Compare news coverage from diverse sources around the world on a transparent platform driven by data. Try Ground News today and get 40% off your subscription: ground.news/upandatom
First you follow the logical progression of the spatial dimensions... I recently simplified my explanation of the logical progression of the spatial dimensions even more and I'm gonna leave it here. let me show you the logical establish pattern so you can understand better, infinite amounts of 0 dimensional existence can stack into any size one dimensional existence because it is nothing and infinite amount of nothing can stack in any size version of something. 1D equals length only. Now infinite amounts of one-dimensional existence can stack into any size two dimensional existence because it is length and now that you've added width in so then infinite amounts of one dimensional existence can stack inside of it. Now infinite amounts of two dimensional existence can stack into any size three dimensional existence because this is length and width and now you add depth... When we add in depth we allow for infinite stacking of two-dimensional planes to stack into any size three dimensional existence because of the additional depth dimension. Now given this logically established pattern we can conclude that if a fourth spatial dimension exist then infinite amounts of three dimensional existence can stack into any size 4 dimensional existence... This means that if a fourth spatial dimension exist our universal potentiality of our three-dimensional universe will be compressed down into a relatively flat state which is exactly what we observe of our universe. This means if a 4th spacial dimension exists (as verified by this logical progression pattern that aligns with our observations) then infinite three-dimensional universal potentiality can stack into ANY SIZE 4D existence making a infinite 3d multiverse the norm... This explains Mandela effects. Once you have this you can understand that if a higher spatial dimension exists like shown then the relative state or shape of the universe should be compressed into a flat State as observed but in the higher dimensions you're absolutely correct that it is a different shape and is round in the 4D and toroidal in the 5D and this established pattern continues.
Euclidean doesn't exist in our world... There's truly nothing no existence that is euclidean in our 3D... If you zoom down far enough you will see the structures Fall apart to a curved nature...
You just need to understand magnetism itself and understand that it is a toroidal vortex with opposite spinning vortices... You can look up the replicable experiment under the channel Theoria apophasis... CRT cathode ray television proof of magnetic vortex.
17:31 "For example if you lean right you probably miss this story..." So, two things, 1st, we still don't know which news are factually correct or not (in part or its entirety), if you read news that are bias no matter the side, then you are not reading news, just opinions. The other thing that is interesting is that you gave an example of how you might get a "better picture" of something by telling people that lean to the right that they might be missing information about a figure they might approve or like, which to me sounds like bias, because you did not give an example the other way around, also, we don't know if both of the news are factually correct as stated on the 1st one. Though the idea of the application is good, we are just dealing with rotten tomatoes on one barrel and the same on the other barrel, and you don't get to "balance" your diet by eating 2 rotten tomatoes. Besides that, excellent video.
One must remember the Cosmic Microwave Background is not complete. What we see is merely that portion which was able to reach our detectors. The complete picture can be infinite.
4:22 That representation of the path of light is a bit absurd, isn't it? Shouldn't it look like an hyperbolic trajectory? If light is going dead center towards the CoM of the planet/star it won't get curved, it will just collide with it.If light behaved in the way shown. planets would be effectively transparent/invisible.
If the torus is large enough, the universe would expand faster than the speed of light - meaning the light from your backside would never reach your eyes.
Does any of this rule out the possibility of our universe being on the "skin" of a higher dimension object? I am intrigued by the possibility that our universe is nothing more than a hologram surrounding a "black hole."
That's actually an interesting perspective but in that sense, universe could be anything of that higher dimensional entity. What is the root of this belief?
Hi Jade, If the observable universes radius has expanded to 45 billion light years in 13.8 billion years, how can light that has only been travelling for 13.8 billion light years be seen by us? 🥰thank you. P.S. ~ Is this what causes the "red shift"?
Now, I’ve just realized that every straight line movement I did was not theoretically straight at all. It has always been curved. 😂 Anyway, this video is very enjoyable. You’ve outdone yourself, Ms Universe Jade. Looking forward to your next! Cheers! 🥰🤓😍
If shape - then something OUTSIDE Universe shapes it. Any shape is the result of the confrontation between different entities and forces. One's influence and proliferation goes only that far as allowed by other counteracting forces. If something ELSE shapes something, it means, that this something is NOT alone, which means that "our" "Universe" is NOT THE Universs, but a part of something else, of something akin of one of its galaxies. The human brain still cannot accept the idea of something endless, fathomless, and struggles against this idea with all its might. This conception is the evidence of heritage of the religious views of the world.
