. Meds are a good issue to bring up though, as Dona does, because I've got a couple I'm supposed to take in the morning with food and I don't- I just moved them to evenings around/after dinner if they upset my stomach taking them without food. But just like fasting, ones that would make me nauseous stopped doing that and my body quickly adjusted. Edit: Oh, and don't use me as a case study, because no, I don't lose weight or anything. I tends to eat large portion dinners so I'm still getting probably 1500cal/day, and I drink teas that aren't 0-cal, so probably another 300cal there starting around 1-2pm and 1k-1.2k dinners, and often a coke with dinner. I'm still sitting about 180lbs at 5'7", legs are large from 15 years BMX racing in my youth, so still a lot of muscle mass there.. But otherwise avg build.
I can see there being a movie adaptation of the "Control" video game, which seems to be based on the SCP foundation setting. It has elements of the setting, but also a cohesive story within it as well.
I, too, think a series would be preferred over a movie. Otherwise, I envision it generating yet another Hollywood mega-franchise cow that gets milked to death with movies of ever plummeting quality.
This was a nice change of pace. It's nice to hear someone say they don't know pr aren't sure. Instead of just making it up. It was a very honest and real video. Plus I like when you ask the audience questions. Yes please find out more about the center of the universe.. 👍👍
I died laughing at the start of the video when you told the nordics to please not say anything regarding the temperature. I'm Norwegian and I literally thought "That's not even cold" and felt the urge to comment something straight before you said what you said. It felt like you actually spoke directly to me! Hilarious. You hit the nail
Same, Northern Swede here. I live about an hour south of the Arctic Circle. Anyway, while I do have that same "that's not even cold" reactions, I do appreciate the fact that infrastructure like people's houses are built with the climate of the area in mind. And the houses in the south US would be much less prepared for the cold than us up here where -30 in the winter is considered a bit chilly. And also cold feels different in different areas too. I was down south to visit family over Christmas, and the -10-ish they had down there felt about as cold to me as -25-30 does up here. I think it's got to do with the humidity in the air and stuff.
I was going to post a smug comment about the cold as I live in Winnipeg and normally at this point of the year, it’s -30c. But elniño has us at 0c. It’s wonderful and I’m full of joy.
The thing to really wrap you head around is that the galaxies are NOT "moving" away faster than light. They aren't moving anywhere. Space itself is expanding. It is (likely) expanding at the same rate everywhere, but when we look a billion light years away, we are looking back in time a billion years and seeing that portion of the universe as it was a billion years ago, not as it is now if we were right there.
Imagine I am traveling eastbound at 65 mph and a cop approaches me westbound at 65 miles mph. If the cop pointed a speed gun at my vehicle(without compensation) the speed gun would indicate our relative velocity at 130 mph. However a stationary speed gun would indicate our true velocity at 65 mph. So if we are moving away from the center of the universe in one direction at 93,000.25 miles per second and another star system was moving on the same plane, directly away from us at 93,000.75 miles per second, our relative speed would be 186,001miles per second. As the speed of light(C) is 186,000 miles per second(in a vacuum) that star system would be outside of our visible universe. We would be moving away from the light's source faster than the light could travel, even though our true velocity was just over half of C As a result we could not observe or measure anything about that star system, it is impossible to test whether time dilation would occur. However, since we were only traveling over C in relation to each other, one would think the dilation would be cancelled out. I have now overstressed my brain and need to let it rest for a minute or two, lol.
I can't believe you're approaching 2 million subscribers, it feels like that 1 million special was last week! 😂 thanks for all you do, and I love this idea! Should get some great research ideas
This was a great video! Loved the 'relaxed' feel to it and think Joe's Journey to the West Texas Flesh Pit would be an incredible video. One of my favorite things about your channel is the feeling that you'd be a fun person to have a beer with; and this video highlights that. Keep it going!
I picked up the analogy of an expanding balloon to understand the universe, years ago. The idea is that you draw stars and whorls and a "you are here" on it. The balloon deflated is the moment of the big bang. As you start to inflate the balloon, the volume inside is time expanding. Everything expands apart, and what you can see gets smaller.
I just discovered your channel about a year ago and it is one of my favorites! I enjoy your storytelling, jokes, topic choices and lack of bias (as much as any good human is capable of). You have thoroughly entertained me and occasionally edified me. You do great work!
Love that a guy with a channel with 2 mil subs in straight up giving 0 fugs shooting in pajama pants. Love it man. Keep up the great content sir. Look forward to your videos every week.
Basically on anti-gravity: If we go with the strict "It's just opposing gravity"... it doesn't really have an effect on turbulence. At least not directly. We'd have to totally redesign airplanes actually, due to lift being created by wings no longer being needed. We might end up with vehicles closer to classical rockets, which try to just wedge through the air. This would definitely create less turbulence compared to having giant drag-inducing wings that interact with the atmosphere. (This does assume that you would actually need to be in the atmosphere at all - which is entirely speculative, as to be expected.)
Re: antigravity/turbulence: We'd still experience turbulence, but not as extreme. Gusts of wind would still hit the antigravitycraft, but since it's not being lifted by that air, it wouldn't cause the drops and twists like it does on the wings of an airplane. Kind of like how you feel an occasional gust of air when you're driving your car, but if you stick your hand out the window like you're on a family road trip, you'd feel the effects of wind and changing hand angles very intensely.
Let's say, just for speculation, that our antigravity craft had a physical way to let the air move around it without actually acting much on it. We could make the edges really thin, but we have to be in it so there would have to be a point where we would have to fit, making that part thicker. What if our antigravity ship was round, that would help, and if it was thin on the edges then the wind wouldn't cause it to be so unstable, but it would have to be thicker in the middle, maybe kind of like a frisbee, or a brake rotor but with a smooth ramp up instead of a 90 degree angle for wind purposes. Kind of like a disk of some sor... Oh, wait, that sounds familiar, damn...
I may be missing an important element but I think that an antigravity vessel would be effectively weightless and would respond more strongly to turbulence of the same strength as before. Would the vessel have inertia? Arrgghhh, a brain twister for sure.
@desertdenizen6428 I think you are right to think about inertia: turbulence is caused by disturbances in the air flow through which the aircraft passes through, which is independent of the aircraft's energy (potential or kinetic), but the inertia dampens the change in direction and transitions it to elastic oscillation then a new steady state (rectilinear movement). To me, antigravity being only the cancelation of the downward vector of acceleration toward a barycenter of masses, it would not change anything: turbulences would still happen. But it was interesting to see Scott (Joe)'s 😉 hypothesis that antigravity would let us move around matter, like if we were in the vaccum of space, with vernier engines, because then maybe the effect of the air around would be indeed not as a force (lift, drag, etc.) but simply homogeneous pressure on the vessel, like if it appeared at time t in coordinates x,y,z and then at t+dt at position x+dx,y+dy,z+dz without any transition or kinetic vector, therefore without any disturbances in the flow because there was no flow since we are not "moving" through air but appearing statically at different positions in space over time... 😵💫 but maybe I misinterpreted what Joe was saying. Great fun 👍
@@desertdenizen6428I suppose it depends upon the exact mechanism in which the craft produces locomotion ie antigravity effect. Suppose it simply creates a field around itself the blocks the ability of gravitrons (or whatever quantum phenomena responsible for the reaction between massive objects) to travel outside the field, similar to how a black hole with light. (this is the most plausible scenario) The object would still have mass, avoiding all those interesting conundrums you mentioned. And turbulence would still occur, albeit to a smaller degree as there would be less aerodynamic dependency due to lift not being acquired in that manner (surface area/mass/Cd etc.)
In center of universe and making sense of it through the expansion we observer: 1: Open Microsoft Paint 2: Place a bunch of dots on it 3: Copy that same image to have second such "dotty" image 4: Enlarge the second picture by 5% 5: Place it on top of the original - pick one dot (think of it as our Earth or Sun or whatever) and align the enlarged picture's dot with that one 6: Observe, how everything else is suddenly "moving away" from the picked dot You can do that with every dot by just shifting the second image over the first one. ;)
Yes! So glad someone mentioned it. This is the best demonstration of how observations made anywhere appear to be at the centre of the universe. It kinda surprises me it's not used all the time by people explaining the concept; it certainly made several dollars worth of pennies drop for me.
As someone who hasn't eaten breakfast, or a traditional lunch( I usually eat lunch at 4pm ), I'm never feeling hungry unless I somehow forget to eat till dinner(8pm). I guess I've been intermittent fasting my whole life😅
I'm pretty much the same. I haven't eaten breakfast regularly for years, and these days I often don't eat lunch until late afternoon. But it's just what feels normal to me. I didn't do it in search of health benefits (and haven't received any that I'm aware of).
That’s definitely how it feels for the first few days of IF, but if you can persevere through it I find I’m far more focussed than when I eat throughout the day. I actually ended up doing IF during my med school finals many years ago and it certainly improved my concentration.
Yeah...I need to eat virtually constantly. Then again, I'm a bit of an athlete. I can delay eating, but I'm bringing 500-1000 calories just getting to work.
Yes would definitely like to see the question answered more in depth. But personally I think its impossible for us to know unless we literally saw like, the wall at the end of the universe or something. Because as long as we DONT see that, well we live on a globe and we can only see a certain distance out from it and therefore there's a giant sphere that represents our field of view and as long as there isnt a barrier/an "edge" somewhere then we cant really say where it ends or whether or not we're in the center of it. It's like if you were in an olympic size pool with fog all around you so that you could only see a few feet in front of you, as long as you werent less than a few feet from the edge youd have no idea of where you actually are in that pool.
This must be the universe talking to me through you Joe! I literally just got done with my antigravity device today. Haven’t tested it yet but it’s complete
16:18 @Joe Scott You should call Becky Smethurst to answer that Center of the Universe question. The topic has come up a few times in her videos and she's one of UA-cam's most qualified people to give you an answer on the topic
Temperature is all about what you are used to, so no worries. Just so you know, the song "Hey Joe" was a cover tune for Jimi Hendrix, it was actually written by a guy named Billy Roberts. Just for your gee wiz file.
