The factual errors in the first draft video were unimportant, but I'm glad to see a revised version, because this type of video is meant to last. Sadly, the UA-cam algorithms reward "engagement" (minutes of viewing time) over quality, so I fear that the hard work of creating a thoughtful piece like this will never be properly rewarded. It is, however, deeply appreciated by a few folks like me who had the good fortune of stumbling across it. Thank you.
Hey Nick- Not much of a you-tube commenter but i must commend you. This is one of the few small educational/informative channels that i watch. As someone not in the field of hard science, but social, i love your embrace of the human side of science, and your deep understanding (and seemingly love) of the history of science. I hope you know that even though the inter-webs is full of garbage, your effort does not go unappreciated.
You are absolutely among the best of the best of UA-camrs, ParallaxNick. A rare gem. Humble, sweet, genuine, and dedicated to your craft. Your videos are beautiful and engrossing. They're so simple in a technical sense, but I wouldn't change a thing about them. They expand my mind, make me laugh, and even make me tear up on occasion. It's a true joy to see astronomy and history through your eyes and through your heartfelt story-telling. Please keep up the phenomenal work, my friend!
I'm WAY late to these comments, but I'm so glad I somehow found this channel.I learned a LOT. The visuals are excellent. And you're obviously a narrator who is actually passionate and well versed about their subject. Definitely subscribing, and I'll spread the word to the few people I know who love learning about astronomy and physics for sure.
Dear parallax nick, Thank you so much for your wonderful videos. I found you maybe a year ago snd have now watched them all. I tried to stretch them out so as to prolong my enjoyment of them, i will certainly start listening to them all again. 🌘🌗🌕🌓🌒 thank you
Thank you Mr Parallax. The depth and breadth of your video content can only be measured in googols of parsecs. Your content and humour are without parallel except in other repeating Milky Ways where parallel lines meet.
Very recently stumbled on your channel, easily one of the best space related channels out there. Just got done with the Planet X series and I'm planning on binging the rest, keep up the great work
Excellent video, unsurprisingly. Thanks for the hard work. If UA-cam wasn’t run by the Galactic Empire from the Star Wars universe, your channel would have millions of subscribers.
hey Nick, I watch everything I can find about astronomy. You have become one of my favorite content creators. I don't know how you make money doing this, but I hope you continue to put out these great videos!
Brilliant! Its amazing that when we look up we are looking at unique points in to our position in the Universe. The Universe does not look exactly the same anywhere else. Even a person standing one meter away, looking up at the the same point of light in the sky is seeing that point at a different time (although miniscule, or at about 3 nanoseconds per meter). No one can ever see the Universe, unaided and wirhout photography, exactly as you are seeing it right now. What an amazing Universe; and you do a remarkable job explaining it.
Btw, I love this stuff, even though I'm just a humble peon who watches astronomy shows and looks up at the sky with wonder. Most of the math is over my head, but I'd like to think I get an inkling of its vastness.
See you say light speed is the speed nothing can exceed, but changing the spin of one entangled particle will instantly change the the spin of its other entangled particle on the other side of the universe. Which means something is crossing that void waaaaaaay faster than light photons.
It still amazes me that astronomers knew the diameter of the Earth, Moon, and Sun, their orbital arrangement, and the causes of phenomena like eclipses, thousands of years ago. It would be less amazing if common folk merely a few hundred years ago hadn't still been of the belief that the Earth was flat, the Moon was made of cheese, and eclipses were caused by gods eating each other.
It's also important to remember one particular invention that the Greeks were completely ignorant of: the idea that all men are created equal. These astronomers were part of a slave-owning, women-enslaving leisure class that were perfectly at home with the idea that the common folk should shut up and till the land while they got on with the eternal verities. Such was the state of the world until very recently, when we decided, through the goodness of our privileged hearts, to extend sufferage, and with it education, to the unwashed.
@@parallaxnick637: Sadly, people are not all created equal; five minutes studying medical journals will provide all the proof you need for that. Though I'll admit in our age it's a useful ideal for combating stupid things like racial and ethnic discrimination. But, since people didn't travel much in antiquity, regions of the world were racially and ethnically homogeneous, so the Greeks had no need for the ideal that all people are created equal.