There are some confusing inaccuracies here: 1) As later pointed out in the video, the curvature being too small to measure is not what prevents us from determining topology, as even perfectly flat geometry can have multiple different toplogies 2) The light trajectories on the flat torus are actually straight, they are not just geodesics (lines of minimal curvature) curved by the curvature of space itself. The curvature in the illustration comes from the visualization, it actually shows a curved torus, not a flat one. The flat torus is later visualized in the video with the square where you come back at the other end when walking out. 3) Switching from the curved torus to the flat torus *does* change fundemental geometry (from half-hyperbolic half-elliptical to euclidean). What is not changing is the *topology*
Your measurements of the Universe are limited to the OBSERVABLE Universe. You continually bounce back and forth between the total Universe and the observable without differentiation. Annoying. This also creates incorrect assumptions. One obvious assumption is that we have any idea how big the Universe is. We can only know the size of the observable Universe by all known physics. The flipside to that is looking at the inside of a blackhole. Which brings us back to the 3 guys with the long strings "proving the Earth is flat. Without being able to see beyond the observable Universe, how can we know what the shape is? As the James Webb telescope proves, the better our telescopes are, the more clueless our past selves become about cosmology and the "real" Universe!
7:08 What denote the 93 Billion Lightyears denote excately? The diameter of the observable universe today? The calculated distance to the the furthest away observable objects as of today?
I had a dream that everything was made from nested hyperspheres each hypersphere had one internal sphere and one external sphere. As the internal one shrinks, the external one grows each. it is only one object in 4D geometry. it's hard to remember. but it all self intersected
When the universe was very small everything had time to interact with everything else and since the CMB map is pretty uniform in temperature wouldn't that indicate the universe is either spherical or toroidal? I'd bet on spherical since nature seems to default to spheres. A sphere is simpler than a toroid.
For as long as the shape doesn't resemble an inside-out sock, I'm not inclined to favor any shape. Then again, when the shape of the universe is measured, I think of the curvature, or k = 1, k > 1 or k < 1.
The diagram at 4:20 is problematic. The path must always be concave towards the heavy object. This photon appears to veer away in a couple of places. It also appears to continue on its original bearing after its encounter.
Hate to throw a monkey wrench in this, but it was recently discovered that apparently light can travel faster than the purported speed of light under certain conditions. Well, "teleport" faster than light itself can travel normally through space. That will most definitely mess with large scale universe-level geometry in ways we can't even begin to imagine.
Isn't the possibility that our view on the CMB is also just too small? Which could lead to other geometries, which would lead to other topologies and makes this a search in the complete wrong direction? Or do I miss something? Unless we knew how big the actual (not observable) universe is, we can't say for sure right? And as far as I know this is an open question ;)
light ? Clone it self spherically, origin is kanj end point is hanzi ..nvm the name its just non academic . Its why everything visible is visually noisy
They seem like they would be identical, topologically speaking. But I have no formal training in topology. They seem to have the same connections between points and would only differ in the distance between points (affecting angles and parallel lines - geometrical properties). Although, by that logic, it's hard for me to distinguish between them and closed or spherical universes. You can always find a path that circles back to you in the universe. It just might not be a straight line. Does topology require the lines to be straight? Or does it otherwise care about the type of paths or subsets you make (e.g., holes, dimensionality, etc.)? I don't know enough.
If the topology of the universe has 'twists,' does that mean angular momentum is not conserved, similar to how energy in the universe isn't conserved because it's not a closed system?"
If the handiness of sub-atomic particles can be attributed to the topology(orientability and non-orientability) of the universe than the fact that left-handed neutrinos are only found raises some interesting riddles.
Let us assume that the Big Bang did happen, although in a vacuum state is not likely we would hear the bang. Now here is my question. When the universe began, it expanded into the nothingness to become what we think we know today. How large was the nothing that our universe expanded into?
I wonder if this could explain the obervations of galaxies red shifted to look older then the big bang. That they're actually just a copy of a closer galaxy seen from the other side.
you are partly right and partly wrong. Physicists can understand it mathematically and perhaps in a certain sense metaphorically. But no one can visualize it in their mind's eye in any direct or literal sense.
So how exactly were we wrong about the shape of the universe? Everything you talked about in the video is perfectly consistent with a Euclidean universe.
In 2d, parallel lines are lines that never intersect. In hyperbolic geometry, many lines can pass through a point and be parallel to a particular line. The distance between two parallel lines don't have to be constant.
