Tim Possible, he didn't answer his question. Even after he asked it twice he didn't answer what Joe asked. He was trying to explain that the universe was flat. Joe was asking how that could make sense because we know the universe has depth. The guy diverged on his explanation and started to answer the wrong question. His explanation started out right in saying that he's only talking about 2 dimensions, but could've continued in saying that basically if the universe is a box, then the top is flat. Instead he went into angles and shit that wasn't exactly where Joe was lacking in understanding.
Robert, Joe was trying to clarify what that meant. Just because you got it doesn't mean Joe did. That lies upon Brian to answer Joe's question. That's how conversations work. I said Brain was to smart to understand what Joe was asking. I'm saying he's smarter than Joe, and it shows in his inability to see that Joe doesn't get a fundamental point of the conversation. That's sometimes a consequence of being super smart, a slight lack in social understanding.
@@many6747 Well you are assuming that, but is it true? I am not so sure. I got the feeling that he was just upset that Joe wasn't paying attention, he was probably stoned and Brian was probably a bit annoyed.
Joe sacrificing himself as the guy who looks dumb asking simple minded questions but getting these geniuses to utter common tongue explanations is oh so appreciated
No one does because he’s full of shit. How can you measure space to be flat? No one can understand it because it’s bullshit. It sounds like he makes shit up as he goes. Joe Rogan is a sellout. What everyone fails to understand is, they can’t measure shit you can’t see!
@@mk4vws he's saying that from the perspective we are able to see the universe, it is so out of scope of the entire thing that we cant see the curvature to it. So similar to if you slowly ascended from standing on the ground to space, the further you go up, the easier to see that the ground you stood on wasnt flat but in fact curved.
Generally is the case thats the irony of this kind of enquiry its truly is meaningless all it does is raises more questions for every one question answered by scientific enquiry 3 more even more complicated questions emerge its a worm hole of insanity and does drive and has drove many to madness. Just live... Common sense is the highest form of intelligence and the least valued in our times.
Exactly! I took physics and geometric optics in school but still think in 2 dimensions. 🤪 That being said, Brian explained it correctly but if I didnt take classes I would still be scratching my head. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Aj6Kc1mvsdo.html
I love this because you can see how much Brian truly loves what he does. He’s making what he says much easier for the average person to understand with a massive smile on his face. Truly someone who wants to teach people what he knows and loves learning himself
Camron Toney will you shut the fuck up trying to be edgy. Stop pretending that knowledge isn’t interesting when your listening to a fucking podcast about the universes shape. 😂😂😂
Camron Toney is that really the best you could come up with. You must be the dullest dude in the room. You’d of been one of the apes who sat back watching the other apes crack bone with rock to get at the marrow contemplating why that would benefit you.
There was a shade of blue that has been discovered recently and is expensive as fuck if you want to apply it to your home/car/etc. There's a lot of unknown discoveries still out there. The universe is a big place.
Rogen is asking perfectly reasonable question. I am a PhD student, and it took me some time to wrap my head around what cox is saying when I first took a GR course.
His 'explanation' of 'you can see the big bang light from 13.8 billion light years away' is really questionable. That would imply that earth travelled faster than light to reach where we are. Almost 13.8 billion times faster than light to get to where we currently are and then at some point it slowed to let light catch up. If his explanation of seeing the big bang light is true. No amount of gaslighting or BS or ad hominem attacks can fix the fact that his 'logic' here is flawed. Even if it takes into account that light would continue to pass us for almost 13.8 billion years, meaning that the universe would have to be much older than they give. Also, there not seeing the big bang light, that's way way ahead of the physical universe now. What he means I think is that we're seeing 13.8 year in the past, at an earlier universe which now has to be older than that to take in consideration why we're so far away when the universe was allegedly very young.
Can you help us understand? It doesn’t make any sense to me. If we can see as far as 13.8 billion light years in any direction, how can we be in a flat universe?