Without getting too political, I'll say that I agree with and support the concept of equality of opportunity, but definitely not equality of outcome. The world would be a very dull place if people who excel in the arts were required to donate their skills to helping people like me learn to draw better than stick-figures and lollipop-trees, rather than making great works that I am capable of enjoying but incapable of creating.
Hey parallax,... Middle class... Middle class was the incredible invention of the athenians, that gave opportunity to thousands for the first time in human history to get educated and follow professions that they liked. They were not crazy slavers, it was the way Till Them. They opened the way and Christianity established equality to new heights. French revolution and the abolishment of monarchy lead to today's equality. Not perfect equality, as all man creations.
Hey, altough you're not the biggest channel on UA-cam yet, I just wanted to repeat what many others here are saying - really love your videos. High quality stuff!
This is the second of your videos I'm watching.... congratulations for the very interesting and deep work instead of just making a fast video speaking anything... It is nice to see that you did research, looked for interesting images, looked for details beyound the "common places"....
I'm sure this has been thought before... the inclusion of the fractal images set me off on a voyage, an attempt to get to a point where the fractal nature, on a large in the universal sense, of the universe resolves and becomes visible, resolvable
After all of that most wonderful upload, I find that the biggest number I could come with was Fucking Big to the 10th to the 13th, after that my mind melted down, when I realized that it resolved to the whole number of 1. I shall now take my Whiskey to my corner and cry. ;-)
so there actually is an explanation of how big space is, better than the one in hhgg: “Space,” it says, “is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space...”
If the universe is truly infinite (ever expanding), what about that model of the universe that guy made, the blue model that would look cool in an aquarium?
guess I’ll leave this here, but at around 13:13 wouldn’t the next distance scale beyond megaparsecs be redshift [z], useful for extragalactic observations? Edit: see ua-cam.com/video/qw90I_u-yRc/v-deo.html
I think you underestimate Archimedes's possibly to measure the relative density of an object precisely. He could have used a balance by which you could even weigh a sandgrain precisely. No absolute measurements, only relative ones!
Job done - mind blown! Don't know if you're familiar with the "scienciest' program on UK TV - BBC's Horizon? It could well take a leaf out of your book - Horizon's physics/space content has become horribly dumbed down in the past few years, full of swirly lights, moody shots and tortured analogies instead of intelligent commentary, facts and relevant visuals - you should speak to the BBC about a job... Thanks again for sharing your absorbing and fascinating work.
It is unfortunate that I cannot exceed "1" the number of times I can smash the like button. For a company that named itself after a large number, that demonstrates a lack of imagination.
Fuckincredible! ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️🔟4️⃣♾ Sorry for the vulgarity but that’s how I translate enthusiasm. ☮️❤️ In the end you touch one idea about the Universe that it could be torus-shaped, returning where you started... or is it?
If there is, somewhere out there, an observable universe for every conceivable situation that doesn't violate the laws of physics, does it mean there are more such observable universes for more probable situations, and does it mean there are infinitely many observable universes for each situation? Are there infinitely many mes typing this exact comment, but a smaller infinity of mes typing a less likely comment, and more mes doing something more likely than typing comments on some kind of Internet? One of the things that could go differently in observable universes is the development of the laws of physics themselves, so I guess this means that if we are in an infinite universe there are infinitely many observable universes under every set of physical laws that was possible, starting from the big bang, except those sets of laws where the universe would not be infinite, of which there is presumably only one or zero each.
11:00 Another fun fact, Tracing your ancestry (assuming it was possible) back 10000 generations would place you about one galactic year ago, 250000 Earth years ago. None of your ancestors that far back were modern humans. And they would not invent clothing for another 8300 generations.
@Carlos Saraiva It would probably be more accurate to say they were naturists. Clothing was invented at some point in the past, so there was a time before clothing was invented. Before that, humans were, like the other animals, without clothing. The earliest evidence of humans wearing clothes goes back about 40000, and that is the *EARLIEST* evidence for clothes, based in the evolution of body lice. Keep in mind, modern humans had not yet evolved. Unless you believe in that Bible non-sense. In which case, my comment is still true. Just because what you believe is wrong doesn't change reality in the least.
