How We Know Space is Flat | Brian Cox and Joe Rogan

[@GrimJerr]

I've seen that same look that was on Joe's face on my dog's face when I tried to explain to him that the ball rolled under the couch

[@sb4sam]

GrimJerr gold

[@reefchiefer]

Lmao

[@blaz3ofglory570]

I was slow to find this really funny...Congrats 👏

[@sportsnorth583]

rekt

[@Kojas]

Rofl

[@robertjameson2749]

Watching this in my crappy rented accomodation, observing that there's no space in my flat.

[@nghtmaresindrome]

Robert Jameson goddamn it thats pretty funny

[@robertjameson2749]

Nghtmare 👍😉

[@Nellsbells79]

Well done

[@desamster]

😂😂

[@DenKeeper]

Well done.

[@superbloodwolfmoon420]

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

[@elliottjones8354]

Literal the best take about this pod ever

[@runthenumbers9698]

common tongue? I disagree. I agree it's comprised of words... yet he still seems to be speaking in tongues

[@JustChadC]

People talk shit oh Joe for this but few people get this opportunity and also pff, wtf, are they gonna ask? “aRe YoU fRoM LdN?”

[@elliottjones8354]

@Papa Legba what?

[@elliottjones8354]

@Papa Legba so i can talk about u freely ! Thx

[@MixMasterMarx]

Big props to Joe for having conversations like this. More please.

[@MartyT]

Yeah but how thick is it..

[@gg-oo4tg]

Woah its angry ram guy hey bro big fan I'm from nz too

[@MartyT]

@@gg-oo4tg Small world bro..

[@oldbay2]

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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5uZfJZnotummtE

[@TW0man4RMY]

Like a soup can. 👊😉

[@dennisacklin3301]

150 years ago when I was a kid Jethro Tull said thick as a brick. 😶😶

[@ClintThrust-e8r]

Poor Brian. He’s on a very noble quest to educate the masses, this still does not change the fact, I have no idea what he’s talking about.

[@dylaneets9182]

Exile 1 you can’t fix stupid? 🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️

[@Luxlowe]

Exile 1 , He could rearrange those words in any order he likes and they would be just as meaningful to me.

[@mk4vws]

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!

[@kurtjohansson1265]

@@mk4vws I'm a round spacer!

[@RouskSour]

@@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.

[@woodlandwrench]

Brian gets a call at 4am: Joe: "but what's the thickness?".

[@justsomeguy6474]

Brian: You Joe

[@SlimStarCraft]

all of these jokes are funny but whats funnier is the people making them, dont even know the answer to the question themselves XD

[@woodlandwrench]

@@SlimStarCraft It's just used theoretically to describe the observed properties of space and time. The universe is multi dimensional, we physically observe it in 3 dimensions. But theories within cosmology and physics, describing the laws and properties of our universe, all seem to point toward a flat universe because it appears to follow the principles of euclidean geometry, where parallel lines never meet, and the sum of angles in a triangle is 180 degrees. This is a concept based on the curvature of space, which can be locally flat, positively curved, or negatively curved. There's a bunch of theories and observations that seem to confirm this. Like cosmic microwave background, density of matter and energy, cosmological constants, inflation theory, etc.. In summary, it's considered "flat" because it adheres to euclidean principles on a universal level.

[@justsomeguy6474]

@@SlimStarCraft What woodlandwrench said.

[@robturner225]

@@woodlandwrench​​⁠I understand what you’re saying, but I think you were showing off a bit by using the word ‘Euclidean’ twice! 😂

[@ezerasurfr]

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."

[@itsmrme4951]

Na u troll

[@stevenswitzer5154]

Ahhh. Ye old "appeal to authority" fallacy...

[@ezerasurfr]

@@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.

[@bladehea]

It wasnt Einstein who said It was flat but is theory is right If the universe is flat

[@SevSeries-fi5ey]

@@ezerasurfrAppeal to authority of a body of work is no better. People want an explanation.

[@many6747]

The guy's too smart to understand what Joe is asking.

[@TimpossibleOne]

Derique M. Joe is too dumb to understand that he answered his question

[@many6747]

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.

[@xMrJanuaryx]

@@many6747 It's not Brian's fault Joe doesn't listen. He explained in plain English that he was talking about a SLICE of the the universe.

[@many6747]

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.

[@xMrJanuaryx]

@@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.

[@AslanW]

Man, flat earthers had it all wrong, it's SPACE that's flat!