@@JDG.RealEstateflat in this sense is only a mathematical concept.. to us mere humans flatness only makes sense in 2d. Which is what cox is trying to convey. Like, after a certain point you cannot visualize as a human, and just use math as the stick that a blind man uses to see around. The math that we use suggests different 4 dimensional geometries, and I guess when you draw a 4 dimensional triangle and add up the inner angles it adds up to 180 degrees or whatever mathematically in our universe 😂 Just linear algebra after a certain point. That’s not the frightening part for me tho. The frightening part for me is this: All physics theorems were eventually conjured up by people with great imagination and visualizations: kepler, galileo, newton, einstein etc. And we are bound to visualizing in 3d since we’re humans. Newtons theorems worked well for us and explained most stuff that we cared about, since we only cared about constructing buildings and trains and cars and planes… when we started to think about far away galaxies, that’s when newtons laws failed, and that’s why einstein had the guts to sit down and imagine what could be happening really (since the old laws demonstrably failed) But imagine this, how could any human in the future could even start imagining a replacement to general relativity if in order to come up with one, one might need to be able to visualize in 4d 😂 if say GR fails some explaining some 4d phenomena, how could we even observe and demonstrate that it fails, let alone allowing someone like einstein in the future to start imagining what really is going on… dunno… i have work tomorrow so i don’t care after a point 😂
@@JDG.RealEstatejust think of it this way. Nothing is truly flat, even a flat piece of paper has some small measurement of thickness to it. Now imagine the universe is a flat piece of paper but on an unimaginably bigger scale, and everything fits in between the thickness of the paper 😆thats my guess
Yes. The flat Earthers says the sky is curved like a dome, the globists say the sky is flat. I've been saying this for a long time, that's why they don't understand each other. Drawing from left to right is the same as drawing from right to left. That is, the calculations are the same.
@@knxtta That is one of the problems. it's in the person's unconscious. Another problem, few people understand about the sky. And the problems are piling up. I am not saying that flat earthers are right, but I know that many globists are wrong, because they believe instead of understanding.
What he means by flat is like saying the surface of the earth is flat. If you look at earth as a whole it is like a sphere, but the surface of your observable earth is flat. So we can only see so much of the surface of the universe, not the whole universe in one go.
It's just a matter of geometry according to our best measurements to date. Simply put that any triangle, to the furthest reaches of observation, will add up to 180 degrees. If there was curvature you would not get this measurement. What he is saying is that this likely means that the universe is a lot bigger than what we see. There is a chance with more advanced measurement, with better technology, a curved surface may be detected (he is not saying it will be detected either). At this point, the universe seems flat in all directions in terms of geometry.
The problem with Coxs explanation is that he does not explain that we are not referring to flat as a 2 dinensional feature, but as a 3 dimensional feature. Joe is thinking that the whole universe is a infinitely large board, but thats obviously not the case. The other example he could have done with curvature was taking a sphere (a soccer ball for example) and compare it with a desk surface and trace on both object 3 lines of the same lenght, each one connected by the next one by a 90° degrees angle. On the desk surface it will end up as an open shape (like a square missing one side) while on the sphere it will end up as a triangle (closed shape). Same dimostration is usually presented to debunk flat earther.
If you look down at your feet the small amount of ground you can see would appear flat to you since your vision is "zoomed in" now you have a jet pack and you start flying straight up in the air eventually when you are high enough the flat ground beneath your feet appears as the globe we see as the earth. It's a matter of perspective in what we know is true vs what we can measure right now. Ultimately what he is saying is since we can define when something is flat using his example of measuring the angle of triangles on a flat surface vs a curved or globe surface. Knowing this we can understand that obviously the universe is much bigger than we can observe with the instruments we currently use. He is NOT saying we live on a globe planet in three dimensions on a two dimensional universe. Hopefully that helps you Richard.
@@turtlesquad5931 have you seen any of those videos of guys recording like a boat and it is completely flat like its 100feet from them and then they zoom back out and the boat is so far in the distance you cant see it? Neil degrasse tyson said you would have to go 100+k feet to see the curvature of the earth but most people think they see the curve at only 30. Is it at all possible that they teach and talk about these things that are incredibly complex in order to make us think things are 1000 times more complex than they are? How did they know so many facts about space before they supposedly got there? Why is it they could go to the moon with less technology than is in our phones from 10 years ago but now its not possible? I think I learned what you were saying when I learned how to draw a pov of me standing in a highway and watching things further away getting smaller. But my painting didn't have the cameras and scopes that we have now.
@@richardhayes373 Who says we can't go to the moon today? Ofc we can, but money, politics, and the fact that we've already been there is the answer. I'd rather see a space programme that focuses on getting to Mars or other stuff. Going to the Moon today is still impressive, but would not impress as much as other discoveries.
It wasn't good. He didn't catch that when Joe hears "space is flat" that he litterally thinks space is flat. But Dr Cox doesn't say that the word "flat" in this context has a different meaning to everyday life.
The only Brian associated with The Beatles was their manager, Brian Epstein. Brian Cox might have the mop top but he's not from Liverpool, he's from Oldham.
This is Brian's answer for the layman: "The universe could be infinite and have depth, but the small piece of it we see is flat. We know this because Albert Einstein was a lot smarter than all of us."
@@stevenswitzer5154 or he's appealing to work Einstein did. Given most of the people on the planet can't understand Einstein's work, Brian's answer is appropriate.