Billy Roberts used to date the folk singer Niela Miller. She had a song called “Baby, Please Don’t Go to Town", which Roberts lifted the chord progression from for “Hey Joe”.
I would love for you to do a "center of the universe" video. Now, I have watched other astrophysics channels talk about it (it's a favourite of Neil DeGrasse Tyson), but I'd be intrigued to hear your take once you've done the research, because it really is quite mind-boggling and I think you'll probably enjoy delving into it.
We are at the center of our own observable universe because it's sort of like standing in the middle of a field you can see so far in any direction although you know it goes on farther so from any one point you're observable universe is what you can see
And the universe is WAY bigger than the Observable Universe. They know that since looking out to the edge of the observable universe in different directions, there is no sign of starting to look like someplace else. Another way of saying it is the curvature is very close to zero. Due to uncertainty, it might not be exactly zero and therefore would curve around and could be closed (if positive curvature). That brings up another thing. We don't know that the universe was a singularity. What we know is the observable universe was a (near) singularity - meaning everything we can see was packed into an ultra-dense tiny volume. What we know is going back in time, the density increases. If the universe is infinite, it was higher density everywhere, but still infinite.
For anti-gravity turbulence... I think the answer is "no, not really". The reason a plane shakes like it does when it hits turbulence is because it's the air that's holding it up. For an analogy, consider a sailboat vs. a speedboat, and their interaction with the wind. The sailboat is like an airplane. It has a great big sail that helps it move, but because of that big wind-catching device, a sudden gust of wind can rock it onto its side quite a bit, so we compensate for that by building heavier keels, adjusting the sails when it happens, etc. In a plane, we compensate for that by building the wings and fuselage to be sturdier than the strongest turbulence we expect the plane to ever experience (which is way, _way_ more turbulence than you'll ever experience as a passenger, by the way), and we set procedures like maximum speed during turbulence. We also build planes to fly high enough to simply not encounter it most of the time. An anti-gravity aircraft is like the speedboat. Because it's not propelled by the wind, the speedboat doesn't have giant air-interacting features like sails. If anything, they'll be deliberately streamlined and _not_ interact much with the wind at all. A gust does very little to a speedboat. Could you, in theory, feel a gust of wind affecting the side of the boat? Sure. But even less so than you could in your car. It's hardly going to throw you around or anything. An anti-gravity aircraft would be like this. Even what would be heavy turbulence that only cargo planes would ever fly through would probably barely be noticeable, and for the most part, even without active compensation systems, I don't think there'd be much turbulence, no. Of course it's worth mentioning that anti-gravity is almost certainly impossible. Magnetic levitation might one day be possible... barely. Even then, it's doubtful that we'd use it for aircraft because wings are likely to be vastly more efficient. It's also worth mentioning that other than being scary, mostly because of the fact that air is invisible, turbulence isn't generally actually a problem. It's little more than the equivalent of a speed-bump in a parking lot for a car. For the speed bump, you can see it coming, and thus be ready for it. If you're the driver, you probably don't mind it at all, where as the passenger it might make you lurch awkwardly as you mistime your muscle tension and such. Turbulence, as a passenger, is a complete surprise, so can be startling... but it doesn't need to be _scary._ The pilots generally have some idea it's coming, from reports from other aircraft flying the same routes ahead of them, or with turbulence caused by geography in known areas. That's why, if they turn the seatbelt signs on, you should do as they say; you may feel nothing but smooth sailing and think you can relax, walk around, but they may know they're a few minutes from probable turbulence and so they warn people ahead of time. Sometimes they'll even warn you over the intercom. That's for light turbulence, anyway, which is probably the only kind you've ever experienced. Moderate turbulence is the kind where you see passengers visibly shake and bob together, and occasionally unsecured objects might move around a little. Passenger flights will usually attempt to avoid moderate turbulence, though occasionally that fails, though it rarely results in injury. It goes much higher than that, though... heavy turbulence is something passenger flights always try to avoid, but freight flights may choose to fly through it if it saves time or fuel. The pilots will just fasten their shoulder harnesses and get through it, because even that isn't a threat to the plane itself _at all._ If you've seen people thrown into the ceiling, that was heavy turbulence. We could easily install shoulder harnesses in passenger seats and just fly through it, but... that's uncomfortable and unnecessary most of the time. It'd be like installing three-point seatbelts on a school bus for those rare occasions when you drive a load of kids down into a strip mine. Oh wait, you just don't do that with school busses; that's what mining trucks are for. And so it goes for passenger aircraft. Then there's _severe_ turbulence. This is where the plane itself starts to be in a bit of danger, where wing loading and flexing can be pushed closer to its limits. Severe turbulence mostly only exists inside major storm cells, though, and is pretty easy to avoid. Most large jets have weather radar on-board, and to avoid severe turbulence you just don't fly into cumulonimbus clouds, hurricanes, or tornadoes. Even then, the plane is designed to be able to handle it. It may require some maintenance checks to make sure nothing got bent or warped, but it should be fine. Modern-designed airliners, the ones with the really gracefully shaped wings with curvy split winglets and the like, can actually touch their wingtips together over their fuselages without permanent damage, so a wingtip flapping a meter or two up and down in turbulence is actually not any more of a big deal than your car's suspension compressing a couple of inches extra for a speed bump or a small pothole.
I'm from Sweden, I have been out playing in the snow in minus 30c, Now I live in southern China in a city that rarely goes below 10c. Somehow it's still colder here, especially indoors so I completely understand your hoodie and weather complaints
I think the reason major movie studios haven't dipped into SCP IP is because all the articles are released under Creative Commons. You can make money off your project, but you also have to allow *it* to be used in future projects, so effectively copyright doesn't exist in an ever-monetizing way. I think the concept of the Foundation itself has already inspired pop culture. "The Warehouse" on sci-fi comes to mind. Also, don't forget that Dr. Who's Weeping Angels came out after SCP-187, and they were considered a very novel monster. Who's to say where that inspiration came from?
SCP-173 was what started the entire series and as a result is also one of the most ridiculed for being sloppy and stolen ideas. The original file was just posted on a forum spontaneously, used the weeping angles as the function, and stole images of a Japanese artwork for the photos. I mean it functioning like a weeping angle came out within months of Blink showing up on TV or a year after a short story. This has been argued about for years what to do about it and around 2018 they openly tried to redesign 173 to distance themselves from this. But the idea of old peanut is just too engrained in the community so people still use the old model all the time. In 2022 they even completely replaced the images on the wiki.
I got curious so I looked into it, and the first Doctor Who episode to contain weeping angels, "Blink", aired June 9th, 2007, whereas they were first added to the SCP Foundation in the form of SCP-137 on June 22nd, 2007. Apparently, this also happened to be the date of the creation of SCPs as a whole, as 137 was the first one. I know very little about both Doctor Who and SCP, but what I found leads me to believe that the weeping angel came before SCP-137, and someone simply saw the Doctor Who episode, and soon after essentially wrote fanfiction about it and it became an internet culture phenomenon. But weeping angles came first, predating not just SCP-137, but SCP as a whole.
This is just me but when I've done intermittent fasting I always start with the first day as like a 24 - 36 hour fast instead of the normal routine I'm doing like a 12 or 14 or 16 hour fast. That seems to be easier to do than the regular fast and then you are fully desensitized to the hunger and fasting and feel even better than you would just normally acclimating to it since your next fast is even easier.
I found this format much more enjoyable. Sadly, I usually skip the Lightning Round episodes but this one kept me tuned in. Yes to a center of the universe video!
Seeing how well you did with the off the cuff remarks, I'm surprised you don't do this more often. It's got to save you a ton of time and even though it's not as informative as your deeper dive stuff, it's still compelling. At least you could throw it into the mix on a regular basis for some variety for the viewers and a bit of a break for you and your team.
I don't know if Joe will see this, I almost joined the patreon just to comment on discord. Love seeing Joe enjoys SCP. And I would say an SCP Movie would totally succeed and I can prove it; "Annihilation" and "CONTROL". Annihilation is the movie, nothing to do with SCP, but it literally reads like an SCP entry, complete with "Exploration Logs" of military and science personnel venturing into the unknown, and a "Foundation researching the anomalous" and an "Anomalous entity affecting reality and people/creatures in unique ways". Even the Bear from it, is quite literally "SCP 939 Many Voices". Both inspired by Eldritch horror of course. CONTROL is the video game by Remedy, also massively successful, and also not directly adapted from the Foundation but almost word to word inspired by it, even the logs found in the game are written like SCP articles, with "Containment Procedures" and "Object Classes". The entire universe is inspired by it and built like it. And it has direct references as well, such as "Broken God" "Absence of Shark" and "SCP 173/Weeping Angel" The Fridge in the game. Remedy as a whole is very inspired by the same train of thought as Twin Peaks/Stephen/SCP with Alan Wake and CONTROL kind of operating like an interesting "SCP 001 Reality Bender" story. So much so, I wrote a whole damn essay about it; www.reddit.com/r/SCPDeclassified/comments/r4c3gc/declassifying_alan_wake_and_control_and_the/? .
I started intermittently fasting and my body got used to it and now i can't physically eat anything within 10 hours of sleeping or i get very sick. I'm not sure how common this is but be aware you probably shouldn't do it long term.
Hey, Canadian here! -6.7c to someone living in Texas must be frigid!!!! My part of Canada averages -15ish in the winter, but where I went for grad school regularly hits -55, it was like stepping into a frozen hell. We all get climatized to where we live, sorry other people from up north are a jerk about it.
@@hardcoreherbivore4730 Exactly! I was born in Kamloops BC and live there now, but I have also lived in the Yukon, Northern Alberta, and Saskatoon. Been cold as hell in all of them! And at very different temperatures. I will admit after a few years of the extreme cold though, the first few back with "regular" cold do seem pretty nice!