[@fpsserbia6570]

😂😂 they were going in the right direction at least

[@captainbaseballbatboy7915]

Lol

[@keithnicholas]

no! what we can see is flat....his point was about why we think the universe is much bigger than what we can see

[@AslanW]

@@keithnicholas Whoosh

[@r0cknr0ll3r]

Flat spacers rejoice

[@denforcer8874]

I no longer understand what “flat” is or means.

[@davekeith7504]

You'll go far.

[@denforcer8874]

@@davekeith7504 so will you with that sense of humor

[@srikanthsundaram3281]

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.

[@ezchoice28]

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.

[@BreezyFknDoesIt]

@@ezchoice28 thank you I actually understand now 👌

[@squall86drk]

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.

[@urbugnmetoday3183]

He’s just talking theory…all he knows

[@doodoogtube]

For years no one has ever came close to explaining how the universe is flat but you my friend have explained it better than anyone so far. I think using the term "flat" is a horrible way of explaining the universe but your explanation has reminded me of the video explanations I've seen in the past on this subject so kudos to you my friend. Thank you!🫡👍🏾👍🏾

[@aoshot]

89 missed calls from Eddie Bravo

[@Hugo-py2ce]

Hahahaha

[@bobafeet1234]

Funny! I imagine Eddie would cut off Brian to tell him that the Earth was flat too! :)

[@ballsislife6018]

Comments like these is why I’m addicting to the internet not because of other issues

[@zencomeseasy602]

I'm laughing so hard I have tears in my eyes

[@tobyhutchison536]

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@sentientmeat8975]

Flat earthers everywhere. “Well we knew something was flat.”

[@1981peacemaker]

Their brains are flat 🧠 😀

[@BrotherIntel]

Sentient Meat 😂😂

[@IkenFister]

@JC Denton it simply suggests but does not prove. It is simply research.

[@sentientmeat8975]

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. 😂😂😂

[@sentientmeat8975]

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.

[@obsidianman50]

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

[@satnamsingh9604]

Bro I didn't read your comment after the 2nd line as I was feeling lazy

[@markblack9520]

Nerd

[@obsidianman50]

@@markblack9520 unintelligent loser

[@ezrahitee]

this helped a lot lol, thank you.

[@TrishCanyon8]

So both examples further suggest the flatness.

[@egreaperv4794]

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

[@hoyit]

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.

[@bosoxfan2525]

Even if it was the 99th time to the same person, which would be me.

[@mapsgoonthewall5396]

He's one of those rare people who just enjoy politely helping other people understand something.

[@chrismonks592]

He got mad at a climate change denier once. But that is the only time I have seen him get mad

[@Spladoinkal]

In fact you can tell he's super excited to talk about it. He always smiles when talking about science.

[@bobinthewest8559]

He has probably gotten quite “used to” people being completely incapable of understanding what seems to himself to be so “simple”.

[@thaliuswarborn1148]

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.

[@amitbidaye7855]

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.

[@1pcfred]

When the conversation literally goes a billion light years over your head.

[@1pcfred]

@@scottybrav so I heard. I could be lying down though. In which case it is entirely possible with a flat Universe.

[@joshuapowers4623]

If I understand him correctly, what Joe didn't understand is that he wasn't saying space is flat. He was saying space is far bigger than we can tell, because just like your neighborhood on earth looks flat, so does what we look at in space.

[@justice7788]

I know less after watching this

[@joshlink2129]

I'm not alone

[@ghamal]

@L1qu1d S1lenc3r Your explanation is bad, your video is bad, and you should feel bad. You're* welcome.

[@ThomasDoubting5]

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.

[@ric84]

@@ThomasDoubting5 We'd still be busy throwing rocks at our food if everyone lived like that.

[@user-iu3kv2bo4h]

@@ric84 great response

[@OneManTrail]

Whenever I see Brian Cox, he looks like he’s 14 and 40 at the same time.

[@carlospowell7672]

One Man Trail it’s the trim.

[@Johnwillbegone]

and female

[@rileykierath4676]

also hes 51 so either way hes winning

[@brillsmith2207]

white dont crack

[@mccauleymccranie3752]

It's the tiny sleeves

[@gardensoundrecords3598]

"The trick is to think in 2D" "Yeah but what about the height and the width tho?"

[@azizmesned4537]

The only 2D i fuck with is 2D waifus

[@neonplay786]

@@azizmesned4537 what about the dude from Gorillaz?