@@starty8814 - I'd definitely do that if I had the chance but I doubt he'd be anywhere near where I live talking smart.... Natural intelligence is rare where I live. LoL
Yes, I find Brian, Neil DGT, and Michio Kaku excellent. But only to people that have a modicum of education and intelligence - maybe not the bottom 10-30%. Just being real.
@@starty8814 My point was that unless you have a basic level of intelligence and knowledge it doesn't matter how much Brian simplifies stuff, it will be beyond some people's ability to comprehend. It's just the standard probability distribution. Where's - I presume you mean where does, not where is. But, Brian Cox came up on my home feed, not Joe if that helps.
@Cody Waggener You should realize that you wouldn't be able to post your drivel without those "bs theories." You can't simultaneously reap the benefits of science, and call it bs. And by the way, you don't make up a theory. You propose a hypothesis, and after consistent, reproducible results by labs all around the world, and tons of peer review, does it finally become a theory. You and your lil buddy go take your circle jerk of ignorance elsewhere. I think I saw some flat earthers that way ---> You guys will fit right in.
@@hermanfourie66 It means that (as far as we can tell) it's infinite. If it's "curved," then if you go off in one direction forever you'd eventually loop around and come back. It's also possible it could be curved AND infinite, but let's just simply things and ignore that for now...
Joe understands that if you imagine the universe as a flat styrofoam slab and the earth as a marble stuffed inside the styrofoam slab that it explains how we can see the universe all around you. But by measuring the universe (the styrofoam) as much as you can it only appears flat. But Joe just wants to know approximately how much can could or have, has been measured distance wise of the universe.
i dont think the flat he is trying to say is referring to the shape of the universe..not flat like a spiral galaxy spinning thus creating a flat look that have a certain dimension like a flat round table top... the flat he is trying to say probably just means that there are no curvature in space, that the space is flat..
For those that are confused, think about it this way; If you were to send a beam of light from the edge of the observable universe to Earth, it would travel in a straight line except for when it curves slightly around objects like stars due to gravity. That is how we can tell space alone (ignoring gravitational influence ) is flat. Further optional explanation: However, this would mean that the universe doesn’t curve around on itself, and would imply that beyond the observable edge, the universe continues infinitely. What Cox is saying though, is it is like ants trying to determine whether the earth is flat, from the ants perspective of a tiny portion of Earth, they would think that earth is flat, and If an ant rolled a ball (rolling a ball on the material surface of earth is equivalent to sending a beam of light through space time) from the edge of the area in which it spends its entire life (quite small) then the ball would go in a straight line, but if you tried to do that from London to Tokyo for example, the ball would roll around the curvature of the earth, figuratively speaking. The universe is potentially the same, the space time fabric itself may curve on a massive scale that we can’t comprehend, so that theoretically eventually a beam of light going in one direction would end up at the same place. But that would take longer atleast than the current age of the universe
The space is flat?????????? Are we retarded????????? Is this the most stupid thing i have heard in decades??????? WTF???????? Is this dude serious???????? What is this bullshit??????? Is anyone paying this man to say such nonsense?????????? Are any kind of taxes given to this shit????????? Can a human be so stupid???????? Infinite universe expanding (nonsense) with a center (nonsense) and also flat (ultra nonsense)?????????? Is this beyond idiocracy???????? How can anyone say that with a straight face????? Does this idiot thinks what he says?????????? Is it that difficult to understand infinite cannot expand from a single point because it is already infinite, cannot have a center and for fucking sure cannot be flat????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? To where does it expand???????????? to a meta universe that also expands into a metametauniverse that also expands into a metametametametametametauniverse?????????????? We live in a ball but the universe is flat?????????????????? Yeah dude humans are also flat, you are so cool for realizing it before anyone else with all those maths... This seems like a scam to make people who cannot understand basic logic pay for bullshit salaries wasted proving that because cheese have wholes the more cheese you have the less cheese you have... Fuking nonsense
Joe's right to ask that. If it's flat then how flat is it? And if it's flat then how come we can see stars and galaxies from all points on the earth going out in every direction? Which way is the long way, which way is the short way? Flat like a sheet of paper, or a bit thicker, or thinner?
@@Google_Does_Evil_Now The observed 2D layer inside the 3D space does not get curved. Basicly if you move 1 direction in space you will just keep moving that direction. So you get a straight line. Flat. On earth you return to the samepoint if moving in 1 direction. Curved.