I suppose you could parallel transport a velocity vector in a direction perpendicular to the vector and then follow the resulting geodesics from the original and parallel transported velocity vectors.
@@antagonisticalex401That's only in Flat place From the vedio, what I see, to find parallel lines in any other space, let us take spherical space, we first need to convert the spherical space into flat space by simply unfolding it, then draw parallel lines in this new flat space according to what we have studied till now (2 lines that never touch) , then again fold that flat space into the circular space, now the parallel lines we drew in flat space will look like converging on top and bottom of the spherical space. This line will be considered parallel in the spherical space. The definitions we have learnt about parallel lines, shapes, are all in eucledian plane, i.e., in flat space. These geometries will be defined differently in other spaces. To find definitions for new spaced will be hard, so it will be easy to just convert the space into flat space then do this l the geometry then convert in it back to the original space. There exist no Parallel lines in Spherical Space according to definition but in this vedio parallel lines are used to refer to what I explained above
O my GOD... Thank GOD you are back in town...🎉.. I want to inform you something now.. That you are the only girl on planet earth today which is not just beautifull n prettiest of all but you has best intell. N also which makes you unique is your accent with your beautifull voice n gorgeous talking style with the perfect moment of your eyesss❤... I ❤ u... Sooooooo muchh ❤ my Professsor..❤.. You are only one in universe...❤
Compare news coverage from diverse sources around the world on a transparent platform driven by data. Try Ground News today and get 40% off your subscription: ground.news/upandatom
First you follow the logical progression of the spatial dimensions... I recently simplified my explanation of the logical progression of the spatial dimensions even more and I'm gonna leave it here. let me show you the logical establish pattern so you can understand better, infinite amounts of 0 dimensional existence can stack into any size one dimensional existence because it is nothing and infinite amount of nothing can stack in any size version of something. 1D equals length only. Now infinite amounts of one-dimensional existence can stack into any size two dimensional existence because it is length and now that you've added width in so then infinite amounts of one dimensional existence can stack inside of it. Now infinite amounts of two dimensional existence can stack into any size three dimensional existence because this is length and width and now you add depth... When we add in depth we allow for infinite stacking of two-dimensional planes to stack into any size three dimensional existence because of the additional depth dimension. Now given this logically established pattern we can conclude that if a fourth spatial dimension exist then infinite amounts of three dimensional existence can stack into any size 4 dimensional existence... This means that if a fourth spatial dimension exist our universal potentiality of our three-dimensional universe will be compressed down into a relatively flat state which is exactly what we observe of our universe. This means if a 4th spacial dimension exists (as verified by this logical progression pattern that aligns with our observations) then infinite three-dimensional universal potentiality can stack into ANY SIZE 4D existence making a infinite 3d multiverse the norm... This explains Mandela effects. Once you have this you can understand that if a higher spatial dimension exists like shown then the relative state or shape of the universe should be compressed into a flat State as observed but in the higher dimensions you're absolutely correct that it is a different shape and is round in the 4D and toroidal in the 5D and this established pattern continues.
Euclidean doesn't exist in our world... There's truly nothing no existence that is euclidean in our 3D... If you zoom down far enough you will see the structures Fall apart to a curved nature...
You just need to understand magnetism itself and understand that it is a toroidal vortex with opposite spinning vortices... You can look up the replicable experiment under the channel Theoria apophasis... CRT cathode ray television proof of magnetic vortex.
In 4D the rainbow is tubular...
17:31
"For example if you lean right you probably miss this story..."
So, two things, 1st, we still don't know which news are factually correct or not (in part or its entirety), if you read news that are bias no matter the side, then you are not reading news, just opinions.
The other thing that is interesting is that you gave an example of how you might get a "better picture" of something by telling people that lean to the right that they might be missing information about a figure they might approve or like, which to me sounds like bias, because you did not give an example the other way around, also, we don't know if both of the news are factually correct as stated on the 1st one.
Though the idea of the application is good, we are just dealing with rotten tomatoes on one barrel and the same on the other barrel, and you don't get to "balance" your diet by eating 2 rotten tomatoes.
Besides that, excellent video.
During WWII, the Russians simplified the 'bridges in Königsberg' question by destroying some of the bridges.
Hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
You're back! Can't wait to watch this as soon as I get off work.
Same
I prefer to watch it at work 😅
Liked the gravitational lens image with the smiling face. :)
Damn, I am here after a long time and your editing has improved so much :).