[@joshua7015]

@@azizmesned4537 eww

[@SamJ_1980]

Just goes to show Joe has no clue what he's trying to say...

[@Fabian6980]

Space is flat not the things in it space is like an never ending wall basically never ending in both height and length

[@ToddKepus]

I can listen to Brian 24/7 on this stuff.

[@scottylafuegofuentez5931]

Walks into counselors office: “yea I’d like to drop this class please”

[@jccc4301]

Hahahaha

[@scottylafuegofuentez5931]

@WHOisMUSICgod . Com 😂🤣😂😂

[@WAKEUPARTIST]

Joe: "Yeah, but how can that be possible?" Brian: "The trick is to imagine a color you've never seen before, but do it without thinking."

[@jiffylou98]

I’m going to steal this whether or not it’s okay with you

[@jordanmcintosh5451]

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.

[@stevenrogers9263]

That was good right there😆

[@olivia_kinney]

@@jordanmcintosh5451 can you tell me what it’s called ? i’m interested

[@jordanmcintosh5451]

@@olivia_kinney YInMn. It's pretty af imo.

[@mariasederes6236]

I love him, I have no idea what he’s talking about but I love him

[@DB-Slugz]

Me too 😂 shits way over my head

[@bigcountry5977]

He can't help but Smile. He gets paid Big Money and he doesn't know what he is talking about either. Lol.

[@nunocoelho8979]

Me to...the only slice I know is white bred..lol

[@OculusQuestFun]

Right? Lol.

[@lockheed67]

I actually understood what he said

[@nills2gills811]

I’ve been designing a house and I realized you can overlay the front view, top view and side view on one sheet of paper, let’s say you draw the front view in blue, top view in red, and side view in green. The overlapping different colors convey different spatial dimensions all on a similar flat plane and all necessary dimensions of the house on one sheet.

[@thegamersbucketlist7927]

Joe's confusion about the flat space theory was perfectly in sync with mine through this entire clip :)

[@RichMitch]

@Cody Waggener idiots, the pair of you. Go to your rooms.

[@Dr.Rosenbaum]

Fizz ex r tuff

[@jamesolivito4374]

Flat space is as stupid as flat earth .

[@Fermion.]

@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.

[@aaronroark4256]

@@Fermion. sorry, bur theory and hypothesis are literally synonomous with each other. What you're referring to is called a law. Like newton's law.

[@Rocco_Dimeo]

Legend has it Joe is still asking him what the height and the length is....

[@argentinodelavillacomerata2399]

Hilarious! He started throwing hand gestures hoping that it bridged the huge gap in intellectual ability between the two.

[@btc1337]

yea like he got an answer to that yeah its 2trillion x 4trillion mate 🤣🤣🤣

[@hermanfourie66]

I, still, don't quite understand what "flat" means in this context; do you?

[@HydraulicDesign]

@@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...

[@hermanfourie66]

@@HydraulicDesign Ohhhh, ok. That makes sense; thank you very much!

[@willgreene6856]

Please don't tell Eddie Bravo the universe is flat..

[@donniejohnston9771]

He was hiding under the table

[@dyslexiusmaximus]

don't be stupid, Eddie thinks space is a conspiracy.

[@BGIANAKy]

Everything in Eddie’s life is flat

[@wintertarzanjagrup2527]

Is Eddie Bravo , Johnny Bravo's brother ?

[@Knaeben]

His ego is so big it warps all the space around it

[@MagisterMilitumBelisarius]

We're basically specks of dust so profoundly small that we can never hope to see even the shape of the universe in its entirety. We're capable of only seeing perhaps its smallest peripheries. Watching this high is such a vibe

[@mubinjonzokirov7832]

Flat Earthers be like: Space is round!

[@AK-de7jn]

Ahahahaha

[@john-paulhunt9380]

NEC X and VACO Partner on AI, Machine Learning Solution

[@hugosadhus]

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.

[@hugosadhus]

@@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.

[@thomasjuniardi3559]

From the certain point of view is true, depends on you pictured it 3D or 2D 😁

[@waynedurning8717]

Boy this guy’s right on the verge of actually explaining what the hell he’s talking about.

[@azynkron]

I doubt you'd understand it even if he explained it to you like you were a 3-year old.

[@waynedurning8717]

BadTrip ok Sheldon thanks for the input.

[@waynedurning8717]

My friends have a sense of humor. Or at least try to understand it.