@@Google_Does_Evil_Now When we say flat universe we don't mean it's like a flat sheet of paper. It means it has zero curvature. We can also have positive or negative curvature. The easiest way to imagine this is if you have 2 parallel lines (at your frame of reference): - 0 curvature (flat): the lines will always be parallel to each other. - positive curvature: the lines will converge (think of longitude lines all converge at the poles on Earth) - negative curvature: the lines will diverge (hyperbolic space but it's harder to imagine) Independent sources have confirmed our observable universe to be flat (with a small margin of error). But the global universe is a much tougher question.
@@minhfam why didn't he just say that in every direction it goes in a straight line. Flat implies flat. And he didn't say flat in any plane, any vector, any direction. So it's not flat as a whole thing, it's if you choose a single plane in any direction then that plane is flat as far as we can observe. Which is a very different thing to the universe being flat. But thank you for helping to clear that up. And it's worth seeing Prof Brian Cox's show. I enjoyed it.
What he means by flat is like saying the surface of the earth is flat. If you look at earth as a whole it is like a sphere, but the surface of your observable earth is flat. So we can only see so much of the surface of the universe, not the whole universe in one go.
@@srikanthsundaram3281 no he is saying wherever you draw a triangle in space aslong as its not being curved by objects of mass the angles in that triangle would add up to 180 degrees, that is all he is saying. space is by definition flat because that literally defines flat.
mieguistumas I think thickness would have been better wording. He understands that it’s flat like the table description but not spherical shaped like a ball.
@@finalcam1740 It's funny that you're too incompetent to comprehend what he's saying, so instead you choose to confidently declare that he said nothing. Probably to make yourself feel better.
Imagine your a teeny tiny ant, walking around inside of a large sponge. The surface you are walking on feels flat to you, because its so much larger than you. But as your traveling through it, you're actually looping and twisting around. This is how space is. Its invisible, and yes it takes up 3 dimensions, but to us, it feels like we are traveling in a straight line rather than traveling up or down through space, because we are the ant, and the only way to travel is forward.
@@ftlpunk the flaw with that is the sponge the ant is inside of has walls/sides surrounding the ant, so the ant can technically walk from one side of the "wall" to the other side of the "wall"... but with space it is infinate and there is no physical wall or boundary you can travel to
@@zx208like the analogy, being an ant inside of a massive sphere makes us believe it's infinite, when the ant is actually walking on the wall(edge/perimeter of the universe)... If it wasn't so massive, theoretically i could look straight into space with a telescope and see my own back. Only after the light reflected off my clothing and traveled all the way back to the front of the telescope lens. We'd be capable of viewing the past, imagine looking into a telescope when dinosaurs roamed the earth, or looking into the past and seeing a man was wrongfully convicted for a crime he didn't commit and now having evidence to support his alibi. Side thought: every different source and angle of light would change the view, different view == different perception, perception then sees alternate realities (appearing as infinite multi dimensions) dimensions)?
I think one of the things people struggle with here is, how can a 3 dimensional object like a sphere be “flat”? Maybe another way to say it is, how can empty space have a shape?
Think of the trajectory of light in space, if it finds no obstacle on its path and no massive object to change it, its trajectory will be a straight line. This is the meaning of flat in this context. If light was curved even if there's no physical interaction to deviate it, we could say that te universe is not flat because it would have what we call a positive or negative curvature in that case.
@@geraltofrivia9424Flat seems a bad choice of word for communicating to laypeople. Flat implies that there's little height to it. Whereas it sounds like we're just saying that for the sphere of visible universe, it behaves just like we would expect.
@@SevSeries-fi5ey ... Sorry but I don't really care about the right or wrong choice of words. I'm just explaining what it means, not saying if the choice is good or not.
@@geraltofrivia9424 Whereas I'm pointing out that the choice of words is poor. It's clear it does nothing but confuse everyone. Unfortunate. Thanks for sharing your understanding though! That may be helpful to some readers here.
I get serious Bob Ross vibes from Brian. The way he explains such unfathomable things with such simple words while still showing so much patience when teaching to people who don't yet know the Grandeur of the cosmos baffles me. The honest excitement in his eyes, the way he "dumbs" it all down to a level that most people can comprehend just so they can experience a part of what he feels when talking about the vast unkowns of existence and maybe, just maybe, spark that flame of curiosity within someone to make them question "what if?". i'm not even into JRE, but i swear to God Joe could do a 10 hour episode with Brian about the organized chaos that must be his mind and i'd gladly watch every second of it.
He is so intelligent yet so humble... And almost child like in the way he explains things. I love listening to him explain such complex thoughts and ideas.