The goofy drawn characters had a certain charm
As always, lovely video, Jade! Thanks a lot for making such fun videos that are so informative! Special shout out to your animator, Tom🥰
thank you for watching and supporting the channel :)
One must remember the Cosmic Microwave Background is not complete. What we see is merely that portion which was able to reach our detectors. The complete picture can be infinite.
Love your content and in particular your way of explaining confusing concepts! ❤
4:22 That representation of the path of light is a bit absurd, isn't it? Shouldn't it look like an hyperbolic trajectory? If light is going dead center towards the CoM of the planet/star it won't get curved, it will just collide with it.If light behaved in the way shown. planets would be effectively transparent/invisible.
If the torus is large enough, the universe would expand faster than the speed of light - meaning the light from your backside would never reach your eyes.
I have a question on 8:18. How did they know the actual size of these spots?
I have the same question.
And knowing that the universe is expanding, it it even harder to determine how large they were when the light was generated.
@@renedekker9806 Let's see if she replies. She usually doesn't cover all this in the video as the answers are highly technical.
Telescopes can measure the size by looking at them
@@liveshkumar7322 Wait what? What exactly are those spots that could be measured by a telescope?
@@liveshkumar7322 _"Telescopes can measure the size by looking at them"_ - I suggest you watch the video first, before commenting.
18 seems like a large number of shapes I can't imagine and can't be shown to me, but which I could possibly live in 😢
Thank you for your video. Awesome, as usual. It'd be great to reintroduce your cartoony characters in one of your future vids.
Your passion is engrossing, and delivery explaining physics is first rate!
Thank you for your videos!
Awesome vid! Super informative, interesting, and hilarious. Thanks a bunch! 🚀🌌
thanks for watching and supporting the channel :)
@@upandatom You do a great job! The camera cuts in this one had me laughing, the intensity 😁
Do different topologies contain different amounts of energy? If so, which has the least?
Yay, a new Up and Atom video! This is me dropping everything to watch immediately
The universe may not be flat, it may just be curved on a scale we can not yet (Or possibly, ever) detect.
Thanks for another video, Jade. Love your work. Always look forward to new ones. Keep it up!
How do know how large the spots in WMAP should be? Just our models for the Universe should look?
New video! Thank, you, big, thank you❣❣❣
Babe, wake up. New up and atom video just dropped!
Space is a Pringle…that’s yummy!
Once you pop, you just can't stop!
Does any of this rule out the possibility of our universe being on the "skin" of a higher dimension object? I am intrigued by the possibility that our universe is nothing more than a hologram surrounding a "black hole."
That's actually an interesting perspective but in that sense, universe could be anything of that higher dimensional entity. What is the root of this belief?
And now we all understand the ending to Interstellar.
A mobius universe would be quite a twist.
Spent way too long on that bridge problem
Has Jade always been this Dora-ish?
Hi Jade, If the observable universes radius has expanded to 45 billion light years in 13.8 billion years, how can light that has only been travelling for 13.8 billion light years be seen by us? 🥰thank you. P.S. ~ Is this what causes the "red shift"?
Now, I’ve just realized that every straight line movement I did was not theoretically straight at all. It has always been curved. 😂
Anyway, this video is very enjoyable. You’ve outdone yourself, Ms Universe Jade. Looking forward to your next! Cheers! 🥰🤓😍
If shape - then something OUTSIDE Universe shapes it.
Any shape is the result of the confrontation between different entities and forces. One's influence and proliferation goes only that far as allowed by other counteracting forces.
If something ELSE shapes something, it means, that this something is NOT alone, which means that "our" "Universe" is NOT THE Universs, but a part of something else, of something akin of one of its galaxies.
The human brain still cannot accept the idea of something endless, fathomless, and struggles against this idea with all its might.
This conception is the evidence of heritage of the religious views of the world.
There are some confusing inaccuracies here:
1) As later pointed out in the video, the curvature being too small to measure is not what prevents us from determining topology, as even perfectly flat geometry can have multiple different toplogies
2) The light trajectories on the flat torus are actually straight, they are not just geodesics (lines of minimal curvature) curved by the curvature of space itself. The curvature in the illustration comes from the visualization, it actually shows a curved torus, not a flat one. The flat torus is later visualized in the video with the square where you come back at the other end when walking out.