[@pseudophp]

@@azynkron lmfao you big microbrained babt

[@pseudophp]

Baby*

[@christiandiaz]

Props to Joe Rogan for asking the questions us stupid people are too afraid to ask 😌

[@shipshrekt2156]

Me a stupid person,*

[@Cr1m1nalspeed_1]

You’re stupid not me I have more questions that this guy probably will be able to answer just as much as a person that believes in god could answer

[@iscato74]

You made me laugh

[@jaimep456]

Lol he never got an answer he understood

[@hypno5690]

Joes not the brightest bulb come on now..

[@frankcasarelli9140]

I’m so thankful Joe brings me Brian Cox and Joey Diaz. The paradox here is I enjoy both equally.

[@christopherd.0356]

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".

[@ThePedroRobalo]

Thank you, can you point me to some articles, books or videos on this?

[@ubayyd]

Thank you so much, it made sense after I read this.

[@joecedars4463]

Thank you! That makes sense. I was struggling with the concept.

[@ianbowden1807]

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

[@-syphec-3600]

ok thanks for saying nothing. haha event horizon Schwarzschild radius

[@ratsc7595]

Bro my mind is about to explode with this guy lol

[@ftlpunk]

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.

[@ratsc7595]

ftlpunk 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯

[@ByMnnT]

@@ftlpunk fucking hell dude.

[@zx208]

@@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

[@alexanderfrennett2439]

@@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)?

[@143ba]

i love the way brian smiles when he talks about what he loves

[@bengrizzlyadams6187]

He didn't mention Uranus today though.

[@boyanbo6418]

He is absolutely loving it. I thought I was the only one who noticed. This is true happiness.

[@philosophyforum4668]

Three dimensions of flat space means that if something travelled in one direction really fast for a really long amount of time it would continue alway to get farther away. Three dimensions of curved space means that it would come back and hit you in the back-side.

[@ngallardo1994]

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

[@mao7]

Suddenly everything is clear. Thank you sir

[@rnjesus9950]

Suddenly I feel less stupid.

[@mikejo8083]

So what’s above us... then what’s below??...

[@dumbfk]

what the fuck are any of you talking about

[@billyumbraskey8135]

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.

[@mieguistumas]

"Forget 3dimensions, we can think about space as 2 dimensional" "Yeah, but what is the height?"

[@GradyRho92]

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.

[@Macheako]

bro, have you already missed the first step? FORGET 3 dimensions.....like....just forgeddabout em....and dont ever look back

[@nuntana2]

😂😂😂

[@Gcammo]

Nuby29 cos your a smart ass?

[@johndoesson]

@@oliverlarsen6355 whats your point?

[@savannahjackson8513]

I bet it feels the same to Brian Cox when he speaks to us, as it does when I speak to my cat.

[@rodgerq]

I hold no disdain for Brian. My cats on the other hand, I'm not so sure of their opinion of me.

[@richardgratton7557]

Yeah, but at least your cat is able to lick his own crotch!😂

[@casey3635]

Dude

[@matterridge9222]

Fuck thats how I feel In the morning with everyone sometimes throughout the day also.

[@thurguud]

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

[@turnupthesun81]

Listening to this guy makes me realize I made the right choice by majoring in History in college. You really have to have a passion to understand this stuff.

[@MauricioMartinez0707]

This is in an alternate universe, when the Beatles got physics PhD's instead of doing music

[@Goglerom]

Brain cox did do music

[@harryheist]

😂

[@MauricioMartinez0707]

@Notsopro Gaming 25

[@stevenjenkins3882]

@Notsopro Gaming I'm 44

[@willdwyer6782]

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.

[@richardhayes373]

Earth is flat=stupid Universe is flat=genius

[@richardhayes373]

@PL Lyons Dude no you are dumb, everything in the universe is flat but the earth is round. You need to listen better lol

[@turtlesquad5931]

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.

[@richardhayes373]

@@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.

[@Seanne411]

@@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.

[@richardhayes373]

@@Seanne411 NASA

[@AlexXanderMarketing]

Joe “I just wanna know how thick the damn table is” Rogan

[@heliotropezzz333]

Isn't the answer that nobody knows that, or do they?

[@srikanthsundaram3281]

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.

[@ajjackson1526]

2xUniverse=Tube

[@Goatlinton]

@@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.

[@prissymommylife6402]

hh hh No But How Do You Know That?! Unrealistic. Nice Pacifier But Unrealistic.

