Good man, like 40% of the other commenters on his videos like to pretend they're 200 IQ+ astrophysicists because they thought of something vaguely resembling a viable theory.
This might be my first RU-vid comment, couldn't resist - I literally laughed out loud when you stopped and looked up the definition for inflammable. Long time watcher - keep up the GREAT work my man. Good stuff.
Blasar/Blazar: leave it to scientists to look at a Quasar and say, "You know what? We need a new name for this angle." "Won't that be confusing?" "Yes."
@@joescott it's the same with me. I had to wrap my head around the fact that pulsars and magnetars are essentially all sub-catagories of neutron stars.
I still have my great grandfather's dictionary, which defines "computer" as "a person who does computations" and "calculator" as "a person who does calculations".
That's actually pretty cool. I love the weirdness of old reference books, where the best knowledge of their time is confidently delivered in a way that seems so under a rock now. Someone once gave me a university level astronomy book (perfectly titled, "Astronomy") that, in its chapter concerning the moon, describes how "if humans should one day visit the moon, they would likely find.." and so fourth. It also refers to the possibility of putting telescopes in space to avoid the interferences of Earth's atmosphere. Another interesting one, a friend of mine has a history book printed in the later 20's, and it refers to WWI in a chapter titled "The Great War".
Thank you for informing us of and remembering Henrietta Swan Leavitt. I'd never heard of her prior to watching your video. Her's was a massive contribution to astronomy.
That's because the English language isn't actually a full language. It's three smaller languages standing on each other's shoulders wearing a trench coat and large hat.
Flammable is actually the weird one. You typically don't suffix a noun with "able" because ability/inability as a concept refers to an action. The correct verb for "to set on fire" is inflame, not flame. So the ability to set on fire would be inflamable. The word "flamable" probably came into more common usage than the more gramatically correct inflamable simply for clarity so as to avoid the misinterpretation of the "in" as a negating prefix.
@@lukekubat3882 What about the word "enflame"? Allegedly "inflame" is an alternative version - completely pointless, if you ask me, and only creates this confusion. Stick to enflame, flame, enflammable, flammable and then "inflammable" makes sense - to a lay person like me.
@@marshad82 Enflame is the lesser common of the more popular term inflame. No one uses enflame anymore, in fact, spell check will correct it to inflame for you, because it is not used by 99% of the population of English speakers. Use inflame, stay up to date. Edit: Enflame is the Middle English era of the spelling.
My family owned a Quasar back in the late 60's and early 70's. We kept it in our living room. We would all gather around it at night and stare at it for hours. We finally had to get rid of it when it grew too dim to see.
GOTTA love this guy: he presents good, useful and SOLIDLY RELIABLE information on scientific topics as well as quirky, exceptionally well-delivered humor such as the incendiary joke at the beginning of this edition of his deservedly popular RU-vid channel. If you are reading this and haven't subscribed yet, PLEASE do it right away, and spread the word!! This gem of a channel deserves all the attention possible.
Thank you Joe. Im putting my Golden Retriever of 14 years down today and have been an absolute wreck. Your videos always make me feel better with my mental health problems and all. Your jokes and your way of speaking ALWAYS cheers me up. Even though this day sucks your videos always make it better. So again, THANK YOU!
You have a knack for making what would be almost impossible to understand Concepts, easily understandable. Even though as you admit, most of the time, it's just a quick dip into the rabbit hole. But your research, and your delivery, make this an incredibly enjoyable Channel. Not to mention, I learn something new every time I watch your vids. Nice work. Keep it coming.
After binge watching for so long, I can say that I have never wanted something from anyone as I want videos from you. Thank you so much for your hard work!
:) Can't wait for people to ask how I left a Comment a day before it came out... Its Patreon! Fokes! GIve Joe $1 and he will Let you see stuff Early. ... Oh yea Love the vid Joe, As always.
@@joescott Oh sure... make it sound SO easy to be superior! It's very difficult being superior... like I have to decide exactly how high I should snub my nose and all. That takes time and effort.
I usually never watch videos on outer space, yours or other people's. I've been watching your videos so long, though, I've begun watching all of them. Even though some of the stuff doesn't interest me. You make it so entertaining and easy to understand, I'm really excited about space! Keep up the good work!
Great stuff as always Joe, thank you! A new model suggested that galaxies are actually much much bigger than we thought and the Milky Way and Andromeda already started to collide (at least their halos)!
Thanks for sharing! It’s awesome how you can take a physics/science subject which are something equivalent to, “The Rosetta Stone” and explain in hoi polloi terms that makes it understandable, fun while being educational. Much love and hugs from a fan in Montana. ✨💖✨
Maybe you should do a video on how soon we need escape the grasp of our own milky way to avoid the Andromeda collision based on what top speed we can reach during our attempt to escape the pending collision
great video! this is my area of research, classificstiioon of host galaxies of high red shift quasars, i also work a lot with their local cousins called seryfert I galaxies
at that point in our tech development, we might be beings of pure energy ourselves. It might then seem awfully silly to shuffle around that much matter to do... what? Make another quasar?