3) Switching from the curved torus to the flat torus *does* change fundemental geometry (from half-hyperbolic half-elliptical to euclidean). What is not changing is the *topology*
Your measurements of the Universe are limited to the OBSERVABLE Universe. You continually bounce back and forth between the total Universe and the observable without differentiation. Annoying. This also creates incorrect assumptions. One obvious assumption is that we have any idea how big the Universe is. We can only know the size of the observable Universe by all known physics. The flipside to that is looking at the inside of a blackhole. Which brings us back to the 3 guys with the long strings "proving the Earth is flat. Without being able to see beyond the observable Universe, how can we know what the shape is? As the James Webb telescope proves, the better our telescopes are, the more clueless our past selves become about cosmology and the "real" Universe!
Great video thx for the information
7:08 What denote the 93 Billion Lightyears denote excately? The diameter of the observable universe today? The calculated distance to the the furthest away observable objects as of today?
I had a dream that everything was made from nested hyperspheres each hypersphere had one internal sphere and one external sphere. As the internal one shrinks, the external one grows each. it is only one object in 4D geometry. it's hard to remember. but it all self intersected
When the universe was very small everything had time to interact with everything else and since the CMB map is pretty uniform in temperature wouldn't that indicate the universe is either spherical or toroidal? I'd bet on spherical since nature seems to default to spheres. A sphere is simpler than a toroid.
For as long as the shape doesn't resemble an inside-out sock, I'm not inclined to favor any shape. Then again, when the shape of the universe is measured, I think of the curvature, or k = 1, k > 1 or k < 1.
The diagram at 4:20 is problematic. The path must always be concave towards the heavy object. This photon appears to veer away in a couple of places. It also appears to continue on its original bearing after its encounter.
Hate to throw a monkey wrench in this, but it was recently discovered that apparently light can travel faster than the purported speed of light under certain conditions. Well, "teleport" faster than light itself can travel normally through space. That will most definitely mess with large scale universe-level geometry in ways we can't even begin to imagine.
Pringles should pay you for sponsorship. I wanted a pringle after watching this video. Once you pop, you can't stop.
Putin: "I can make sure you cross the Crimean Bridge negative-once. Don't test me!"
Isn't the possibility that our view on the CMB is also just too small? Which could lead to other geometries, which would lead to other topologies and makes this a search in the complete wrong direction? Or do I miss something? Unless we knew how big the actual (not observable) universe is, we can't say for sure right? And as far as I know this is an open question ;)
light ? Clone it self spherically, origin is kanj end point is hanzi ..nvm the name its just non academic . Its why everything visible is visually noisy
How are hyperbolic & flat spacetime topologically different?
They seem like they would be identical, topologically speaking. But I have no formal training in topology. They seem to have the same connections between points and would only differ in the distance between points (affecting angles and parallel lines - geometrical properties). Although, by that logic, it's hard for me to distinguish between them and closed or spherical universes. You can always find a path that circles back to you in the universe. It just might not be a straight line. Does topology require the lines to be straight? Or does it otherwise care about the type of paths or subsets you make (e.g., holes, dimensionality, etc.)? I don't know enough.
Or how big is the universe? Ans: 1 universe big. But what if it were 2 universes big? 3.14? Size is relative.
If the topology of the universe has 'twists,' does that mean angular momentum is not conserved, similar to how energy in the universe isn't conserved because it's not a closed system?"
If the handiness of sub-atomic particles can be attributed to the topology(orientability and non-orientability) of the universe than the fact that left-handed neutrinos are only found raises some interesting riddles.
Curved space time creating gravity sounds like surface tension. Could that be due to the momentum of the solar system and other celestial bodies?
there is a path through koningsburg that crosses all bridges only once; you just need to swim across a river once.
The pause for ur answer after she asks a question makes me think we're about to go into a "I'm the map, I'm the map I'm the map" song😂
In that "can u cross every bridge only once" question, u never said u couldn't swim across 1 time😂
Neil DeGrasse said that Terrence Howard called, saying YOU are wrong!
Looking Outside will not result in unraveling of the ultimate truth but turning inside does bcz you are already that ultimate reality.
Let us assume that the Big Bang did happen, although in a vacuum state is not likely we would hear the bang. Now here is my question. When the universe began, it expanded into the nothingness to become what we think we know today. How large was the nothing that our universe expanded into?
Smaller than a pea.
I wonder if this could explain the obervations of galaxies red shifted to look older then the big bang. That they're actually just a copy of a closer galaxy seen from the other side.
really good vid i enjoyed this one , explaining some really complex stuff so well that even an idiot like me can follow along
5:33 You did NOT mention lines of latitude. They remain parallel forever!
This Pringle is Euclidian.. I don't think Pringles are really hyperbolic
Take great care when addressing this subject... you'll draw out the Crothers crowd.
