Why are you misusing the term Universe in describing unfit notions that have had their own unique names for centuries?
"Are you think that 'universe' and 'world', including notions such as 'actuality', 'circumstance' and 'reality' are interchangeable?" :)
They're not! They're not even alike; they don't even belong to the same category. ;)
@leeturnbull2082 Says:
"Dude, look at my invention"
"Nah dude, can't give you credit becuase it's my invention also"
Ego of mathematicians
@j45002 Says:
I'm seeing this video very late, and I don't really expect a response. I do have a question though. If the universe is flat, how can things be above or below us on that plane?
Is the universe being flat in reference to the space fabric that our gravity distorts?
Also how can we see the cmb in all directions if it's flat?
@zaurgamkrelidze1064 Says:
Amazing video
@AaronSkone Says:
You should do a video on the “flatness” of the universe to clear up misconceptions about what flat means in this context.
@martolomew956 Says:
Its hard to comprehend how the first people found mathematics
@romzeek Says:
Glad to see Ben Affleck is doing scientific documentaries now
@rawrrawriting Says:
If the universe is flat, why is the earth round?
@DaiDaisWay Says:
Hello! Please make a video about the two teen women who solved Pythagorean's Theorem using Trigonometry! Some exciting news in the math/science world :)
@vhawk1951kl Says:
Who*Does't* understand that univeerse_s is semantic gibberish or an oxymoron?
@shineisland7447 Says:
4 postulates make a square, the fifth IS parallel to the square any way you look at it ...he was thinking "outside of the box"
@milkybar8254 Says:
A great video. Just one little carp. You show Gauss measuring his "large" trangles using optical instruments. If this is so, then he is not measuring the angles of triangles constructed ON the 2D spherical surface of the Earth, but of triangles IN flat 3D space, so he would inevitable find the angles add to 180, however large he made his triangles.
@tusharhbk Says:
It is sad how Ancient India's contribution in such videos are ignored such as Aryabhatta and Bhaskara.
@adrianmuresan7764 Says:
On a geodesic on a sphere for example, each trajectory is the same regardless of the speed one object travels along the geodesic. In General Relativity it seems as if the geodesic has different shape depending on the relative velocity of the two masses that circle each other (their center of mass). How does this dependence on the relative velocity enters the General RElativity to give different shapes to the geodesics? Is it because space time is curved and not just space? Still the velocities where the geodesics are vastly different are way below the light speed.
@mohamedidhssaine7429 Says:
applause to this guy❤
@Padraigp Says:
I didnt understand most of this but i like that a circle can represent an infinite space. Thats good enough for me. Not a clue what the fifth thing sentence was saying. Maybe cos i wasnt looking ..maybe ill rewatch.
@oofy69 Says:
si gel do masoen😂
@SilverScythe65 Says:
Why is this such a hard concept for ancient people to grasp? You stick a line through two other lines. If both inner angles are less than 90 degrees, that means those two lines are going to touch at some point... It's super simple. How did that take thousands of years to conclude? I bet you if they told any random carpenter of their time that statement, he would have confirmed it for them.
@umami0247 Says:
This can make your brain hurt. Just saying.
@dembro27 Says:
Great explanation of non-Euclidean geometry! From a non-mathematician's perspective, I'm surprised so many brilliant minds spent that much effort trying to prove something that seems rather intuitive/obvious. I'm sure that I'm oversimplifying the reality, but to me, the fifth postulate is logical if you accept the second postulate and know how angles work (on a flat 2D plane, anyways). It's a postulate because you can't draw a line of infinite length, so you accept it as true (the wholr point) and move on.
Was the drive to prove the fifth posulate simply due to the fact that it was a longer sentence than the others?
@littlefeetvampire Says:
So he must have observe a pieces of weaved cloth. Specially loosely knitted one
@airrad22 Says:
this whole thing, really crossed a line for me 😒
@jonpatchmodular Says:
Your changing of these excessively clickbait titles really throws me off when trying to figure out which videos I've seen. Like, parallel universes? really?
@midgetydeath Says:
When you drew the fifth postulate, I understood it. My question is why he thought he needed that as a postulate. It seems obvious and like it is already proven by the first two postulates, rather than being a candidate for being postulate on its own. I might suck at math, but I'm dang good at logic. And I can see the theme here that shows it shouldn't be one of the postulates he gave. Yet, he believed it was necessary. Or, perhaps he put it as a postulate not because he believed it truly was one, but that he believed it was too important to leave for later and so he fudged it.