Probably my favorite exchange from Archer: Malory: ... and I'm sure I don't need to remind you that we haven't gotten one of these jobs since your Uffizi fiasco. Archer: And yet, you always do. Malory: Because you learned nothing from it. Archer: I learned that flammable and inflammable mean the same thing.
This was a really informative one, Joe - dense, but still your usual comic levity to keep it from being overwhelming. Nice job! Quasars huh? Nutty stuff.
Another fantastic skit; I'm so glad you're continuing to do them Also, Matt has the greatest jawline in Astrophysics. Those eyebrows are awesome, but those lines could cut diamonds
.............I was LITERALLY thinking about this very thing yesterday.... like this EXACT thought pattern.... regarding the EXACT word "Incredible" too...... we must be connected Joe.. we must be one....
Dude, it happens often that I have at least one chuckle during your videos. But this inflammable thing, I caught myself laughing throughout the day. Awesome work, keep it up!
And you wondered why older people said the language was debased. Every adjective has gone the same way. Fifteen years ago I remember seeing a report that mentioned "massive parachutes"! Sigh.
JS, Amazing stuff! Hyperintersting as usual. Now I have only one question. Where did you get that picture of the cat strutting like that? That's hysterical! All good wishes. Don't ever Stop!
I just came here after watching a clip from a BBC programme, Qi, where they talked about monopsony, an orphaned negative, where the opposite of a word is never used, like effable vs ineffable, incessant vs cessant, and more importantly, flammable and inflammable now mean the same thing. The opposite of that is nonflammable.
The Crash Course in Astronomy series on RU-vid from PBS is fantastic. Nice shout out there. Great for those who want more depth beyond the usual 'basics' stuff that you usually get on like, TV shows and shit, but is explained super well so as to not be over your head(too much). The host is also amazing.
Great video! As usual... Just thought I'd throw some ideas at you that I think would be really interesting to see: 1) Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology(CCC) 2) Lee Smolin's Cosmic Natural Selection(CNS) (The implications of that one just blew my mind😂.)
I always recommend you Joe on Facebook. "If you like RU-vid, Science and other interesting wonders of the world we share, it is so important that you are aware of Joe Scott. He makes learning fun and you get to show off your smartass self to all your jealous friends. If you think LSD is too dangerous to try, this video will BLOW your mind just as good."
Idk if joe will see this but....JOE I LIVE IN DENTON TEXAS, you have made a huge impact in my life and when I saw you lived in the Dallas Fort Worth area my mind melted.
Quasars are just 'active nuclei galaxies' and depending on what plane it spins and what direction we are looking at it, as to what we labelled it in the past.
You kinda break my brain with nearly every video (I'm not exactly a science expert!) but every video is just so interesting! I especially like the thought of 'Milkdromeda', just the fact that two things so amazingly huge could actually collide and form this mega-super-huge thing... It's pretty cool to think about.
If you have to return something, it requires you to turn it first? A career will tire you, at the end of your career you retire? If you plug something in, do you ceptacle into the receptacle? If a firecracker first detonate, is it tonate? Etc...
In the 80's, I had a chance to meet Maarten Schmidt. He dropped by a biology lab I worked in to visit his daughter who also worked in the lab. Dr. Schmidt was on the faculty at Cal Tech. His daughter recalled that she and her sisters used to play on the floor of the Palomar Observatory beneath the big Hale telescope during some of her dad's observing sessions.
I forget who coined the following explanation but I quite like it: "A quasar is like a toilet-roll seen side on and a blasar is like a toilet-roll seen end on. Having found out they had named the same thing twice astronomers being astronomers decided to keep both names because that isn't confusing at all." Thanks for another great video.
Anyone who enjoyed this video and/or has an interest in extragalactic astronomy MUST watch "The Violent Universe" with Carl Sagan and Robert MacNeil from 1969. It was surely the most incredible (recent) period of astronomical discovery - it was when the technological advancements reached capabilities that resulted in some seriously strange discoveries. It's the most amazing documentary; pretty much just the world's most famous astronomers collectively asking "what the bloody hell is THAT ... !?" It starts with Maarten Schmidt's discovery of quasars, but features interviews with some of the most famous names in post-WW2 astronomy like Harlow Shapley, Jan Oort, Phillip Morrison, Fred Hoyle (still sheepishly defending the steady-state theory, hehe), Frank Drake, Paul Wild ... and the list goes on, it's nuts. Easily found on RU-vid, I can't recommend it highly enough. Plus, it's a 35 year old Carl Sagan total high on the space age ... it's beautiful.