Those identical universes would be beyond the light-speed horizon of our own ( the distance at which objects are receding from us at more than the speed of light) and therefore unknowable. So what does it mean to say that they exist?
@@drdca8263 No, the statement is circular since it has no referent that can be demonstrated and therefore it is devoid of meaning. You literally cannot make a statement that is actually about something unknowable.
@@parallaxnick637 Thanks for your reply. I guessed that it was from Wiki by the style and that it is a political map of the world around 500 bc but i haven't been able to find the exact map and I would like to examine the details. All that is legible is the Achaemenid Persian Empire. Do you have a link?
@@mortkebab2849 Here it is: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_in_400_BCE.png But really it was the wrong one to use; I should have gone a century later: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_in_300_BCE.PNG
But actually, archimedes was not the first in many things you assign to him. There are many unexplained megalithic structures that indicate previous civilisations with advanced knowledge. To put it in perspective, Greek society is at the base of "western civilisation". Not to neglect the Mayans etc...
In all seriousness, thank you so much Nick. I broke my spine three weeks ago (never broke a bone before and I break my god damned spine. It's not that great of a story, no ones missing out,- But, still though. (I never finished the comment, damn these pain pills, I meant to say thanks for all the content. Since I've been bedridden, it's been my only entertainment, so, thanks again!)
If only they understood the inverse law of light. 20 father 20 times larger square that 20 times father and you get 400. The sun is roughly 400 earth radia from earth.
Many years ago Isaac Asimov calculated a similar mind blowing scenario (I wish I could find it). But he was a piker compared to this guy; he simply filled the observable universe with neutrinos.
Never heard of the Syracusia . . as for finite numbers, they can never reach infinity. And mathematicians can do a similar thing with infinity that everyone from Archimedes to you have done here. I grew up knowing about George Cantor's transfinite numbers, and really cardinals - from E.T. Bell's "Men of Mathematics" to William Dunham's "Journey through Genius." But, I recently(maybe five years ago or so) read John Stillwell's "Roads to Infinity." Where he shows Geoge Canto's, and later Mathematicians work on transfinite ordinals - not just the transfinite cardinals. The transfinite cardinals are always infinitelly larger than any finite number. But the transfinite ordinal is like the limit of all ordinals. In fact, it's the least greatest ordinal. There's more technical definitions. There's an equivalence to a function that outgrows the functions before it. But, the ordinals can be represented as w+1, w+2 . . then we can do products w2, w3 and on and on . . . and then w^w, and then w^w^w, then w^w^w^w, and off to infinity again. Well, Geoge Cantor named the limit of these powers of ordinals as epsilon subscript 0. There's a whole relation between well ordering, ordinal numbers, and an Axiom of Choice. The Axiom of Choice implies all sets can be well ordered. Mathematical logic gets generalised by the ordinal numbers by the Godel numbering and the Peano axioms - defining numbes and successor functions from 0, 1 and successors of those numbers. Well, ordinals can also be defined by mathematical induction, so you get fniite and infinite w- induction. Sorry if I'm skimming and have lost you already. But, all this allows one to prove and calculate the measure of the consistency of a set of axioms. The ordinal numbers are used to calculate the complexity and consistency of axioms. The induction up to Cantor's epsilon subscript 0 can be measured. As John Stillwell states on page 133, " epsilon subscrpt 0 imples the consistency of PA(the peano axioms). There's also a Goodstein theorem, which relates the finite and the infinite. There's a Cantor form, which is a kind of ordinals equation - those oridnals w^w^w + 2w+1= w^w^w+ w^w or something like that. There's a process of cutting off links in a graph that can relate these infinities to finite numbers! Mathematicians have found they need to go beyond Cantor's epsilon subscript 0 ultimate ordinal number when describing consistency of the Axiom of Choice and the continuum hypothesis. For instance, there ZF + AC + large cardinal, then, ZF + every real number is Lebesgue measureable is consistent. There's other Axioms, other than the Zermelo/Fraenkel axioms, and they lead to an infinity of large cardinals(number for which Cantor's largest ordinal epsilon subscript 0 cannot handle).