I have been a fan of this channel for years now. I only have nice things to say about Joe and the topics he covers are always informative and interesting. I'm extremely happy that the channel is nearing 2 million subscribers and I believe it will exponentially increase with time. Thanks Joe
Turbulence: 1) I love the idea of just getting above the atmosphere, specifically because there'd be no air drag and the atmosphere is pretty much gone only about 60 miles (100km) up. But 2) turbulence in an airplane is (I think) mostly caused by the lift of the wings crossing into more/less dense pockets of air. If we had anti-gravity then presumably we could create thrust with the same mechanism and make our vehicle as streamlined as possible so that flying through the air would cost as little energy as possible (we try to do that now, but need lift to fly). So with no lift we would cross into these air pockets of more/less density without the air density mattering nearly as much, so I think the turbulence the people in the vehicle would experience would be drastically reduced, maybe so much that it would effectively be eliminated.
I like this format. I choose a UA-cam video to watch based on two things: the topic and the host/creator. This format allows us to see a more genuine version of Scott, er, Joe than a typical, scripted show. It's just once a month so shouldn't throw off the usual format of the Monday videos.
I like you already. You notice the same things I do. I am NOT sure we are at the center of the universe because no one has reached the end with any of our senses, and there's no other way to get info, is there? I mean, light is the fastest there is. But further mind-blowing, we are at just about the middle scale between quantum mechanical scale and Einsteinian astronomical physics. PLUS we are at the median point in the projected lifestpan of the universe. And if you read anything about chaos theory, that is what it comes down to is that the greatest scope for complexity is always at the midpoint in every sense.
From how i understood expansion was that every area with no objects being galaxies or basically “empty space” is expanding not just expanding like ripples in water which explains why the further away from our galaxy are expanding faster due to the more “empty space” in between.
Hmmm, I've often thought on the question "Are we the center of the Universe, and how big is it actually?" - which makes me start extrapolating my position locally. - Am I the center of the Earth? - Is Earth the center of the Solar System? - Is the Solar System the center of the Milky Way.... This leads me to an analogy: if I were in a huge unlit warehouse, randomly placed with a torch held over head, providing a circle of visibility - yes, I am at the center of what is visible to me. I have no idea where I am in relation to the warehouse I am in, I have no idea how large that warehouse is. To add to that thought - light is moving away from the original source, which implies what is being "lit" is expanding one light year... every year. The proviso to the last sentence is that the speed of light is constant, and will keep moving in a straight line infinitely holds true, and that objects in this space is also moving away from the central point... unless there are gravity wells distorting it, which implies something was there before The Big Bang, which in turn raises other questions and what we understand. I might be rambling nonsense, however, this is what I think of those questions.
Hi Joe! I would love to see you do the Mystery Flesh Pit piece. As far as the center of the universe, a clarification of the observable and the physical universe needs to be made. Lastly, for those who like this channel, you might also like "The Why Files". It's not exactly the same, but very similar. God bless everyone, and have a great weekend!!
The center of the universe is definitely something that we could use a full video on. The way I see it is that we never left the singularity, it simply expanded (and cooled off and left a lot of space). But to say everything is in the center seems a bit silly. Everything used to be in the center, but as the singularity expanded things didn't stay centered, they went all over the place. But I don't understand why we treat the universe as a greater unknown than any black hole. The universe is just a black hole that keeps expanding. Thus, we can look at the smaller black holes in our universe to see what the outside of our universe looks like, while also seeing the inside of a black hole, because that is the universe.
Hey Joe, I really enjoy the more spontaneous lighting round format! This just reminded me that I should probably finally look into supporting you there. Keep up the great work!
i left nebula to come here to tell you that i once almost lost it when i couldn't find your youtube channel, because i was under the impression your name was scott somehow. it was one of those moments that no one could have possibly perceived me, but i still felt embarrassed that even I knew
I've been intermittent fasting for 6 or 7 years now. Once you start it's really easy to maintain. My weight doesn't change it's right where the doctor wants it. I've had 3 different doctors over the course of time and all of them thought it was beneficial to me. It's important that your breakfast not contain a lot of carbs, they can cause a blood sugar spike and a high A1C. I had to eliminate bananas with breakfast. Otherwise there have been no side effects. I take daily medication that requires food to control my type 2 diabetes, I take it at noon.
It's a cool format. Personally I kinda like it more than the previous lightning round videos. Not that those were bad but usually I was left wishing for more content on certain lightning round topics (akin to a full length video). So the way of tackling it here, without any prior research fits better for answering multiple questions in one video. And with the option to create a full length video later on that is even better :)
I like the quality of the videos so far this year. I mean I always enjoy your content but you can tell more energy and thought and feelings are going into the videos. I like it, keep it up Joe and team!
Just my 2 cents for the center of the universe question; the way it was explained to me was that since everything in the universe is moving away from everything else all at the same rate, simultaneously, no matter where you are at within the universe or what your perspective of it may be, to the observer (you) it appears that you are standing in the center of the universe no matter where you are actually located within it. No matter where you really are in the universe, it will always appear that you are in the center of it. I hope I explained that well enough.
Joe, if you're looking for ideas to make videos, here's one: You could make a video about multi-purpose humanoid robots, the latest advances in that field, and technological advances related to it: AI/AGI/AI agents, actuators, batteries (e.g. the new commercially available chinese nuclear batteries)... you can investigate about how close humanoid robots are from science-fiction books/movies... asimov's laws of robotics, morallity/legislation related to robots, and all that nerdy stuff that we love so much. Good video btw 👍🖖
Hey Scott, to address whatever you said about names - When I was younger, I used to think that communication was fundamentally flawed and we could never communicate an idea perfectly. As I get older however, it seems more and more that people can't really listen. As in, are *unable* to. There's a kind of barrier that exists somewhere between hearing and cognition that actively resists new information. The strength at which it resists depends on the person and circumstances. I believe it has to do with short term memory and filtering. (Also yes, I did call you Scott as a joke to demonstrate the point)
It was lite, it moved right along, it kept my interest. What's not to like. Yes, 0lease a video on the question of "where is the center of the universe ". I have seen a couple of youtubers attempt to explain it, and they all have melted my brain. So please take a shot.
I'm a old Canadian guy, I understand that temperature perception is highly relative. What is really cold to me, would be terrifying to somebody from Texas, or the south in general. When it's -30C (-22F), it's really cold. Time for the big coat. Gloves too if I'm going to have anything in my hand. Around -15C (5F), it's still pretty cold, but you can get by with the lighter coat and a scarf. At 0C (32F), some Canadians will wear t-shorts or shorts, sometimes both. I prefer to wear a jacket, but I like having additional pockets. By 15C (59F), pretty much everybody born in Canada is now in t-shirts and shorts, though I tend to still wear jeans, because again, pockets. Just so you know, the coldest I've personally experienced as a Canadian was -58C (-72F). That was way, WAY up north though, it's not like, normal or anything in most of the country.
I can hear the cold in your voice. I live in the same city. The temperatures were cold, no matter who you are or where you're from. I enjoyed it. I was out in short sleeved shirts. I like the cold. My partner is from Wisconsin and wears sweaters when the temperature drops below 70°F. Humans be different. Stay warm. I once worked with a guy that called me Scott (my name is Peter), despite multiple corrections. He once called me Scott immediately after someone else corrected him. He never used my proper name.
6:18 Gotta disagree here. I actually looked up if vitamins count as breaking your fast for intermittent fasting and the answer was a pretty definitive yes--the consumption of anything that isn't water (heck, some sources will argue even water is problematic) will make your body react to start absorbing those nutrients which will stop some of the bodily mechanisms that are the reason for intermittent fasting. That said, if you're taking medications that need to be taken at certain times--they're probably more important and it's 100% a conversation to have with your doctor, not the internet.
A good slant to keep in mind about the center of the universe and the size of the universe is that even in science we have to be extremely mindful to what we or someone else means when one uses the term “the universe”, as “the universe” does not often mean “the universe”. When saying “the universe” we often actually mean “the visible universe”. I think a good starting point at explaining things can be by saying that if we were to ask for example if we are closer to one side of the edge of the universe or not it is like asking if one side of the horizon closer to us. By simple definition the horizon is the distance all around us at which we can’t see the ground anymore, tho for a different reason for what causes our universal horizon, which is all the so-called “edge of the universe” is . And just like if you walk around, then what is considered the horizon moves with you, or from the perspective of someone standing somewhere else (comparatively like someone on another planet in another galaxy), their horizon is where their horizon is; therefor you are always at the center of the horizon from your perspective, but that’s not because the world is literally shaped around us, it’s just a perspective thing. Likewise the “edge of the universe” is just a perspective thing which would be different from every location in the universe. And finally just as we know that what is within our horizon does not constitute “the whole world” and that there is more earth beyond our horizon, there is likewise more universe beyond our cosmic horizon, even tho we usually call all that we see within that “the universe”; it’s actually just “the visible universe”, but “the (whole or entire) universe” exists far beyond that, tho we basically can never see the rest from here.
A real astronomer and physics teacher here. Here's my take on the antigravity and turbulence question: currently, planes rely on the large surface wings to stay up in the air. The more constant flow of air, the more stable the ride. Any rapid horizontal changes in the air velocity rapidly change the lift force by a little bit, making the plane move slightly up and down. Any vertical changes in the air also act on the huge area of the wing causing the plane move up and down. However, if we eliminate wings and use anti-grav. engines to stay up we eliminate the air-wing interactions which cause most of the turbulence. The fuselage itself has much lower area so the turbulence might still be there but will be much less pronounced (like a 100-1000x less so). About the center of the Universe, let me ask you this: on the surface of a balloon, which point is its center?