[@jamess3241]

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

[@jamess3241]

Cracks***

[@remystern7818]

The title of the video should be “Brian Cox try’s to explain something none of us will understand”

[@gmee123]

I thought it was just me lol I get this gist of it, but man, most of it's way over my head

[@CranyumHipHop]

It’s not over your head it’s just nonsense

[@GreasyWop]

Bc he doesn’t even know what he’s talking about

[@MalcolmTexxx]

He didn't even understand it.

[@MalcolmTexxx]

@@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.

[@penthief83]

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

[@natashagoode501]

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.....?

[@penthief83]

@@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.

[@natashagoode501]

@@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. :)

[@penthief83]

@@natashagoode501 cool. yea, cox was talking about the whole universe that we can observe. with Hubble and other observation labs.

[@neosomaliana]

This comment needs to be pinned bc it cleared up what Cox was trying to explain

[@AlexWallaceAudio]

Joe: “Sure, but could a brown bear still defeat a gorilla in zero gravity?”

[@oldmusician5236]

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]

@@oldmusician5236 but what if the gorilla knows Judo?

[@oldmusician5236]

@@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]

@@oldmusician5236 lol! Good to know thanks 😊

[@oldmusician5236]

@@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.

[@genebaker6964]

I can't help but think in 5 years somebody is going to be explaining why we use to think space is flat.

[@shawnchaudry2126]

Joe: “ok so we measure light from the Big Bang ...but what is the height?”

[@Google_Does_Evil_Now]

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?

[@oligoyoutube]

T A exactly! the perfect questions

[@SymphonicHarmony]

@@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.

[@minhfam]

@@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.

[@Google_Does_Evil_Now]

@@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.

[@TheMboe76]

Brian Cox searching his vocabulary trying to find words us "normal" humans would understand.... LOL

[@johnjohn-cs9eu]

Don't put yourself down. I'm sure you or anyone could come up with a more convincing fantasy on LSD too

[@fabianliebregts1600]

John Kean great comment

[@johnjohn-cs9eu]

@@fabianliebregts1600 Thanx

[@christopherkearney3869]

You simp

[@rmac2786]

John Kean but I smoked weed once back in the day. You’re telling me that’s not enough?! Do you have any mother

[@jonathandorozowsky4005]

Tried to listen to this in the background. Had to drop everything I was doing and just stare before it was over.

[@jondoe8o]

Jonathan Dorozowsky it’s not helping when you didn’t hear the question. He has a problem to give more examples for what he is describing

[@willbrink]

I understand what Joe is trying to get at.

[@johngrimm1103]

I love this guys explanation, and tnks Joe for not interrupting it. :)

[@flashyshoes9426]

I would love to see Joe's expression, on a PIP, as he's hearing this explanation!

[@DylanKurbel]

Flat Earthers: “Earth is flat” Everyone: “no” This guy: “Space is flat” Joe: “woah”

[@jacobfromallstate4963]

Flat earthers: dropped out in the 8th grade. KZbin 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.

[@DylanKurbel]

@@jacobfromallstate4963 he explains it’s not exactly “flat” but can be measured as flat by our technical perception of it. Anyway, it’s a joke!

[@jacobfromallstate4963]

@@DylanKurbel I know, I'm just messing around. I know you're not defending flat earthers or anything LOL

[@peaceonearth351]

I don't think Brian is right. There is a new theory that the universe is like a 3D donut. In the middle would be a super Black Hole.

[@kpkp7777]

@@peaceonearth351 oh.....

[@Close.Quarters.Ramen.]

I swear this guy is exactly what Rodney Mullen would look, and act like if he never got into skateboarding.

[@tslaza]

Fantastic Comment.. Rodney Mullen is also a GENIUS and they do look alike!

[@PretENDOgolf]

Exactly my thoughts

[@Bunke09]

"And I think to my self ....... what a flat universe." Brian gets the words changed for his Plan B session.

[@SayornSous]

Hah

[@detroitfettyghost8492]

It so does look like Rodney! Just as nice too lol

[@rodneyjewett5248]

Brian always has that wry smile that says you have no idea what I"m saying, but if you keep listening, maybe!

[@Eusantdac]

I never learned Korean but if someone spoke Korean to me, I would probably understand more than what this guy is sayin' lol

[@finalcam1740]

Because he isn't saying anything.

[@vitorfernandes651]

I don’t get what’s so hard to understand. The guy was very on point and makes a lot of sense.

[@finalcam1740]

@@vitorfernandes651 I understand exactly what he's saying. Nothing.