@@deusexaethera you want an executive summary of the videos? No - you have to watch them; this guy put a lot of work into them. Or, do you want to know which videos to watch? I wouldn't go through each and every 2001 and Fermi paradox video myself.
@@deusexaethera well, that is a summary, and not that long of a post. All I'll admit to is that it's a bit sketchy. I left some stuff out such as a theorem relating the finite and the infinite, and applications to some graph theory problems that are unapproachable without these large cardinals and this relation between the finite and infinite. I was hoping to wet your and anyone else's appetite for John Stillwell's "Roads to Infinity."
@@oker59: It would make a good forum post, but it's about 10x too long for a UA-cam comment. Context matters. Anyway, apparently the concept of transfinity is no longer considered distinct from infinity by the people sitting at the Cool Mathematicians table in the cafeteria.
Very nicely done. You’ve got the sound level right. It’s fine for video. But you need to work on your mixing. When you’re recording different lines at different times, you need to be recording them in an identical way. It will help if you make a little sound-booth for your monologue. Doesn’t have to be big, just some sound-baffles surrounding your mic. Great video, btw.
The factual errors in the first draft video were unimportant, but I'm glad to see a revised version, because this type of video is meant to last. Sadly, the UA-cam algorithms reward "engagement" (minutes of viewing time) over quality, so I fear that the hard work of creating a thoughtful piece like this will never be properly rewarded. It is, however, deeply appreciated by a few folks like me who had the good fortune of stumbling across it. Thank you.
Talent and intellect aren’t rewarded adequately unfortunately
I couldn't agree more, keep up the great work Nick!
Totally agree man.
Yep.
If you released a ten hour video a day I'd either have to quit my job or give up sleeping.
I watched full 43 minutes without getting bored for a single minute. What a gem.
Hey Nick- Not much of a you-tube commenter but i must commend you. This is one of the few small educational/informative channels that i watch. As someone not in the field of hard science, but social, i love your embrace of the human side of science, and your deep understanding (and seemingly love) of the history of science. I hope you know that even though the inter-webs is full of garbage, your effort does not go unappreciated.
You should comment more often .....Lol
You are absolutely among the best of the best of UA-camrs, ParallaxNick. A rare gem. Humble, sweet, genuine, and dedicated to your craft. Your videos are beautiful and engrossing. They're so simple in a technical sense, but I wouldn't change a thing about them. They expand my mind, make me laugh, and even make me tear up on occasion. It's a true joy to see astronomy and history through your eyes and through your heartfelt story-telling.
Please keep up the phenomenal work, my friend!
I've been watching the BBC's new series "The Planets". Your work consistently exceeds it in quality. Thanks again, ParallaxNick.
Oh, look, another master piece has been uploaded to UA-cam.. thank you!
I'm WAY late to these comments, but I'm so glad I somehow found this channel.I learned a LOT. The visuals are excellent. And you're obviously a narrator who is actually passionate and well versed about their subject. Definitely subscribing, and I'll spread the word to the few people I know who love learning about astronomy and physics for sure.
Dear parallax nick,
Thank you so much for your wonderful videos. I found you maybe a year ago snd have now watched them all. I tried to stretch them out so as to prolong my enjoyment of them, i will certainly start listening to them all again. 🌘🌗🌕🌓🌒 thank you
A---mazing! My hat is off to Archimedes, and to you, Nick, for sharing these mind-expanding facts.
I have saved these pearls of wisdom for a day like today, so that I can fully appreciate them. Thank you nick for your hard work.
Thank you Mr Parallax. The depth and breadth of your video content can only be measured in googols of parsecs. Your content and humour are without parallel except in other repeating Milky Ways where parallel lines meet.
Very recently stumbled on your channel, easily one of the best space related channels out there. Just got done with the Planet X series and I'm planning on binging the rest, keep up the great work
Thank you, I enjoy your poetic dissertations! :)
I just love this channel.
It puts a human s live and it's meaning in perspective... in my humble experience.