I think Rogan is asking: Is the universe flat as in all cosmic bodies are on the same plane? Brian Cox is saying: The universe is flat as in the cosmic bodies do not distort spacetime in a significant way
no significant way except for orbits, fusion, bodies forming at all, dark matter being 70% of the universe yeah not significant at all lmfao this is like saying the earth is actually flat because a bubble level works. buildings do not significantly curve to form to the earth.
the title misses the point... what he is saying is that all of know space appears flat because we can't see enough of it from far enough out to establish the actual shape
sure, I get that concept, but from what point? If I look at Space in Australia and it's flat, how can someone in China see space and it's flat, and same for someone in the US? Whose flat is correct? When Cox was talking about taking slices of flatness, he was illustrating a stacked type of slice - not angled, overlapping slices.....?
@@natashagoode501 you completely missed the point. from where you are standing in your house the world appears to be on a flat plain . from outside the world you can see that it is a globe. the same concept exists for space as a whole. It appears to be a flat plane because we can only percieve it at our level regardless of where we are. but imagine we could leave our universe and from outside it and at a distance we could see it's shape. what cox is saying is that as far as we can see within our universe, it appears flat. which means 1. it could be flat or 2. it's so massive that we can't see far enough to percieve it's true shape with the technology we have available.
@@penthief83 ahhh, thanks for the clarification. So it sounds like a dynamic concept rather than fixed. My brain still struggles with the concept (clearly I need lessons in advanced mathematics and physics to being to grasp these concepts), however, what you say makes sense. Thanks for spendingthe time and effort with your post. :)
It can be racks me up that the people that are either trying to explain space information, or ask detailed space information questions, always end up looking like they're trying to swim if you mute the sound
If it's true on Earth, then yes. If we assume that both animals take the same amount of time - and are equally able - to adjust to the new environment, then Newton's 2nd law tells us that the force needed to produce a given acceleration is related to its mass. This is observed in space when astronauts have to move objects with a large mass. Their very mass (even with zero weight!) makes them harder to move. So if the power to mass ratio is the deciding factor, it will be the same in zero gravity.
@@AthelstanEngland It wouldn't work very well in zero gravity. As soon as you try to throw someone, you'd be throwing yourself in the opposite direction, and you can't take someone 'down' if there is no down! Tae kwon do might be better if you could brace your non-kicking leg against something.
@@AthelstanEngland Your welcome. You never know when your life might depend on this knowledge! I think that there is plenty room inside Elon Musk's Starship for a bear and a gorilla.
Flat universe means that if you beam two parallel laser lights, the will neither meet or part no matter low long they will be travelling. This is a proof that space/time does not bend/curve. Scientists do not refer to the spherical observable universe (it is a sphere because we can see in every direction and that makes the observable universe a sphere out of which we have no idea what it exists), but to the actual fabric of space/time. That is why he speaks in two dimensions..to simplify. For example space/time does significantly curve/bend around masses as planets, stars, black holes and galaxies - which is what we perceive as "gravity" - but it does not curve/bend in a grand scale. On the other hand, since we can only observe that much, we can not know for sure of the actual shape of space/time outside of the observable universe. As for the negative comments about Brian Cox, due to lack of astrophysics' knowledge on behalf of the commentators, I will quote Carl Sagan: "The Universe is not obliged to conform to what we consider comfortable or plausible".
I'm not sure people are turned off by him because he lacks the credentials, it's because he spends a lot of time saying nothing really. Never answers questions directly
Flat earthers: dropped out in the 8th grade. RU-vid P.H.D. This guy: quantum theoretical physicist with multiple awards in his field and an IQ of 183 Yeah, this guy knows a bit more than your average red pilled 4Chan "genius" flat earther.
To further dumb down what he's saying: The universe is round. But when we observe it, it looks flat. This is because we are only observing a very very very very tiny proportion of the universe. The universe is so much bigger than what we can even comprehend. Much like the flat earth theory. To the naked eye, the Earth seems flat. We need satellites to observe it's curvature.
The universe doesn't look flat though. It appears as though we are living inside of a giant balloon-shaped universe (3D shape). This is vastly different from living on a surface (e.g. the surface a balloon) which is a 2D shape.
@@CranyumHipHop pure non sense... but hey, this guys job depends on being able to spew out scientific words like radiation wall degradation encapsulements, that lock the inter steller dimensions 10a into a permanent state of suspension, so that the earths inhabitable biological thermal oscilloscope, perrinially thrusts across the giroscopio plane thus called, bullshit.
He actually agrees with you or at least thinks it plausible. He said we were just seeing a small part of our universe, and like measuring a mile on earth you wouldn't see much curvature. Or at least thats what I got from it.
what gets me is how the Milky-Way planets rotate around our sun in a similar plane, and don't really whirl around more sporadically, so the flat universe society is probably onto something
@@devmike The planets of The Solar System are not orbiting The Sun on a "flat plane". & the only thing that Flat Earthers are on to..........is a spherical planet. But they are not intelligent enough to understand why its not flat.
