The Bubbleologist - The Code - Episode 2 - BBC Two 

You want to spend your life studying bubbles? It's a cool video, but you'd get bored of bubbles after a few years ;)

hows your maths?

@@fosheimdet, I can understand why one would assume that but somehow that has not been the case for me.

​@@bobloblaw418oh no... it's worse than I thought isn't it...

I love when that happens. That's how real discoveries are made, you have a scientific mind. One time I was just thinking about a rope, and how you are seemingly never able to pull it perfectly taught. I wondered how much force would be required to pull a rope completely taught. The answer, as it turns out, is *infinite* force. As the sag in the rope gets smaller, the force required to make it taughter becomes exponentially higher, until it literally becomes infinite. It is impossible to pull a rope completely taught.

a very small fog machine that turns pure glycerin into a fog or vapor

no. Soap films always join three walls along an edge and four edges meet at each vertex. Looking at a picture of a star tetrahedron I see that they have both three-way and four-way junctions of the edges and that's a problem. Oddly, it is the four-way junctions that are the problem. When I do the Bubble Cube or tetrahedron or dodecahedron I am able to accomplish them even though they have three-way corners ... because ... the fourth edge is one that meets that corner from OUTSIDE cluster and is not a part of the named figure itself. For that reason, I cannot make an Octahedron or Icosahedron with bubbles alone ... and ... I cannot make a star tetrahedron for the same reason.

nerd

@@ethancantes-freeman2563 you definitely just called the bubbleologist himself a nerd and probably didn't even realize it was him. great job

Thanks @@EastPlanet

@@ethancantes-freeman2563 Ethan: calls the smart guy a nerd Also Ethan: Fractal Dome Modeling

totally see it man... wow. the creator and creation are one

I do sacred geometry art work and i see faces all the time. To damn creepy

pareidolia

nobody said the bubble is deciding what shape it wants to be? but there is a mark of intelligence behind the consistent workings of number, to deny that is being a reductionist