Excellent video, unsurprisingly. Thanks for the hard work. If UA-cam wasn’t run by the Galactic Empire from the Star Wars universe, your channel would have millions of subscribers.
Finding this video made 2020 a myriad times more tolerable.
Thanks for the upload. Needed something to listen to before bed.
You're such a perfectionist. Keep up the awesome work my man.
hey Nick, I watch everything I can find about astronomy. You have become one of my favorite content creators. I don't know how you make money doing this, but I hope you continue to put out these great videos!
Wow, what a well written ending👍 , thanks for making this :)
Congratulations, Nick. This is a remarkable piece of work. Thank you.
great video, i hope this helps the algorithm.
Brilliant! Its amazing that when we look up we are looking at unique points in to our position in the Universe. The Universe does not look exactly the same anywhere else. Even a person standing one meter away, looking up at the the same point of light in the sky is seeing that point at a different time (although miniscule, or at about 3 nanoseconds per meter). No one can ever see the Universe, unaided and wirhout photography, exactly as you are seeing it right now. What an amazing Universe; and you do a remarkable job explaining it.
Btw, I love this stuff, even though I'm just a humble peon who watches astronomy shows and looks up at the sky with wonder. Most of the math is over my head, but I'd like to think I get an inkling of its vastness.
This comment made me smile. Thanks Linda
See you say light speed is the speed nothing can exceed, but changing the spin of one entangled particle will instantly change the the spin of its other entangled particle on the other side of the universe. Which means something is crossing that void waaaaaaay faster than light photons.
It still amazes me that astronomers knew the diameter of the Earth, Moon, and Sun, their orbital arrangement, and the causes of phenomena like eclipses, thousands of years ago. It would be less amazing if common folk merely a few hundred years ago hadn't still been of the belief that the Earth was flat, the Moon was made of cheese, and eclipses were caused by gods eating each other.
It's also important to remember one particular invention that the Greeks were completely ignorant of: the idea that all men are created equal. These astronomers were part of a slave-owning, women-enslaving leisure class that were perfectly at home with the idea that the common folk should shut up and till the land while they got on with the eternal verities. Such was the state of the world until very recently, when we decided, through the goodness of our privileged hearts, to extend sufferage, and with it education, to the unwashed.
@@parallaxnick637: Sadly, people are not all created equal; five minutes studying medical journals will provide all the proof you need for that. Though I'll admit in our age it's a useful ideal for combating stupid things like racial and ethnic discrimination. But, since people didn't travel much in antiquity, regions of the world were racially and ethnically homogeneous, so the Greeks had no need for the ideal that all people are created equal.
Without getting too political, I'll say that I agree with and support the concept of equality of opportunity, but definitely not equality of outcome. The world would be a very dull place if people who excel in the arts were required to donate their skills to helping people like me learn to draw better than stick-figures and lollipop-trees, rather than making great works that I am capable of enjoying but incapable of creating.
Hey parallax,... Middle class... Middle class was the incredible invention of the athenians, that gave opportunity to thousands for the first time in human history to get educated and follow professions that they liked.
They were not crazy slavers, it was the way Till Them. They opened the way and Christianity established equality to new heights. French revolution and the abolishment of monarchy lead to today's equality. Not perfect equality, as all man creations.
We love you Nick! Here's to ten million more subscribers!!!
Thank you for teaching me about parsecs. I watch plenty of science and space documentaries and never knew !
Hey,
altough you're not the biggest channel on UA-cam yet, I just wanted to repeat what many others here are saying - really love your videos. High quality stuff!
thank you! Every sub counts :0)
Archimedes has always been my favorite scientist/polymath. Almost discovered calculus by accident, and he did it the hard way
I love that you figured out the levers size to move the Earth and how long it would take
Another high quality and very entertaining video thanks for all your hard work. Hope you are rewarded with many new subs.
Best part of my week... Thank You!
WTF? You have blown my mind... again. Thank you for another great video.
I found you a couple weeks ago. Wish I did years ago, I’m here to stay with you through MM years to come
This is the second of your videos I'm watching.... congratulations for the very interesting and deep work instead of just making a fast video speaking anything... It is nice to see that you did research, looked for interesting images, looked for details beyound the "common places"....