As a Minnesotan, I hereby validate your chilliness, Joe. Does it get colder, here? Sure, but we also have massive infrastructure dedicated to the problem. Mocking southerners, who lack cold-weather solutions, for feeling cold when it's AFFIRMATIVELY COLD is just...snotty. Knock it off, fellow cold-weather folk! 20F or 6 inches of snow is a genuine problem without the gear.
93 billion light years is the size of the observable universe, not the actual complete universe. We have absolutely no way of measuring the total size, as it is not observable. It’s that simple. And by the same logic, we cannot know our place in the complete universe. But everything and everyone is always 100% in the middle of the observable universe. As the observer.
Yes, I would like to see a deeper dive into this center of the universe topic. I found the aspect of it being only our observable part of it all a good point to make.
Re: The size of the universe, I remember reading that scientists can hypothesize about the total (i.e. outside the observable portion) size of the universe based on our measurements and models of things like the CMB and I think I read that the current estimates put it at something like 130x the observable universe.
I'm really glad that so many people are into the SCP universe. There's so much potential there. I feel it would need to be a series. Some SCPs are self contained stories and some go together in the different canons/realities within the SCP universe. It would be wildly entertaining to a broad range of people.
Hey Scott Joe some of us actually uses last name as a formality or respect or sometimes intimate or attention seeking. It actually in culture,tradition,family thing. And there’s the fact that Scott can be used as a first name just like Joe so people uses might use it as preference. Than there’s the thing that people tend to use the middle name again as a preference. About the SCP thing I believe it got big because it was a community thing. Its always written by professional writers but by your everyday person who took their free time to do it. So I believe the part of the magic is that it is a community thing. If they’re going to make a movie they need good writing.
Supplements 😊 1. Any fasting becomes easier on low carb/keto diets. Gherlin is a factor, but insulin & letting, too, probably even bigger when on high carb diet, as the insulin response rocks blood sugar, therefore causing hunger. 2. Asimov in his sci-fi books advises to still have streamlined gravity-drive ships when travelling through planetary atmosphere. 3. We are in our centre of gravity 😉.
I didn't discover your channel until recently, so I havent seen your entire catalog, but just from recent viewings, you do look like you are getting fitter and healthier looking, like, your jawline is getting more defined.
One thing I've found about intermittent fasting is that it is occasionally good to break the fast. About twice a month, I eat a single midnight snack, just to disrupt my body's adaptation to the schedule. When I do that, I find it slightly harder to ignore the hunger for a day or two, but my weight's 'setpoint' is about five lbs lower. Dunno how scientific it is, but it's a way I deal with days when I forget to eat before my cutoff, and I suspect it works. SCP is a copyright nightmare. Each article can have a different CC license, quite of few of which have SA attached, which is a viral clause that means the movie itself has to be CC/SA. No studio is going to touch that with a ten foot pole. And before somebody says that CC means there's no copyright, that's exactly what CC does _not_ mean. CC works are still under copyright, retained by the original author; it's just that the author have given prior permission for some forms of use of the work, promising not to sue if the license is followed.
I like to see space as the 3D surface of an ever-growing bubble with a "radius" of ct. However there is no radial dimension to this bubble due to relativistic flattening. Consequently all there is is the 3D surface of the bubble. Relativistic effects may even make the curvature undetectable. Interestingly this model allows the age of the universe to be directly computed from its size and I could use that to predict that the universe is older than current estimates, which is supported by the very latest observations. The age should be size / 2PI which is 14.8 billion years if we assume the size to be 93 billion light years.
Giggling in Canajan. Actually, it's warmer than that here today. :) As for turbulance and anti-grav, unlike an airplane, you're not using the air for support and propulsion. Kind of like in a car, the wind will hit you, and affect you, but because the wheels are your support and propulsion, it's not as much as if the air was your sole support. Saying that, my father was blown off the road one icy day when the road left a forested area and went into a clear area, so your mileage may vary. :)
I dont think anti-gravity is possible, unless maybe they do find that anti-matter actually bends space time in the opposite direction. Which seems to not be the case. But as a though experiment i would think of anti-gravity as a sort of buoyancy in water essentially making the vehicle "lighter" in the gravitational field comparatively to surrounding mass. The amount of force to move the vehicle and external forces should remain the same for its true mass. The effects of turbulence would still be there. I imagine it would either increase or decrease the severity depending on the aerodynamic properties and mass of the vehicle. The "amount" of anti-gravity would have to be adjustable or it would just fling right out of the solar system, galaxy etc as the only force acting upon it would be its velocity which would no longer orbit the planet or sun etc.
Yes! I'd love to see the center of the universe vid! Also, this format was fine. Entertaining. I asked my teenage son the question, and we got into a discussion about the difference between the "center of the observable universe" (which transposes the meaning of "center" in the question to a point-of-view concern and observable light) vs. the "center of the known / theoretical universe" (which requires a more sophisticated understanding about what astrophysics tells us...which gets "philosophical" (as you put it) very quick.
OMG the same “where are you going with that gun in your hand?” thing happened to me at college too! Even more embarrassing by that time I had Heard the Jimi Hendrix song… 4:35
A thought on the center of the universe question. We are at the center of the observable universe (the part of the universe we can observe) - which has continually grown over time as our capability to see further and back in time has grown. However, that doesn't mean we're in the center of the actual physical universe - and almost certainly are not. Any other alien race would also be at the center of their observable universe, and they may not even see our galaxy at all. Bottom line, there is almost certainly way more to the universe than we're remotely aware of, and where we are in that larger universe - we have no way to know. Mind bending stuff.
Right. A good analogy is swimming somewhere in the ocean with no land in sight. There is no way of knowing, where you are in the ocean, but from your perspective, you are in the middle of the part of the ocean that you can see.
Well said.
Most likely, the universe doesn't even have a center.
Unbounded spaces, like Euclidean 3D space, don't have a center. Compact spaces without boundaries also don't really have a center.
Many of us imagine the Big Bang as a giant ball of expanding matter and energy with a propagating boundary to that explosion, but no one knows whether or not the universe has a boundary.
Yeah i think the Big Bang idea messes with people. Its not (as i understand it) that the universe was a single point that then became infinitely big, but that the universe was still infinitely large, and all the points in it were "on top of" each other. That probably breaks your intuition because we dont deal with infinites in our daily lives
We should just say that "the observable universe" is synonymous with "the universe". Since, for all practical purposes, they are the same... at least for now.
@@zakkus What if there is something bigger than the universe?
What if our universe was just a grain of sand in a desert of many universes, each being reborn and recreated?
Hey Joe, PhD candidate in physics here. About the center of the universe stuff there are some things I need to explain, first we don't know the shape of the universe, based on current models (FLRW stuff for who wants to search) it could be 3 things: A 3d hypersphere with constant positive spatial curvature, a 3d plane with zero curvature and a constant negative curvature (called ADS space), the latter 2 would be infinite and the first, based on observations, should be 150 times bigger than the observable universe (at least), but in all cases we could consider ourselves in the center of the expansion, as well as any other point in the universe (because the big bang ocurred everywhere) so your explanation was right all along!
I like to try to think 2d, if you told a shadow being that everything was on the same plan he would not be able to wrap his head around it because he is on this plan everything else cant be here.
the marksman holes would drive the 2d shadow mad
I feel like you hit the nail on the head with the center of the universe. We're in the middle of our observable universe all the time.
Exactly. The "observable" universe only means what we can observe from our point of view. Our point of view will always be the center of our observable universe.
Now are we at the center of the universe itself? Probably not, but how could we possibly tell when we can only OBSERVE so much?
"Congratulations on your thermoregulatory superiority. I'm cold." Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.
Yes I want to see that video
salad fingers? 😭😭 what are you doing here 😭
@@mayishmold * _CREAM_
ooooooh flock. did you find your spoons?
The official guy?
I find it bizarre that the phrase “don’t think about salad fingers. Think about [I forgot, probably corn or some other word that starts with a C]” popped into my head less than a week ago and now I see you commenting on a bunch of videos, as well as salad fingers in general.
A video about the center of the universe would be a great opportunity to talk about the "shape" of space (which has always been an intruiging thing to me). I'd watch it!
Right off the bat before I watch the rest of the video, I have to thank you for giving temperature in both Fahrenheit and Celsius. As a Senior Canadian, We have to understand both. They are so different in feeling.
You are in Texas and have gone through wild temperatures yourself. Zero up here in Toronto is okay.
Zero down there is bad. Real bad.
Saddens me that due to my financial circumstances I will never see my own questions ever even come to light on this channel. I adore Joe and all of the incredible work that he and his team do for the subscribers of his channel. But, unfortunately, it does make me sad that (and this isn’t exclusive to his channel) no matter what…my being thrust into poverty (gotta love that a dance and theatre instructor cannot afford to live outside of the poverty level that I am stuck in at this time) leaves me somewhat invisible to my favorite channels. So, all of you who are financially capable of funding this channel, I do so hope that you are able to continue to ask the questions that are at least interesting to the rest of us! Now, on to the video! Thank you, Joe. And thank you, to those who can ask these interesting questions!!!
Same but he's only one dude and i think he's trying to make what he's worth. These channels are a business in the end. We're just fortunate we get to watch it for free.
You typed all that out and never posted you question. There are lots of intelligent people out there that will be happy to answer your question thankfully that they get to help someone! You'll probably have to ignore a couple trolls, which are extremely annoying, but you'll also get your answer because you deserve it! The way teachers, especially arts, subs& special education, are treated is horrific at a minimum and self-sacrificing at the worst! Why take our most precious gifts and hand them to total strangers to raise for 7-10hrs a day 5-7 days a week without giving them a living wage and worse you aren't even given what you need to do your job, so you end up buying it out of your own pockets!! On top of being a DeFacto 3rd parent with no actual rights or protections other parents have it's disgusting and I'm sorry you aren't treated better!! So all of that to say thank you so much for helping to make the next generation better than the last and please post your question and see if someone, maybe even me, can answer you!