@edwardhuang5885 Says:
bro just took me on a spiritual journey
@OrangeMonkey2112 Says:
Real science started with mans knowledge of God. Sir Issac Newton was one of many who openly admitted to God being the catalyst of ALL knowledge and understanding, He was just ONE OF MANY.
Science isnt bad! Bad science IS!------When man takes God out of science he is lost to the truest understanding of it.
Today scientist still cant understan how the 66 molecules in water work together. Thats just one of thousands of things they cant understand. Dont get me started on physics, who now are saying openly we ARE a created universe and NOT a aggregate of accidental chance as the "big bang" group had insisted for so long.
The Scripure in the Bible have given us more prven science theory than ALL the "great" minds of mans science put together. The children of wrath deny God irrationally.......
@linyenchin6773 Says:
12:07 "paradoxical" is idiot for "paradox," you mouth-breathers are idiots as you insist on redundant suffix where your already know the root word civers every instance you might lay your misused suffix.
*The quality and state of being a paradox, is just a paradox.*
@linyenchin6773 Says:
Fascinating idiot noise.
Listening to you mouth-breathers is always a pain in my brain.
@linyenchin6773 Says:
*hidden dimensions, only idiots perpetuate the "multiverse" lie.
@jayashreesmani5641 Says:
There were Math texts in India LOOONG before Euclid: 300 BC - The oldest source of knowledge for Indian Mathematics is Sulba Sutras (800 BCE) followed by the Pingala’s Chanda Sastra,
@Walkingsleep Says:
They cant be called universes, there is one universe in the definition it says:
ALL existing matter and space.
Meaning if you miss calculate how much space/matter they're is still part of the same damn universe. THIS IS LOGIC.
You cant have "Universes"
This is wrong if looked at the definition of the "Universe" meaning (EVERYTHING that is and isn't).
@Veritasium
@dibutime Says:
Bro why didn’t they just use photomath fr 😂 nerds 😂
@MobileGames-rq9bt Says:
This made my brain hurt in a good way.
@ccalex8548 Says:
when I was learning geometry at school, the presupposition was that Evclidian geometry is for flat surfaces
@piglink10 Says:
Why couldn't Euclid prove it himself though?
@InsideKarensHead Says:
so if the universe is flat, why are planets spherical? I would think that the universe is spherical as well. Perhaps it is but we are only seeing a very small part of it and so we only see it as flat. ;)
@dreamsteam8272 Says:
"This is a Lie"
(it must be true) to be a lie, and than its a lie, but not.... because it is a lie! So is it true! But than its not a lie!
@bastianrevazov7425 Says:
"I have a marvelous proof of this fact, but it is too large to contain in the margin."
something like that
@pbenikovszky1 Says:
@Veritasium what a great video, as always :) But, as a Hungarian mathematician, it is hurtin my ears when I hear you pronouncing János Bolyai's name :D no offence of course, if you want to practice his last name is pronounced like Bo (like in Bo Derek) Ya (like in Hey Ya!) E (like the letter E) :)
@sajiyaafrin1848 Says:
13:40
Flat earthers: aaahhhh!!!! Its fllaaattt!!!
@doggygaming950 Says:
Postulate 5 seems very simple, all it says is if 2 lines are slightly less than parallel, if stretched to infinity they must at some point intersect and form a triangle. Simple.
@ZanderzMcCluer Says:
17:25 you do realize that at their time, "breathless length" and " has no part" had meanings. The only reason that they aren't understood today is because the wording hasnt been adjusted to our understanding.
@darwinrodriguez5485 Says:
Oh no...
The universe is flat... and it could be mathematically true
@eh1702 Says:
Why the quibbles with the translations of Euclid into old fashioned English?
A point “has no part” = unity, is not divisible, has integrity, is whole and entire in itself.
A line “lies evenly with the points in itself” = has no angles, does not vary.
These descriptions are intended just to stop people mistaking what he means when he gives his “fifth”.
@7UDG3 Says:
So what is the problem with that? Its common sense it will make a triangle eventually.
@TheSkypetube Says:
But first we need to talk about parralel universes
@PerceusAdalian Says:
Ladies and gentlemen: the maths bible
@AndrewConley-zs3cg Says:
Euclid was a flat universer.
@randystanton1224 Says:
Someone likes this comment so o watch it later.
@tomsmith6882 Says:
The test of the 5th postulate by making it a contradiction, by making it incorrect, and so resulting theories are incorrect, doesn’t make the original one correct. They can both be wrong
LATEST COMMENTS