I am officially addicted to your videos!!
Hell yes! Another PN video! My evening just got a lot better. 😊
41:42 idk why but I laughed so hard when you said "what was he hoping to count with that number
Captivating! Truly Infinite Inspiration!
If no star is closer than 1 parsec from us, we're gonna have a hard time making the Kessel run from Earth…
I knew someone was gonna make that joke.
Linda Ciccoli-I looked for it, but I couldn't find one, so I took matters into my own hands. You're welcome, UA-cam!
I'm sure this has been thought before...
the inclusion of the fractal images set me off on a voyage,
an attempt to get to a point where the fractal nature,
on a large in the universal sense,
of the universe resolves and becomes visible, resolvable
With all this talk of stadia and googols, I'm trying to figure out if this topic was somehow the inspiration for Google Stadia.
I hearby name 10^186 one Nicktillion.
18:48 Where is that Archimedes Screw pictured? Apparently, it's a high volume low-pressure pump to put water up for the amusement ride.
Can't trace the exact origin, but it *might* be the Shipwreck Rapids ride at San Diego SeaWorld.
Good work Nick! Not everyone can talk about science and make it cool. Keep it up!
Well done Nick. Dropping a comment from a real person to stimulate UA-cam robots.
Yes Sir, and Thankyou.
P.S. talking Max Planck reminds me of Dan Winter. ✌❤🖤
Hope this helps the algorithm find you.
Truly this is, Total Perspective Vortex, stuff.
I enjoy things that are boggling. That was a great boggle. 👍
After all of that most wonderful upload, I find that the biggest number I could come with was Fucking Big to the 10th to the 13th, after that my mind melted down, when I realized that it resolved to the whole number of 1.
I shall now take my Whiskey to my corner and cry. ;-)
You got me with that ending ngl
so there actually is an explanation of how big space is, better than the one in hhgg:
“Space,” it says, “is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space...”
Wow. Top quality work. Subscribed.
Thanks to John M. G for sending me to watch this video. Truly brilliant
amazing - mindblowing - extraordinary - ausgezeichnet
This should have 10,000 likes!!!
Hope you’re feeling better, buddy!
Thank you for the nourishing brain food.
I didn’t know that about a parsec.Gotta give you a like for that.
Brilliant! Awe inspiring....
Nicky's scared of Nick's prog....GULP
If the universe is truly infinite (ever expanding), what about that model of the universe that guy made, the blue model that would look cool in an aquarium?
Have you ever thought of getting into audio book narration or voice acting?
guess I’ll leave this here, but at around 13:13 wouldn’t the next distance scale beyond megaparsecs be redshift [z], useful for extragalactic observations?
Edit: see ua-cam.com/video/qw90I_u-yRc/v-deo.html
Work of art.
If the sun was a pixel. What are humans?
My back is sore but for as a good reprieve to see another video from you
Puts me in a better mood
The video was great but stacking powers like that hurts my head
It's supposed to.
...you might want to try Knuth Up-Arrow Notation. 😁
It's Einstein's universe. We're just living in it...
I think you underestimate Archimedes's possibly to measure the relative density of an object precisely. He could have used a balance by which you could even weigh a sandgrain precisely.
No absolute measurements, only relative ones!
Job done - mind blown! Don't know if you're familiar with the "scienciest' program on UK TV - BBC's Horizon? It could well take a leaf out of your book - Horizon's physics/space content has become horribly dumbed down in the past few years, full of swirly lights, moody shots and tortured analogies instead of intelligent commentary, facts and relevant visuals - you should speak to the BBC about a job... Thanks again for sharing your absorbing and fascinating work.
It is unfortunate that I cannot exceed "1" the number of times I can smash the like button. For a company that named itself after a large number, that demonstrates a lack of imagination.
Hey nick? When is the best astronomical discoveries of 2021 coming out?
Doing the research now
VERY well done!
Blinding Dude, thanks.
Fuckincredible! ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️🔟4️⃣♾
Sorry for the vulgarity but that’s how I translate enthusiasm. ☮️❤️
In the end you touch one idea about the Universe that it could be torus-shaped, returning where you started... or is it?