I follow about 30 creators but Joe Scott has probably some of the best stuff out there. The stories are super interesting and Joe has such a great sense of humor. Thank you UA-cam algorithm!!
you should try the why files
@mr.mcgibblets7048 I'm definitely with you on that!!!
The Why Files is just as good as Joe!!!
I have plenty of friends who get called by their last name and their last name isn't even close to a first name for someone else. Being called by your last name is no big deal. There is the question as to whether or not they're mistaking your last name for your first name in your case, but it's not uncommon for people to be called their last names instead of their first, depending on all sorts of factors.
lol there's 2 things that keep me coming back to your videos mate: 1. the content (science); and 2. the humour. Please don't stop either of them. :)
I've been accidentally "intermittent fasting" for like 30 years.. Found out in late elementary or middle school that breakfast doesn't really agree with me, and I'm usually too busy to ever eat lunch. So from then on (and I'm almost 40) I've really only ever eaten dinners. Occasionally if I'm really physical some morning, I'll eat an energy bar or something for lunch, but that's about the extent of it. Joe is completely correct, after a while, you just don't feel hungry. I never feel hungry until around 6pm, and I usually eat around 7-8pm.. But waking up, the whole morning and well into the evening, I never get the hunger signal or really even think about food. I've just become so used to it that breaking the cycle and eating a lunch tends to actually make me sick anymore.
Meds are a good issue to bring up though, as Dona does, because I've got a couple I'm supposed to take in the morning with food and I don't- I just moved them to evenings around/after dinner if they upset my stomach taking them without food. But just like fasting, ones that would make me nauseous stopped doing that and my body quickly adjusted.
Edit: Oh, and don't use me as a case study, because no, I don't lose weight or anything. I tends to eat large portion dinners so I'm still getting probably 1500cal/day, and I drink teas that aren't 0-cal, so probably another 300cal there starting around 1-2pm and 1k-1.2k dinners, and often a coke with dinner.
I'm still sitting about 180lbs at 5'7", legs are large from 15 years BMX racing in my youth, so still a lot of muscle mass there.. But otherwise avg build.
Personally, I think the SCP foundation would be better served as a series than a movie. There's just so much good content!
I can see there being a movie adaptation of the "Control" video game, which seems to be based on the SCP foundation setting. It has elements of the setting, but also a cohesive story within it as well.
Evan Royalty's SCP series. Shame he didn't get the funding for his SCP movie. He's doing a Stalker (Chernobyl game) movie short now.
Yes, as an anthology type series.
I, too, think a series would be preferred over a movie. Otherwise, I envision it generating yet another Hollywood mega-franchise cow that gets milked to death with movies of ever plummeting quality.
@@OneBentMonkey What, you don't like disappointment? We don't serve that in our restaurants
This was a nice change of pace. It's nice to hear someone say they don't know pr aren't sure. Instead of just making it up. It was a very honest and real video. Plus I like when you ask the audience questions. Yes please find out more about the center of the universe.. 👍👍
I died laughing at the start of the video when you told the nordics to please not say anything regarding the temperature. I'm Norwegian and I literally thought "That's not even cold" and felt the urge to comment something straight before you said what you said. It felt like you actually spoke directly to me! Hilarious. You hit the nail
Canadian who felt the same 👋
Tell me about it. It’s been between 2 and 4 degrees celsius here for a couple of days and I haven’t needed to use gloves that much😂
@@thombro705 And Russians.
New England and great lakes area people are the same here in the US
Same, Northern Swede here. I live about an hour south of the Arctic Circle. Anyway, while I do have that same "that's not even cold" reactions, I do appreciate the fact that infrastructure like people's houses are built with the climate of the area in mind. And the houses in the south US would be much less prepared for the cold than us up here where -30 in the winter is considered a bit chilly. And also cold feels different in different areas too. I was down south to visit family over Christmas, and the -10-ish they had down there felt about as cold to me as -25-30 does up here. I think it's got to do with the humidity in the air and stuff.
I was going to post a smug comment about the cold as I live in Winnipeg and normally at this point of the year, it’s -30c. But elniño has us at 0c. It’s wonderful and I’m full of joy.
The thing to really wrap you head around is that the galaxies are NOT "moving" away faster than light. They aren't moving anywhere. Space itself is expanding. It is (likely) expanding at the same rate everywhere, but when we look a billion light years away, we are looking back in time a billion years and seeing that portion of the universe as it was a billion years ago, not as it is now if we were right there.
Well yes space is expanding but galaxies are moving. Andromeda is gonna run into the milky way.
@@Falcodrin Yes, but galaxies aren't moving faster than the speed of light like he said. It's space that's growing at that pace.
Pretty sure he did say "relatively" somewhere in there. In which case, there are things that can move "relatively" faster than light away from us.
Imagine I am traveling eastbound at 65 mph and a cop approaches me westbound at 65 miles mph. If the cop pointed a speed gun at my vehicle(without compensation) the speed gun would indicate our relative velocity at 130 mph.
However a stationary speed gun would indicate our true velocity at 65 mph.
So if we are moving away from the center of the universe in one direction at 93,000.25 miles per second and another star system was moving on the same plane, directly away from us at 93,000.75 miles per second, our relative speed would be 186,001miles per second. As the speed of light(C) is 186,000 miles per second(in a vacuum) that star system would be outside of our visible universe. We would be moving away from the light's source faster than the light could travel, even though our true velocity was just over half of C
As a result we could not observe or measure anything about that star system, it is impossible to test whether time dilation would occur. However, since we were only traveling over C in relation to each other, one would think the dilation would be cancelled out.
I have now overstressed my brain and need to let it rest for a minute or two, lol.
@@jerryfick613 that's why police radar have to be calibrated to the vehicle speed if they are to be used in motion
I can't believe you're approaching 2 million subscribers, it feels like that 1 million special was last week! 😂 thanks for all you do, and I love this idea! Should get some great research ideas
This was a great video! Loved the 'relaxed' feel to it and think Joe's Journey to the West Texas Flesh Pit would be an incredible video. One of my favorite things about your channel is the feeling that you'd be a fun person to have a beer with; and this video highlights that. Keep it going!
I picked up the analogy of an expanding balloon to understand the universe, years ago. The idea is that you draw stars and whorls and a "you are here" on it. The balloon deflated is the moment of the big bang. As you start to inflate the balloon, the volume inside is time expanding. Everything expands apart, and what you can see gets smaller.
I love this new format! Keep up the good work, Scott!
I think the whole universe will turn into one big advertisement and you have to watch it.
I just discovered your channel about a year ago and it is one of my favorites! I enjoy your storytelling, jokes, topic choices and lack of bias (as much as any good human is capable of). You have thoroughly entertained me and occasionally edified me. You do great work!
Love that a guy with a channel with 2 mil subs in straight up giving 0 fugs shooting in pajama pants. Love it man. Keep up the great content sir. Look forward to your videos every week.
Oh wow, a mystery flesh pit would be amazing. Also the video about the center of the universe could be neat, hype to hopefully see both in the future!
Basically on anti-gravity: If we go with the strict "It's just opposing gravity"... it doesn't really have an effect on turbulence. At least not directly.
We'd have to totally redesign airplanes actually, due to lift being created by wings no longer being needed. We might end up with vehicles closer to classical rockets, which try to just wedge through the air. This would definitely create less turbulence compared to having giant drag-inducing wings that interact with the atmosphere.
(This does assume that you would actually need to be in the atmosphere at all - which is entirely speculative, as to be expected.)
Re: antigravity/turbulence: We'd still experience turbulence, but not as extreme. Gusts of wind would still hit the antigravitycraft, but since it's not being lifted by that air, it wouldn't cause the drops and twists like it does on the wings of an airplane. Kind of like how you feel an occasional gust of air when you're driving your car, but if you stick your hand out the window like you're on a family road trip, you'd feel the effects of wind and changing hand angles very intensely.
Yeah, an aircraft that uses antigravity wouldn't have wings, so there would be significantly less surface area for turbulent air to act on.
Let's say, just for speculation, that our antigravity craft had a physical way to let the air move around it without actually acting much on it. We could make the edges really thin, but we have to be in it so there would have to be a point where we would have to fit, making that part thicker. What if our antigravity ship was round, that would help, and if it was thin on the edges then the wind wouldn't cause it to be so unstable, but it would have to be thicker in the middle, maybe kind of like a frisbee, or a brake rotor but with a smooth ramp up instead of a 90 degree angle for wind purposes. Kind of like a disk of some sor... Oh, wait, that sounds familiar, damn...
I may be missing an important element but I think that an antigravity vessel would be effectively weightless and would respond more strongly to turbulence of the same strength as before. Would the vessel have inertia? Arrgghhh, a brain twister for sure.
@desertdenizen6428 I think you are right to think about inertia: turbulence is caused by disturbances in the air flow through which the aircraft passes through, which is independent of the aircraft's energy (potential or kinetic), but the inertia dampens the change in direction and transitions it to elastic oscillation then a new steady state (rectilinear movement).
To me, antigravity being only the cancelation of the downward vector of acceleration toward a barycenter of masses, it would not change anything: turbulences would still happen.
But it was interesting to see Scott (Joe)'s 😉 hypothesis that antigravity would let us move around matter, like if we were in the vaccum of space, with vernier engines, because then maybe the effect of the air around would be indeed not as a force (lift, drag, etc.) but simply homogeneous pressure on the vessel, like if it appeared at time t in coordinates x,y,z and then at t+dt at position x+dx,y+dy,z+dz without any transition or kinetic vector, therefore without any disturbances in the flow because there was no flow since we are not "moving" through air but appearing statically at different positions in space over time... 😵💫 but maybe I misinterpreted what Joe was saying.