@@lazarusstuber6133 That’s what I thought, it seems flat because we’re only measuring a tiny portion of it, if we could see more we would start to see the curve.
@@JohnDoe-ie1fe I seen your first reply n the reason I ask is because the only way for to know for a 100% fact that there are no aliens is if you have scoured each and every planet in our universe
The space is flat?????????? Are we retarded????????? Is this the most stupid thing i have heard in decades??????? WTF???????? Is this dude serious???????? What is this bullshit??????? Is anyone paying this man to say such nonsense?????????? Are any kind of taxes given to this shit????????? Can a human be so stupid???????? Infinite universe expanding (nonsense) with a center (nonsense) and also flat (ultra nonsense)?????????? Is this beyond idiocracy???????? How can anyone say that with a straight face????? Does this idiot thinks what he says?????????? Is it that difficult to understand infinite cannot expand from a single point because it is already infinite, cannot have a center and for fucking sure cannot be flat????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? To where does it expand???????????? to a meta universe that also expands into a metametauniverse that also expands into a metametametametametametauniverse?????????????? We live in a ball but the universe is flat?????????????????? Yeah dude humans are also flat, you are so cool for realizing it before anyone else with all those maths... This seems like a scam to make people who cannot understand basic logic pay for bullshit salaries wasted proving that because cheese have wholes the more cheese you have the less cheese you have... Fuking nonsense
this is why Brian Cox is my favorite physicist, you should check out Wonders of the Solar System and Wonders of the Universe, also human Universe/ He explains everything with such simplicity, its magnificent
@Craig Johnson it means everything. You can travel in a straight line through space time. Therefore, it is flat. If you drive around the earth, you did not travel in a straight line, because it is a sphere. He's not saying it's flat geometrically. His 1km cut out of the earth explains it perfectly. It appears flat, but it isn't when you put it with the rest of the earth.
There’s such a gentle kindness in Brian’s voice, you almost feel like he would never get frustrated with trying to explain these things to someone that didn’t understand what he was talking about.
the immensity of the universe and the genius of these scientists that can do these calculations and make these deductions just blows my little mind!! 🤔
Brian: "The really amazing thing is that there's exactly enough stuff in the universe to make it flat. This leads us to believe the universe is actually much bigger than it appears." Joe: "Okay but uh... it doesnt look flat, so what do you mean 'flat'?" Brian: "Oh we just pretend it's flat because it's easier to understand :)" Joe: "... Oh yeah?" [Blue-screens internally]
They don't pretend his flat, it HIS flat but in 3 dimensions, he just used the 2D table analogy to try to explain what they mean by flat, in laymen's terms, space is flat in the sence that light travels in a straight line and is not being curved in a significant way by space itself, just to hammer my point, if the universe was curved like a sphere if you looked far enough you would see the Earth in the distance! Light coming out from the earth would travel in a circle and come back to you. And before someone says it, no this doesn't prove the Earth is flat, the reason you don't see the back of your head, when looking through a telescope pointed at the Earth horizon, even tho the Earth is more or less a sphere, is because light travels in a straight line through space, and Earth is not massive enough to curve light around the surface of the planet, if it did we wouldn't get nigh and day cycles, it would be always day and you would indeed be able to see the back of your head in the distance.
Physics is not sitting in a room talking about cool theories about space time and relativity. Its hours and hours and hours and hours and hours and hours and hours of intense math.
@@Bamboozled007 dont post thing from shiti website with no autor no name no proof no tool no address no way To speak with anyone there ..he is just à random guys on a website that no ones knows about ..it just make u look stupid..and you are not ..
Space time relativity? The universe at a certain point in time let's say 3 seconds in 2012 cut out? That's how I pictured it because when I think of space and time at the same time its like rolling a marble covered with paint across a table? Does this make sense? I have no idea
He said near the start imagine you took slices out of the Universe and had a big stack of them and took one and measured its flatness, I think thats what Joe missed because slicing it into sheets for the purpose of measuring it takes the 3rd dimension out of the picture and if you measured one slice we see that its flat which would suggest that at no point does space time curve in on itself which means the universe is ether INFINANTE or so much larger then we can measure a curvature that it would have to be MUCH larger then we can see.
Apparently you dont. Cause after smoking dmt nobidy climbs into anywhere except hyperspace for the next 10 minutes. If anything youd have to smoke weed first, then go in the tank and then dmt. But i wouldnt because if you go leave your body on dmt you might drown if you are in water. I reccomend just sit under a tree in lotus position at fullmoon or equinox. like any normal human...