This guy's style reminds of Carl Sagan
Does thought have mass?
If there is, somewhere out there, an observable universe for every conceivable situation that doesn't violate the laws of physics, does it mean there are more such observable universes for more probable situations, and does it mean there are infinitely many observable universes for each situation? Are there infinitely many mes typing this exact comment, but a smaller infinity of mes typing a less likely comment, and more mes doing something more likely than typing comments on some kind of Internet?
One of the things that could go differently in observable universes is the development of the laws of physics themselves, so I guess this means that if we are in an infinite universe there are infinitely many observable universes under every set of physical laws that was possible, starting from the big bang, except those sets of laws where the universe would not be infinite, of which there is presumably only one or zero each.
11:00 Another fun fact, Tracing your ancestry (assuming it was possible) back 10000 generations would place you about one galactic year ago, 250000 Earth years ago.
None of your ancestors that far back were modern humans. And they would not invent clothing for another 8300 generations.
At that point I think we're talking Dimetrodons.
@Carlos Saraiva It would probably be more accurate to say they were naturists. Clothing was invented at some point in the past, so there was a time before clothing was invented. Before that, humans were, like the other animals, without clothing.
The earliest evidence of humans wearing clothes goes back about 40000, and that is the *EARLIEST* evidence for clothes, based in the evolution of body lice.
Keep in mind, modern humans had not yet evolved.
Unless you believe in that Bible non-sense. In which case, my comment is still true. Just because what you believe is wrong doesn't change reality in the least.
@@parallaxnick637 250 thousand, not 250 million. Didn't you say it takes Earth 250 thousand years to complete one galactic orbit?
If I did than I made a mistake; it was 250 million.
@@parallaxnick637 Mistakes happen. Maybe you can use some help with your scripts (hint hint) ;^P
That's fine, but what do you mean by "right now"?
Those identical universes would be beyond the light-speed horizon of our own ( the distance at which objects are receding from us at more than the speed of light) and therefore unknowable. So what does it mean to say that they exist?
@Carlos Saraiva You make no sense.
@Carlos Saraiva That must make your mumbling to yourself difficult.
@Carlos Saraiva When addressing a half-wit I have to make my language as simple as possible.
It would mean that they exist. I’m not saying they do, but I don’t think the claim that they exist is nonsense.
@@drdca8263 No, the statement is circular since it has no referent that can be demonstrated and therefore it is devoid of meaning. You literally cannot make a statement that is actually about something unknowable.
Brilliant stuff.
Not bad Nick, not bad
Excellent, thank you
And here I thought I was going to bed... Ha!
Where does the map at 19:41 come from?
Wikipedia.
@@parallaxnick637 Thanks for your reply. I guessed that it was from Wiki by the style and that it is a political map of the world around 500 bc but i haven't been able to find the exact map and I would like to examine the details. All that is legible is the Achaemenid Persian Empire. Do you have a link?
@@mortkebab2849 Here it is:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_in_400_BCE.png
But really it was the wrong one to use; I should have gone a century later:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_in_300_BCE.PNG
@@parallaxnick637 Thank you and not to worry: I love poring over these things.
Wait a minute. There's a nebula with more alcohol than a German beer garden? Which way did you say that was?
up.
Nothing less than brilliant. This should be shown in school. Inspiring. Thank you. tavi.
But actually, archimedes was not the first in many things you assign to him. There are many unexplained megalithic structures that indicate previous civilisations with advanced knowledge. To put it in perspective, Greek society is at the base of "western civilisation". Not to neglect the Mayans etc...
I, too, yell that "I've found it!" after being nude in the bathtub.
Not my fault it's miniscule >.>
In all seriousness, thank you so much Nick. I broke my spine three weeks ago (never broke a bone before and I break my god damned spine. It's not that great of a story, no ones missing out,- But, still though. (I never finished the comment, damn these pain pills, I meant to say thanks for all the content. Since I've been bedridden, it's been my only entertainment, so, thanks again!)