Great fun 👍
@@desertdenizen6428I suppose it depends upon the exact mechanism in which the craft produces locomotion ie antigravity effect. Suppose it simply creates a field around itself the blocks the ability of gravitrons (or whatever quantum phenomena responsible for the reaction between massive objects) to travel outside the field, similar to how a black hole with light. (this is the most plausible scenario)
The object would still have mass, avoiding all those interesting conundrums you mentioned. And turbulence would still occur, albeit to a smaller degree as there would be less aerodynamic dependency due to lift not being acquired in that manner (surface area/mass/Cd etc.)
In center of universe and making sense of it through the expansion we observer:
1: Open Microsoft Paint
2: Place a bunch of dots on it
3: Copy that same image to have second such "dotty" image
4: Enlarge the second picture by 5%
5: Place it on top of the original - pick one dot (think of it as our Earth or Sun or whatever) and align the enlarged picture's dot with that one
6: Observe, how everything else is suddenly "moving away" from the picked dot
You can do that with every dot by just shifting the second image over the first one. ;)
Yes! So glad someone mentioned it. This is the best demonstration of how observations made anywhere appear to be at the centre of the universe. It kinda surprises me it's not used all the time by people explaining the concept; it certainly made several dollars worth of pennies drop for me.
As someone who hasn't eaten breakfast, or a traditional lunch( I usually eat lunch at 4pm ), I'm never feeling hungry unless I somehow forget to eat till dinner(8pm). I guess I've been intermittent fasting my whole life😅
I'm pretty much the same. I haven't eaten breakfast regularly for years, and these days I often don't eat lunch until late afternoon. But it's just what feels normal to me. I didn't do it in search of health benefits (and haven't received any that I'm aware of).
i just made a comment like that. lol. I never thought about it. but nice to be validated
I am totally the opposite. need just a little something to eat every few hours or i don't focus so well.
That’s definitely how it feels for the first few days of IF, but if you can persevere through it I find I’m far more focussed than when I eat throughout the day.
I actually ended up doing IF during my med school finals many years ago and it certainly improved my concentration.
Yeah...I need to eat virtually constantly.
Then again, I'm a bit of an athlete. I can delay eating, but I'm bringing 500-1000 calories just getting to work.
Yes would definitely like to see the question answered more in depth. But personally I think its impossible for us to know unless we literally saw like, the wall at the end of the universe or something. Because as long as we DONT see that, well we live on a globe and we can only see a certain distance out from it and therefore there's a giant sphere that represents our field of view and as long as there isnt a barrier/an "edge" somewhere then we cant really say where it ends or whether or not we're in the center of it. It's like if you were in an olympic size pool with fog all around you so that you could only see a few feet in front of you, as long as you werent less than a few feet from the edge youd have no idea of where you actually are in that pool.
This must be the universe talking to me through you Joe! I literally just got done with my antigravity device today. Haven’t tested it yet but it’s complete
Magnetic repulsion doesn't count 😂
16:18 @Joe Scott You should call Becky Smethurst to answer that Center of the Universe question. The topic has come up a few times in her videos and she's one of UA-cam's most qualified people to give you an answer on the topic
Temperature is all about what you are used to, so no worries.
Just so you know, the song "Hey Joe" was a cover tune for Jimi Hendrix, it was actually written by a guy named Billy Roberts. Just for your gee wiz file.
RESPECT was written by Otis Redding!
Billy Roberts used to date the folk singer Niela Miller. She had a song called “Baby, Please Don’t Go to Town", which Roberts lifted the chord progression from for “Hey Joe”.
I would love for you to do a "center of the universe" video. Now, I have watched other astrophysics channels talk about it (it's a favourite of Neil DeGrasse Tyson), but I'd be intrigued to hear your take once you've done the research, because it really is quite mind-boggling and I think you'll probably enjoy delving into it.
We are at the center of our own observable universe because it's sort of like standing in the middle of a field you can see so far in any direction although you know it goes on farther so from any one point you're observable universe is what you can see
And the universe is WAY bigger than the Observable Universe. They know that since looking out to the edge of the observable universe in different directions, there is no sign of starting to look like someplace else. Another way of saying it is the curvature is very close to zero. Due to uncertainty, it might not be exactly zero and therefore would curve around and could be closed (if positive curvature).
That brings up another thing. We don't know that the universe was a singularity. What we know is the observable universe was a (near) singularity - meaning everything we can see was packed into an ultra-dense tiny volume. What we know is going back in time, the density increases. If the universe is infinite, it was higher density everywhere, but still infinite.
For anti-gravity turbulence... I think the answer is "no, not really".
The reason a plane shakes like it does when it hits turbulence is because it's the air that's holding it up.
For an analogy, consider a sailboat vs. a speedboat, and their interaction with the wind. The sailboat is like an airplane. It has a great big sail that helps it move, but because of that big wind-catching device, a sudden gust of wind can rock it onto its side quite a bit, so we compensate for that by building heavier keels, adjusting the sails when it happens, etc. In a plane, we compensate for that by building the wings and fuselage to be sturdier than the strongest turbulence we expect the plane to ever experience (which is way, _way_ more turbulence than you'll ever experience as a passenger, by the way), and we set procedures like maximum speed during turbulence. We also build planes to fly high enough to simply not encounter it most of the time.
An anti-gravity aircraft is like the speedboat. Because it's not propelled by the wind, the speedboat doesn't have giant air-interacting features like sails. If anything, they'll be deliberately streamlined and _not_ interact much with the wind at all. A gust does very little to a speedboat. Could you, in theory, feel a gust of wind affecting the side of the boat? Sure. But even less so than you could in your car. It's hardly going to throw you around or anything. An anti-gravity aircraft would be like this. Even what would be heavy turbulence that only cargo planes would ever fly through would probably barely be noticeable, and for the most part, even without active compensation systems, I don't think there'd be much turbulence, no.
Of course it's worth mentioning that anti-gravity is almost certainly impossible. Magnetic levitation might one day be possible... barely. Even then, it's doubtful that we'd use it for aircraft because wings are likely to be vastly more efficient.
It's also worth mentioning that other than being scary, mostly because of the fact that air is invisible, turbulence isn't generally actually a problem. It's little more than the equivalent of a speed-bump in a parking lot for a car. For the speed bump, you can see it coming, and thus be ready for it. If you're the driver, you probably don't mind it at all, where as the passenger it might make you lurch awkwardly as you mistime your muscle tension and such. Turbulence, as a passenger, is a complete surprise, so can be startling... but it doesn't need to be _scary._
The pilots generally have some idea it's coming, from reports from other aircraft flying the same routes ahead of them, or with turbulence caused by geography in known areas. That's why, if they turn the seatbelt signs on, you should do as they say; you may feel nothing but smooth sailing and think you can relax, walk around, but they may know they're a few minutes from probable turbulence and so they warn people ahead of time. Sometimes they'll even warn you over the intercom. That's for light turbulence, anyway, which is probably the only kind you've ever experienced. Moderate turbulence is the kind where you see passengers visibly shake and bob together, and occasionally unsecured objects might move around a little. Passenger flights will usually attempt to avoid moderate turbulence, though occasionally that fails, though it rarely results in injury.
It goes much higher than that, though... heavy turbulence is something passenger flights always try to avoid, but freight flights may choose to fly through it if it saves time or fuel. The pilots will just fasten their shoulder harnesses and get through it, because even that isn't a threat to the plane itself _at all._ If you've seen people thrown into the ceiling, that was heavy turbulence. We could easily install shoulder harnesses in passenger seats and just fly through it, but... that's uncomfortable and unnecessary most of the time. It'd be like installing three-point seatbelts on a school bus for those rare occasions when you drive a load of kids down into a strip mine. Oh wait, you just don't do that with school busses; that's what mining trucks are for. And so it goes for passenger aircraft.
Then there's _severe_ turbulence. This is where the plane itself starts to be in a bit of danger, where wing loading and flexing can be pushed closer to its limits. Severe turbulence mostly only exists inside major storm cells, though, and is pretty easy to avoid. Most large jets have weather radar on-board, and to avoid severe turbulence you just don't fly into cumulonimbus clouds, hurricanes, or tornadoes. Even then, the plane is designed to be able to handle it. It may require some maintenance checks to make sure nothing got bent or warped, but it should be fine. Modern-designed airliners, the ones with the really gracefully shaped wings with curvy split winglets and the like, can actually touch their wingtips together over their fuselages without permanent damage, so a wingtip flapping a meter or two up and down in turbulence is actually not any more of a big deal than your car's suspension compressing a couple of inches extra for a speed bump or a small pothole.
I'm from Sweden, I have been out playing in the snow in minus 30c, Now I live in southern China in a city that rarely goes below 10c. Somehow it's still colder here, especially indoors so I completely understand your hoodie and weather complaints
I liked this lightning round format way more than I expected
I think the reason major movie studios haven't dipped into SCP IP is because all the articles are released under Creative Commons. You can make money off your project, but you also have to allow *it* to be used in future projects, so effectively copyright doesn't exist in an ever-monetizing way. I think the concept of the Foundation itself has already inspired pop culture. "The Warehouse" on sci-fi comes to mind. Also, don't forget that Dr. Who's Weeping Angels came out after SCP-187, and they were considered a very novel monster. Who's to say where that inspiration came from?
SCP-173 was what started the entire series and as a result is also one of the most ridiculed for being sloppy and stolen ideas. The original file was just posted on a forum spontaneously, used the weeping angles as the function, and stole images of a Japanese artwork for the photos. I mean it functioning like a weeping angle came out within months of Blink showing up on TV or a year after a short story.
This has been argued about for years what to do about it and around 2018 they openly tried to redesign 173 to distance themselves from this. But the idea of old peanut is just too engrained in the community so people still use the old model all the time. In 2022 they even completely replaced the images on the wiki.
I got curious so I looked into it, and the first Doctor Who episode to contain weeping angels, "Blink", aired June 9th, 2007, whereas they were first added to the SCP Foundation in the form of SCP-137 on June 22nd, 2007. Apparently, this also happened to be the date of the creation of SCPs as a whole, as 137 was the first one.