It´s flat because your tools are seeing it flat not because it´s flat . If the big bang it´s true then the universe probable expanse in all directions . What Brian Cox say it´s the same as what flat earthers saying THIS IS HOW I CAN SEE IT THIS IS HOW IT MUST BE . If the tools that we are using are limited we are seeing limited thing´s . I am not saying that he is wrong i am saying that you can´t say that something is like this if your tools can´t see the full picture of what you are want to see.
I have a question then. I understood the "its so big, it apears flat".... but It doesnt apear flat at all, you can see in all x;y;z directions and see stuff. So where is the 2 dimentional part of it?
@@AverageAlien ohhhhhh ok ok... It is starting to make sense... I think thats the main problem with this video, Joe, most of the poeple, and I, usually understant flat as 2D, but that brings a new insight
the thing about the term infinity is that it isn't a real, tangible thing, it's a concept. I like to think of space as a trampoline and stars could be a bowling ball sitting in the middle of it - space was flat until something of mass came into play
Answer Explained: Joe: Is the universe bigger than we think? Brian: Yes Joe: How? Brian: Look at a table from 2 inches away. It appears flat. Stand 10 feet back it looks like table. When we look at universe it appears flat and we know its not. So therefore it must be bigger than we think.
@@hearmehmm797 well that much is obvious but my point is that the analogy isn't great it might work for some people but for the average IQ not so well.
@Papa Legba bruh what, you ever look outside? It looks pretty flat to me, if I didn't have access to any prior human knowledge i'd think the Earth was flat
@Papa Legba I can put a ruler on the ground and it's flat, the clouds and sunrise don't change that fact lmao. Yes the Earth curves, but it curves so gradually that it's not noticeable without measurements. So please explain to me how you can explain to someone that the Earth is round without using anything that requires measurements.
@Release The Karen Mayans believed in a flat Earth, they also had mathematics and astronomy so "they couldn't even invent a wheel" doesn't really make sense www.historymuseum.ca/cmc/exhibitions/civil/maya/mmc03eng.html
Didn't we supposedly come from the big Bang, so how can we see our own creation? If the big bang did in fact spontaneously explode everything into existence, it would happen all at once, right? It seems like there could be some contradictions.
@@thatguynicky1979, it didn't happen all at once, just very very quickly at the beginning. What we can see now are the effects of it which persist now. Also, we can basically see into the past. Because the light is so far away that it has taken all this to.e to reach us - So we can see that too!
@@thatguynicky1979 Crash course on The Big Bang 1) The Doppler Effect The Doppler Effect explains the shift in observed waves from a body in motion. AKA: that cool sound every kid makes to describe a race car (or train horn) as it passes you. As the race car approaches, the sound waves stack up (compresses together) and shifts the pitch higher. As it leaves, the sound waves stretchs out, shifting the pitch lower. So when it passes, you experience that shift from high to low. Getting that classic "nnnnrrrrroooo...." sound. Same thing happens to light waves. If a star or galaxy is moving away from us (Earth), the light will stretch. Shifting the color red (longer wave length). If the star or galaxy is moving towards us, the light will comrpess. Shifting the color blue (shorter wave length). Hubble - the scientists whom the famous Hubble Telescope is named after - knew this. So he started measuring the color of stars and galaxies in all directions. If he saw a red shifted universe it was expanding. A blue shifted universe meant it was shrinking. No color shift meant it was static, neither expanding nor contracting. Fully expecting to see a blue-shrinking universe (because it was assumed gravity was ultimately bringing everything together), Hubble found an overwhelming RED universe. This meant the universe was clearly expanding. And in all directions. By measuring how far away each galaxy is, and how fast they are moving away, you can "run the clock backwards" and calculate the start point. Hence the Big Bang - and age of the universe - was born out of these calculations. About 13 billion years ago. 2) Microwave Background Radiation Scientists knew that IF the universe started from and massive explosion, that it must have been insanely hot. They could then use the laws of thermodynamics to calculate a cooling rate, predicting a background temperature of the universe. Measured as microwaves radiating in the background of space. Essentially, the glowing embers of that explosion. No background radiation. No big bang. Meanwhile and completely unrelated, a pair of of radio tower engineers were trying to calibrate their new microwave communication antenna they just built. But they couldn't. No matter what they did, they always picked up a "background static" they couldn't solve. Convinced that their equipment was broken or some how flawed, they had inadvertently discovered the background radiation that the Big Bang scientists had predicted. Not only that, the measured temperature (amount of background noise / microwaves) had to to be exact. Being too hot or cold meant that the Big Bang Theory (and all the follow on models and predictions) were wrong. But the observed data MATCHED what the models predicted. Background Radiation: confirmed. Temp / age: confirmed. Big Bang: confirmed. 3) Closing Comments - The Big Bang Theory only explains what happened after the explosion. It does not offer an explanation to what was before it, or why it happened. So try not to confuse those topics with the actual theory. - The red shift universe was not only found to be expanding, but accelerating as well! This expanding force of space is yet to be explained. As a place holder, it is often referred to as dark energy. "Dark" just meaning we don't know what it is. We only see the effects of it, and know that its stronger than gravity. Otherwise the expansion rate would be slowing down - but it's not.