Very sorry to hear that :(
If only they understood the inverse law of light. 20 father 20 times larger square that 20 times father and you get 400. The sun is roughly 400 earth radia from earth.
Many years ago Isaac Asimov calculated a similar mind blowing scenario (I wish I could find it). But he was a piker compared to this guy; he simply filled the observable universe with neutrinos.
Quality!
Never heard of the Syracusia . . as for finite numbers, they can never reach infinity. And mathematicians can do a similar thing with infinity that everyone from Archimedes to you have done here.
I grew up knowing about George Cantor's transfinite numbers, and really cardinals - from E.T. Bell's "Men of Mathematics" to William Dunham's "Journey through Genius." But, I recently(maybe five years ago or so) read John Stillwell's "Roads to Infinity." Where he shows Geoge Canto's, and later Mathematicians work on transfinite ordinals - not just the transfinite cardinals.
The transfinite cardinals are always infinitelly larger than any finite number. But the transfinite ordinal is like the limit of all ordinals. In fact, it's the least greatest ordinal. There's more technical definitions. There's an equivalence to a function that outgrows the functions before it. But, the ordinals can be represented as w+1, w+2 . . then we can do products w2, w3 and on and on . . . and then w^w, and then w^w^w, then w^w^w^w, and off to infinity again. Well, Geoge Cantor named the limit of these powers of ordinals as epsilon subscript 0.
There's a whole relation between well ordering, ordinal numbers, and an Axiom of Choice. The Axiom of Choice implies all sets can be well ordered.
Mathematical logic gets generalised by the ordinal numbers by the Godel numbering and the Peano axioms - defining numbes and successor functions from 0, 1 and successors of those numbers. Well, ordinals can also be defined by mathematical induction, so you get fniite and infinite w- induction. Sorry if I'm skimming and have lost you already. But, all this allows one to prove and calculate the measure of the consistency of a set of axioms. The ordinal numbers are used to calculate the complexity and consistency of axioms. The induction up to Cantor's epsilon subscript 0 can be measured. As John Stillwell states on page 133, " epsilon subscrpt 0 imples the consistency of PA(the peano axioms).
There's also a Goodstein theorem, which relates the finite and the infinite. There's a Cantor form, which is a kind of ordinals equation - those oridnals w^w^w + 2w+1= w^w^w+ w^w or something like that. There's a process of cutting off links in a graph that can relate these infinities to finite numbers!
Mathematicians have found they need to go beyond Cantor's epsilon subscript 0 ultimate ordinal number when describing consistency of the Axiom of Choice and the continuum hypothesis. For instance, there ZF + AC + large cardinal, then, ZF + every real number is Lebesgue measureable is consistent.
There's other Axioms, other than the Zermelo/Fraenkel axioms, and they lead to an infinity of large cardinals(number for which Cantor's largest ordinal epsilon subscript 0 cannot handle).
Can I get an executive summary? I'm very busy, and all these videos aren't going to watch themselves.
@@deusexaethera you want an executive summary of the videos? No - you have to watch them; this guy put a lot of work into them.
Or, do you want to know which videos to watch? I wouldn't go through each and every 2001 and Fermi paradox video myself.
@@oker59: No, I want an executive summary of your unnecessarily long post.
@@deusexaethera well, that is a summary, and not that long of a post. All I'll admit to is that it's a bit sketchy. I left some stuff out such as a theorem relating the finite and the infinite, and applications to some graph theory problems that are unapproachable without these large cardinals and this relation between the finite and infinite.
I was hoping to wet your and anyone else's appetite for John Stillwell's "Roads to Infinity."
@@oker59: It would make a good forum post, but it's about 10x too long for a UA-cam comment. Context matters. Anyway, apparently the concept of transfinity is no longer considered distinct from infinity by the people sitting at the Cool Mathematicians table in the cafeteria.
Very nicely done. You’ve got the sound level right. It’s fine for video. But you need to work on your mixing. When you’re recording different lines at different times, you need to be recording them in an identical way. It will help if you make a little sound-booth for your monologue. Doesn’t have to be big, just some sound-baffles surrounding your mic.
Great video, btw.
Thank you !
Your best video