I know very little about both Doctor Who and SCP, but what I found leads me to believe that the weeping angel came before SCP-137, and someone simply saw the Doctor Who episode, and soon after essentially wrote fanfiction about it and it became an internet culture phenomenon. But weeping angles came first, predating not just SCP-137, but SCP as a whole.
This is just me but when I've done intermittent fasting I always start with the first day as like a 24 - 36 hour fast instead of the normal routine I'm doing like a 12 or 14 or 16 hour fast. That seems to be easier to do than the regular fast and then you are fully desensitized to the hunger and fasting and feel even better than you would just normally acclimating to it since your next fast is even easier.
I'm from the 80s early 90s. I WAS PROMISED hoverboards and flying vehicles by now!!!
They are available for purchase they just aren't very good and very expensive
I found this format much more enjoyable. Sadly, I usually skip the Lightning Round episodes but this one kept me tuned in. Yes to a center of the universe video!
Seeing how well you did with the off the cuff remarks, I'm surprised you don't do this more often. It's got to save you a ton of time and even though it's not as informative as your deeper dive stuff, it's still compelling. At least you could throw it into the mix on a regular basis for some variety for the viewers and a bit of a break for you and your team.
Agreed
as a movie lover, I can tell you I love movies that break the mold or are weird/ out side of the box. It really lights me up.
Wearing shorts in -10c is just how some of us are built 😂
That's how I'm built. When it's +30C out though I'm begging for mercy
this video felt more genuine than usual. I really loved it. I love your channel so much
I don't know if Joe will see this, I almost joined the patreon just to comment on discord.
Love seeing Joe enjoys SCP. And I would say an SCP Movie would totally succeed and I can prove it; "Annihilation" and "CONTROL".
Annihilation is the movie, nothing to do with SCP, but it literally reads like an SCP entry, complete with "Exploration Logs" of military and science personnel venturing into the unknown, and a "Foundation researching the anomalous" and an "Anomalous entity affecting reality and people/creatures in unique ways". Even the Bear from it, is quite literally "SCP 939 Many Voices". Both inspired by Eldritch horror of course.
CONTROL is the video game by Remedy, also massively successful, and also not directly adapted from the Foundation but almost word to word inspired by it, even the logs found in the game are written like SCP articles, with "Containment Procedures" and "Object Classes". The entire universe is inspired by it and built like it. And it has direct references as well, such as "Broken God" "Absence of Shark" and "SCP 173/Weeping Angel" The Fridge in the game. Remedy as a whole is very inspired by the same train of thought as Twin Peaks/Stephen/SCP with Alan Wake and CONTROL kind of operating like an interesting "SCP 001 Reality Bender" story.
So much so, I wrote a whole damn essay about it; www.reddit.com/r/SCPDeclassified/comments/r4c3gc/declassifying_alan_wake_and_control_and_the/? .
i love Annihilation, wish there were more movies like this.
I started intermittently fasting and my body got used to it and now i can't physically eat anything within 10 hours of sleeping or i get very sick. I'm not sure how common this is but be aware you probably shouldn't do it long term.
Hey, Canadian here!
-6.7c to someone living in Texas must be frigid!!!! My part of Canada averages -15ish in the winter, but where I went for grad school regularly hits -55, it was like stepping into a frozen hell.
We all get climatized to where we live, sorry other people from up north are a jerk about it.
Yeah, I worked the drilling rigs in NWT. Had a slogan; who’d have ever thought, hell would be so damn cold.🥶
@@hardcoreherbivore4730 Exactly! I was born in Kamloops BC and live there now, but I have also lived in the Yukon, Northern Alberta, and Saskatoon. Been cold as hell in all of them! And at very different temperatures. I will admit after a few years of the extreme cold though, the first few back with "regular" cold do seem pretty nice!
I have been a fan of this channel for years now. I only have nice things to say about Joe and the topics he covers are always informative and interesting. I'm extremely happy that the channel is nearing 2 million subscribers and I believe it will exponentially increase with time. Thanks Joe
GOOD VIDEO, SCOTT.
Turbulence: 1) I love the idea of just getting above the atmosphere, specifically because there'd be no air drag and the atmosphere is pretty much gone only about 60 miles (100km) up.
But 2) turbulence in an airplane is (I think) mostly caused by the lift of the wings crossing into more/less dense pockets of air. If we had anti-gravity then presumably we could create thrust with the same mechanism and make our vehicle as streamlined as possible so that flying through the air would cost as little energy as possible (we try to do that now, but need lift to fly). So with no lift we would cross into these air pockets of more/less density without the air density mattering nearly as much, so I think the turbulence the people in the vehicle would experience would be drastically reduced, maybe so much that it would effectively be eliminated.
OMG haha you got your heater running? Lol
I like this format. I choose a UA-cam video to watch based on two things: the topic and the host/creator. This format allows us to see a more genuine version of Scott, er, Joe than a typical, scripted show. It's just once a month so shouldn't throw off the usual format of the Monday videos.
We are at the center of the universe, it's mind blowing, but yes
I like you already. You notice the same things I do. I am NOT sure we are at the center of the universe because no one has reached the end with any of our senses, and there's no other way to get info, is there? I mean, light is the fastest there is. But further mind-blowing, we are at just about the middle scale between quantum mechanical scale and Einsteinian astronomical physics. PLUS we are at the median point in the projected lifestpan of the universe. And if you read anything about chaos theory, that is what it comes down to is that the greatest scope for complexity is always at the midpoint in every sense.
From how i understood expansion was that every area with no objects being galaxies or basically “empty space” is expanding not just expanding like ripples in water which explains why the further away from our galaxy are expanding faster due to the more “empty space” in between.
NOW THATS A THUMBNAIL! YES! No more AI thumbnails please!
what wrong with AI thumbnails?
Hmmm, I've often thought on the question "Are we the center of the Universe, and how big is it actually?" - which makes me start extrapolating my position locally.
- Am I the center of the Earth?
- Is Earth the center of the Solar System?
- Is the Solar System the center of the Milky Way....
This leads me to an analogy: if I were in a huge unlit warehouse, randomly placed with a torch held over head, providing a circle of visibility - yes, I am at the center of what is visible to me. I have no idea where I am in relation to the warehouse I am in, I have no idea how large that warehouse is.
To add to that thought - light is moving away from the original source, which implies what is being "lit" is expanding one light year... every year.
The proviso to the last sentence is that the speed of light is constant, and will keep moving in a straight line infinitely holds true, and that objects in this space is also moving away from the central point... unless there are gravity wells distorting it, which implies something was there before The Big Bang, which in turn raises other questions and what we understand.
I might be rambling nonsense, however, this is what I think of those questions.
Hi Joe! I would love to see you do the Mystery Flesh Pit piece.
As far as the center of the universe, a clarification of the observable and the physical universe needs to be made.
Lastly, for those who like this channel, you might also like "The Why Files". It's not exactly the same, but very similar.
God bless everyone, and have a great weekend!!
The center of the universe is definitely something that we could use a full video on. The way I see it is that we never left the singularity, it simply expanded (and cooled off and left a lot of space). But to say everything is in the center seems a bit silly. Everything used to be in the center, but as the singularity expanded things didn't stay centered, they went all over the place. But I don't understand why we treat the universe as a greater unknown than any black hole. The universe is just a black hole that keeps expanding. Thus, we can look at the smaller black holes in our universe to see what the outside of our universe looks like, while also seeing the inside of a black hole, because that is the universe.
A Thursday video is this Christmas?
Years I been waiting for you to enter spinning the chair to the right. Thanks for your consideration.
Hey Joe, I really enjoy the more spontaneous lighting round format! This just reminded me that I should probably finally look into supporting you there. Keep up the great work!
i left nebula to come here to tell you that i once almost lost it when i couldn't find your youtube channel, because i was under the impression your name was scott somehow. it was one of those moments that no one could have possibly perceived me, but i still felt embarrassed that even I knew
If Joe did honest movie reviews I’d be here for it. Stuckmans entire sub list would be here for it.
I've been intermittent fasting for 6 or 7 years now. Once you start it's really easy to maintain. My weight doesn't change it's right where the doctor wants it. I've had 3 different doctors over the course of time and all of them thought it was beneficial to me. It's important that your breakfast not contain a lot of carbs, they can cause a blood sugar spike and a high A1C. I had to eliminate bananas with breakfast. Otherwise there have been no side effects. I take daily medication that requires food to control my type 2 diabetes, I take it at noon.
It's a cool format. Personally I kinda like it more than the previous lightning round videos. Not that those were bad but usually I was left wishing for more content on certain lightning round topics (akin to a full length video). So the way of tackling it here, without any prior research fits better for answering multiple questions in one video. And with the option to create a full length video later on that is even better :)
Loved the video Scott 💙
Center of the Universe, Antigravity and the origins of the SPC Foundation on the internet are now three videos I need
Yes to the Center of the Universe video. It sounds like a fun rabbit hole to dive into.
I like the quality of the videos so far this year. I mean I always enjoy your content but you can tell more energy and thought and feelings are going into the videos. I like it, keep it up Joe and team!
Just my 2 cents for the center of the universe question; the way it was explained to me was that since everything in the universe is moving away from everything else all at the same rate, simultaneously, no matter where you are at within the universe or what your perspective of it may be, to the observer (you) it appears that you are standing in the center of the universe no matter where you are actually located within it. No matter where you really are in the universe, it will always appear that you are in the center of it. I hope I explained that well enough.
Joe, if you're looking for ideas to make videos, here's one:
You could make a video about multi-purpose humanoid robots, the latest advances in that field, and technological advances related to it: AI/AGI/AI agents, actuators, batteries (e.g. the new commercially available chinese nuclear batteries)... you can investigate about how close humanoid robots are from science-fiction books/movies... asimov's laws of robotics, morallity/legislation related to robots, and all that nerdy stuff that we love so much. Good video btw 👍🖖
Hey man, one of the perks of living up north are all the hoodies, sweaters, jackets, sweatshirts, coats, fleeces, thermals, shells, and pullovers.