@@SlavaPunta that was a well written response, which must've taken you some time, thank you for your thoughtfulness. Only problem is, there was no Big Bang. Now before you ask me for an alternative explanation of how the known universe got here, just know that I don't have one. But that's fine. We humans don't need to know this answer yet. We hardly know what's beneath our oceans, let alone what's deep underground, and this is right here where we live... Philosophically speaking, we're not smart enough to ask the correct questions yet, so it's rather unproductive to base much of our science on such futile endeavors. Sure we can try, we can theorize and speculate for many a millennia, but it has yet to bring us closer to understanding. So at this point I would assume that many reading this will have just rolled their eyes and sighed. "We're not any closer to understanding the universe after hundreds of years of concerted scientific effort?", bullocks you say! And yet regardless of how scientific you claim humans of today to be, my comment still stands. Red shift, blue shift, audible doppler effect, sure this stuff is legitimate scientific knowledge. But saying we can use these to reverse engineer the infinite universe is a serious stretch. Sure there are many other methods involved with the theory you mentioned, but for simplicity and time, that's all I felt was worth mentioning for this point. Mainstream science is a funny thing. On one hand you have scientists by trade who are focused on making scientific breakthroughs, on the other hand you have scientists who are just trying to have a stable career, both are motivated by things other than science. People gotta eat and take care of themselves, so I say this without malice, but, there are some seriously detrimental results that come when "scientists" stroke off their egos and/or are more motivated by money than of science. The majority of scientists these days are funded by political organizations and corporations to lend credence to whatever propaganda or sales pitch they are peddling. Want to prove science that isn't actual science? Fund a study. But only fund it when the results fit your agenda. Man, these scientists have a hard job. Anyway. I refute all claims to a Big Bang theory. Space is the final fronteer, until scientists can properly explain gravity (not describe it), I'm gonna have to call bullshit to just about all the claims of astronomical science, or rather, pseudoscience.
I think the explanation Joe needed is that the universe is actually 3 dimensional and does have infinite length, width, depth but what physicists are trying to understand is if space itself has curvature, which is impossible to imagine 3 dimensionally, so the example of a flat table is used which eliminates the "depth" joe is concerned about. If "depth" were detected in the table example then it would prove that space is actually not "flat" and that space is contoured in some way similarly if the flat table was actually warped.
The universe is flat much like the surface of a balloon. Yes, if you zoom in enough there is noticeable height difference in the way we imagine 3D space but as a whole it is a flat surface which expands the same as a balloon would. It just gets considerably more confusing once you start to consider the time it takes light to reach us and how we are seeing it as it was in the past or the fabric of space time that is altered by mass.
Exactly right. Here Dr. Cox was probably not in his best shape. Because explaining a flat and positively curved universe to Joe Rogan is easy, as even an ignorant as I am can understand those. Flat is you have x, y, and z like you learn at school, and it is infinite. Positively curved space means it bends on itself in a colloquial sense so it is closed: if you go constantly in one direction you return the point where you started. The hard one to explain is the negatively curved one. That, you really need geometry to understand. Yes you can say the angles of a triangle are less then 180 degrees but it is weird because it is still infinite but in a different way...
I think the point was that the universe (space is a component within the universe) is in fact curved, however the sheer unfathomable the size of the universe makes that difficult to perceive. Much like it is difficult to perceive the earth as round when at our feet it certainly appears flat, it only becomes evident that it is round when you zoom way out into space and can see the entirety of it. We have that ability to view earth from space to prove it is round, however you could also prove it if you sailed around the world from one point and ended up back at the same point without falling off the edge. Since the universe is way too large for us to zoom out and see, the only way to define its shape is by trying to essentially measure that shape by walking the light back through the universe to its origin and determine things that may have distorted it which would indicate a shape. Currently what is observable to us is much like the ground at our feet, and appears flat, when in fact it may be curved.
I think people need to look at the black hole model on interstellar or the wormhole (not that the wormhole model is necessarily correct) to get an idea of what’s trying to be said, it’s the closest visual representation.