Always glad to see a new video by you. Thanks for all the explanations you do.
I'm really glad you made this video, I'm really interested in this topic
The Universe has many more than 3 spatial dimensions, which SHALL FOREVER REMAIN BEYOND ANY HUMAN'S COMPREHENSION.
you are partly right and partly wrong. Physicists can understand it mathematically and perhaps in a certain sense metaphorically. But no one can visualize it in their mind's eye in any direct or literal sense.
The larger the object, the more spherical it becomes.
Our 4DU universe is a sphere
This video is like Dora the explorer, except you know none of the answers.
YESS A NEW VIDEO
You need to fire Tom.
Get yourself an animator who can work at least in 5 dimensions.
do you know anyone you can recommend?
@@upandatom Yeah, but he is hard to reach ...😉😉😅😅
@@ignorasmusYup, I tried finding him and somehow mysteriously teleported back to where I started
Wow. How can something that had a beginning be infinite? Can’t wait to finish watching this video.
The universe is in the shape of a hat... obviously ;o). Nice upload, thank you.
Did my Masters Thesis on this not that long ago, forgotten so much already 😅
Its totally impossible that we are wrong about the shape of the universe this time!
Sweeet ! Love your videos, and your dynamism is so inspiring !
The “problem camera shift” reminded me of wow an exaggerated Answers With Joe just now - WOW now watching the next 2/3!🌌🌌🌌🌌🌌🎬🗽🌈☮️💟😍😘🥰🤩🌞🌞🌞♾️♾️♾️🤯🤯🤯…
Yeah did Musk really say he messed up by letting his child do gender stuff I never tried to find the tweet etc🤪🩺🤯
I'm sticking with infinite Euclidean space.
No, you get to the end and then a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you
Thanks for the thought provoking video. "The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies the work of his hands" (Psalm 19)
so pretty :)
So how exactly were we wrong about the shape of the universe? Everything you talked about in the video is perfectly consistent with a Euclidean universe.
because scientists had ruled out a lot of topologies, but the new research shows that those topologies are in fact consistent with current data
5:28 you gotta explain what is the definition of parallel line tho
Infinite Lines that would always have a constant perpendicular distance between them? Atleast thats how I thought it worked on 2d.
In 2d, parallel lines are lines that never intersect. In hyperbolic geometry, many lines can pass through a point and be parallel to a particular line. The distance between two parallel lines don't have to be constant.
I suppose you could parallel transport a velocity vector in a direction perpendicular to the vector and then follow the resulting geodesics from the original and parallel transported velocity vectors.
@@antagonisticalex401That's only in Flat place
From the vedio, what I see, to find parallel lines in any other space, let us take spherical space, we first need to convert the spherical space into flat space by simply unfolding it, then draw parallel lines in this new flat space according to what we have studied till now (2 lines that never touch) , then again fold that flat space into the circular space, now the parallel lines we drew in flat space will look like converging on top and bottom of the spherical space. This line will be considered parallel in the spherical space.
The definitions we have learnt about parallel lines, shapes, are all in eucledian plane, i.e., in flat space. These geometries will be defined differently in other spaces.
To find definitions for new spaced will be hard, so it will be easy to just convert the space into flat space then do this l the geometry then convert in it back to the original space.
There exist no Parallel lines in Spherical Space according to definition but in this vedio parallel lines are used to refer to what I explained above
Everything except the promise of the title!
Great video! :D
thank you for watching!
what happens if there is no shape? does it still exist?
Terrific presentation, as always.
Love how your right eye brow twitches.
I believe our Universe is hyperbolic
O my GOD... Thank GOD you are back in town...🎉.. I want to inform you something now.. That you are the only girl on planet earth today which is not just beautifull n prettiest of all but you has best intell. N also which makes you unique is your accent with your beautifull voice n gorgeous talking style with the perfect moment of your eyesss❤... I ❤ u... Sooooooo muchh ❤ my Professsor..❤.. You are only one in universe...❤
finallllyyyyyyyyy! jady's back
are you moving the pictures on the wall around on purpose?
I don't know what you mean :)
The universe is infinite right
yay! she's returned!
Just subscribed, interesting channel!
welcome!
Dude! Where were you all this time? We missed you!
i'm back baby!
problem unsolved
Hello from the 🇬🇧
Love the channel! I hope it continues to grow!
thank you for your support!
what...? 0o
Magic❤
interesting 🤔😮
is your birthday jan.9
nope may 1
💙💙💙💙💙💙
😀