Hey Scott, to address whatever you said about names -
When I was younger, I used to think that communication was fundamentally flawed and we could never communicate an idea perfectly. As I get older however, it seems more and more that people can't really listen. As in, are *unable* to. There's a kind of barrier that exists somewhere between hearing and cognition that actively resists new information. The strength at which it resists depends on the person and circumstances. I believe it has to do with short term memory and filtering. (Also yes, I did call you Scott as a joke to demonstrate the point)
It was lite, it moved right along, it kept my interest. What's not to like.
Yes, 0lease a video on the question of "where is the center of the universe ". I have seen a couple of youtubers attempt to explain it, and they all have melted my brain. So please take a shot.
I'm a old Canadian guy, I understand that temperature perception is highly relative. What is really cold to me, would be terrifying to somebody from Texas, or the south in general. When it's -30C (-22F), it's really cold. Time for the big coat. Gloves too if I'm going to have anything in my hand. Around -15C (5F), it's still pretty cold, but you can get by with the lighter coat and a scarf. At 0C (32F), some Canadians will wear t-shorts or shorts, sometimes both. I prefer to wear a jacket, but I like having additional pockets. By 15C (59F), pretty much everybody born in Canada is now in t-shirts and shorts, though I tend to still wear jeans, because again, pockets. Just so you know, the coldest I've personally experienced as a Canadian was -58C (-72F). That was way, WAY up north though, it's not like, normal or anything in most of the country.
I can hear the cold in your voice.
I live in the same city. The temperatures were cold, no matter who you are or where you're from. I enjoyed it. I was out in short sleeved shirts. I like the cold. My partner is from Wisconsin and wears sweaters when the temperature drops below 70°F. Humans be different. Stay warm.
I once worked with a guy that called me Scott (my name is Peter), despite multiple corrections. He once called me Scott immediately after someone else corrected him. He never used my proper name.
6:18 Gotta disagree here. I actually looked up if vitamins count as breaking your fast for intermittent fasting and the answer was a pretty definitive yes--the consumption of anything that isn't water (heck, some sources will argue even water is problematic) will make your body react to start absorbing those nutrients which will stop some of the bodily mechanisms that are the reason for intermittent fasting. That said, if you're taking medications that need to be taken at certain times--they're probably more important and it's 100% a conversation to have with your doctor, not the internet.
A good slant to keep in mind about the center of the universe and the size of the universe is that even in science we have to be extremely mindful to what we or someone else means when one uses the term “the universe”, as “the universe” does not often mean “the universe”. When saying “the universe” we often actually mean “the visible universe”. I think a good starting point at explaining things can be by saying that if we were to ask for example if we are closer to one side of the edge of the universe or not it is like asking if one side of the horizon closer to us. By simple definition the horizon is the distance all around us at which we can’t see the ground anymore, tho for a different reason for what causes our universal horizon, which is all the so-called “edge of the universe” is . And just like if you walk around, then what is considered the horizon moves with you, or from the perspective of someone standing somewhere else (comparatively like someone on another planet in another galaxy), their horizon is where their horizon is; therefor you are always at the center of the horizon from your perspective, but that’s not because the world is literally shaped around us, it’s just a perspective thing. Likewise the “edge of the universe” is just a perspective thing which would be different from every location in the universe. And finally just as we know that what is within our horizon does not constitute “the whole world” and that there is more earth beyond our horizon, there is likewise more universe beyond our cosmic horizon, even tho we usually call all that we see within that “the universe”; it’s actually just “the visible universe”, but “the (whole or entire) universe” exists far beyond that, tho we basically can never see the rest from here.
A real astronomer and physics teacher here. Here's my take on the antigravity and turbulence question: currently, planes rely on the large surface wings to stay up in the air. The more constant flow of air, the more stable the ride. Any rapid horizontal changes in the air velocity rapidly change the lift force by a little bit, making the plane move slightly up and down. Any vertical changes in the air also act on the huge area of the wing causing the plane move up and down. However, if we eliminate wings and use anti-grav. engines to stay up we eliminate the air-wing interactions which cause most of the turbulence. The fuselage itself has much lower area so the turbulence might still be there but will be much less pronounced (like a 100-1000x less so).
About the center of the Universe, let me ask you this: on the surface of a balloon, which point is its center?
As a Minnesotan, I hereby validate your chilliness, Joe. Does it get colder, here? Sure, but we also have massive infrastructure dedicated to the problem. Mocking southerners, who lack cold-weather solutions, for feeling cold when it's AFFIRMATIVELY COLD is just...snotty. Knock it off, fellow cold-weather folk! 20F or 6 inches of snow is a genuine problem without the gear.
93 billion light years is the size of the observable universe, not the actual complete universe. We have absolutely no way of measuring the total size, as it is not observable. It’s that simple.
And by the same logic, we cannot know our place in the complete universe. But everything and everyone is always 100% in the middle of the observable universe. As the observer.
More "off the cuff" Scott please !! 😂
Yes, I would like to see a deeper dive into this center of the universe topic. I found the aspect of it being only our observable part of it all a good point to make.
Re: The size of the universe, I remember reading that scientists can hypothesize about the total (i.e. outside the observable portion) size of the universe based on our measurements and models of things like the CMB and I think I read that the current estimates put it at something like 130x the observable universe.
I'm really glad that so many people are into the SCP universe. There's so much potential there. I feel it would need to be a series. Some SCPs are self contained stories and some go together in the different canons/realities within the SCP universe. It would be wildly entertaining to a broad range of people.
Hey Scott Joe some of us actually uses last name as a formality or respect or sometimes intimate or attention seeking. It actually in culture,tradition,family thing. And there’s the fact that Scott can be used as a first name just like Joe so people uses might use it as preference. Than there’s the thing that people tend to use the middle name again as a preference.
About the SCP thing I believe it got big because it was a community thing. Its always written by professional writers but by your everyday person who took their free time to do it. So I believe the part of the magic is that it is a community thing. If they’re going to make a movie they need good writing.
Supplements 😊
1. Any fasting becomes easier on low carb/keto diets. Gherlin is a factor, but insulin & letting, too, probably even bigger when on high carb diet, as the insulin response rocks blood sugar, therefore causing hunger.
2. Asimov in his sci-fi books advises to still have streamlined gravity-drive ships when travelling through planetary atmosphere.
3. We are in our centre of gravity 😉.
I didn't discover your channel until recently, so I havent seen your entire catalog, but just from recent viewings, you do look like you are getting fitter and healthier looking, like, your jawline is getting more defined.
One thing I've found about intermittent fasting is that it is occasionally good to break the fast. About twice a month, I eat a single midnight snack, just to disrupt my body's adaptation to the schedule. When I do that, I find it slightly harder to ignore the hunger for a day or two, but my weight's 'setpoint' is about five lbs lower. Dunno how scientific it is, but it's a way I deal with days when I forget to eat before my cutoff, and I suspect it works.
SCP is a copyright nightmare. Each article can have a different CC license, quite of few of which have SA attached, which is a viral clause that means the movie itself has to be CC/SA. No studio is going to touch that with a ten foot pole. And before somebody says that CC means there's no copyright, that's exactly what CC does _not_ mean. CC works are still under copyright, retained by the original author; it's just that the author have given prior permission for some forms of use of the work, promising not to sue if the license is followed.
I like to see space as the 3D surface of an ever-growing bubble with a "radius" of ct. However there is no radial dimension to this bubble due to relativistic flattening. Consequently all there is is the 3D surface of the bubble. Relativistic effects may even make the curvature undetectable. Interestingly this model allows the age of the universe to be directly computed from its size and I could use that to predict that the universe is older than current estimates, which is supported by the very latest observations. The age should be size / 2PI which is 14.8 billion years if we assume the size to be 93 billion light years.
Giggling in Canajan. Actually, it's warmer than that here today. :)
As for turbulance and anti-grav, unlike an airplane, you're not using the air for support and propulsion. Kind of like in a car, the wind will hit you, and affect you, but because the wheels are your support and propulsion, it's not as much as if the air was your sole support. Saying that, my father was blown off the road one icy day when the road left a forested area and went into a clear area, so your mileage may vary. :)
If looking out at the universe is looking back in time, which way do we look to see the future?
I dont think anti-gravity is possible, unless maybe they do find that anti-matter actually bends space time in the opposite direction. Which seems to not be the case.
But as a though experiment i would think of anti-gravity as a sort of buoyancy in water essentially making the vehicle "lighter" in the gravitational field comparatively to surrounding mass. The amount of force to move the vehicle and external forces should remain the same for its true mass.
The effects of turbulence would still be there. I imagine it would either increase or decrease the severity depending on the aerodynamic properties and mass of the vehicle.
The "amount" of anti-gravity would have to be adjustable or it would just fling right out of the solar system, galaxy etc as the only force acting upon it would be its velocity which would no longer orbit the planet or sun etc.
Yes! I'd love to see the center of the universe vid! Also, this format was fine. Entertaining.
I asked my teenage son the question, and we got into a discussion about the difference between the "center of the observable universe" (which transposes the meaning of "center" in the question to a point-of-view concern and observable light) vs. the "center of the known / theoretical universe" (which requires a more sophisticated understanding about what astrophysics tells us...which gets "philosophical" (as you put it) very quick.
I do love this format. Feels more intimate. Can't wait to see the next vid.
My buddy has 3 first names.
Randy Allen Scott.
The man with 3 first names.
I have 2.
OMG the same “where are you going with that gun in your hand?” thing happened to me at college too! Even more embarrassing by that time I had Heard the Jimi Hendrix song… 4:35
@0:45 as someone from Wisconsin - I'm cold too, Joe. I prefer 75-85 F. Also, I love the occasional chair-spin throw back ❤