[@tn15_]

@@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.

[@finalcam1740]

@@tn15_ its actually quite the opposite. To feel intelligent you choose to believe there is any substance to this clip.

[@SOCRayC]

I just love when someone explains something so complicated in such a simple way. Is just fucking perfect.

[@XEddieX24]

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

[@Droogie128]

@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.

[@randomeventstv]

It's called bs

[@ironcityblue]

Flat earthers: the world is flat. Brian Cox: hold my juice box.

[@jadenburdick5743]

Bruh🤣🤣

[@neecowildlife5593]

Earth can’t be flat because the moon,stars , sun is not flat ,but the universe is flat tho because we measured it 🤥😭😂😂😂

[@beetlejuice4357]

@@neecowildlife5593 That makes no sense.

[@cgordon3]

Basically, if space is curved, its on a scale that we cant see even at 13.8 Billion light years out. That is an insane thought.

[@cccards5102]

Brian Cox stated something I've always had a hard time picturing/understanding. He said the universe is continuously expanding - which I don't struggle with. Where I struggle is this: What is the universe expanding into and what is in that 'space?' The best I can make my tiny mind comprehend is that outside of the expanding universe is simply empty space, but it's still pretty impossible to comprehend infinite space.

[@sexyalien806]

Watch videos about space while u high on acid or weed. Best feeling ever and trippy af.

[@ChrisNotTheKing]

As far as I understand, relativity indicates that instead of just viewing space as some three dimensions we observe and time is something that just happens, we need to model spacetime together as a geodesic such that there is no 3d "outside" on the scale of the universe. Time from the big bang contains space limited by the total mass and energy from the beginning. How that pans out leads to a whole bunch of different (untestable) views. Roger Penrose (recent Nobel Prize) has an interesting theory that expansion happens in cycles where a fully expanded cold universe through entropy becomes quite even... just like at the beginning of the big bang so inflation is analogous to expansion. Just an example of the crazy big thinking part of theoretical physics. Infinite multiverses? Nobody knows.

[@bobinthewest8559]

This is just one of the problems that gives rise to many of the “multiverse” theories... Think of the universe as one of the bubbles in a bubble bath.

[@THIS---GUY]

There's 3d physical space and relative time but also spacetime that encompasses both distance and time. Human mind can conceptualize 3d space that were are present within but not the concept of space-time over billions of light years.. 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 the human mind conceptualizes 3d space but as a whole it is a flat surface expanding as a balloon would as it takes on air inside. If you imagine galaxies as points drawn on the surface they can be visualized as expanding away from each other as the balloon gets bigger. These points become father away in terms of distance and also time as the universe expands. This distance also expands faster than light can travel (this is why the universe of 13.8 billion years in age but The proper distance-the distance as would be measured at a specific time, including the present-between Earth and the edge of the observable universe is 46 billion light-years) there are just some of the many factors to conceptualize which make space-time so confusing to human mind.. Then you start to think about how mass affects the "fabric" of space time and it easily becomes a substantial mental exercise to conceptualize

[@drzoidberg1]

There is also the constraint of 3 dimensional thinking and if there is a 4th dimension we can not conceptualize it. In short hand, It's analogous to something that lives in 2D space that cannot conceptualize 3D space.

[@ryankramer8082]

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.

[@homebrewinstrumentals7700]

Hmmm but you can't turn around to face the opposite direction when looking st a table and see more table in the opposite direction

[@hearmehmm797]

@@homebrewinstrumentals7700 it does if you are at the centre of the table. (No I'm not saying earth is the centre)

[@homebrewinstrumentals7700]

@@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.

[@homebrewinstrumentals7700]

@@hearmehmm797 in fact, another guy put a good point forward "brian is too smart to know what joe is asking"

[@hearmehmm797]

@@homebrewinstrumentals7700 Haha very true

[@electric10101]

I'm starting to think the universe is logically impossible.

[@jeruakel]

BRUH NO CAP. How is this not the most important topic in schools?

[@MustObeyTheRules]

Based on our experience on earth in our tiny little isolated bubble, it’s hard to comprehend.

[@johnjohn-cs9eu]

@@MustObeyTheRules Just dont be so gullible is all

[@johnjohn-cs9eu]

@@jeruakel Because surreality only taught as an art genre not a science one

[@thelastpigeon8098]

John Kean what are you talking bout?

[@thetruthoutside8423]

He was given a fantastic explanation 👏 as always I have learned a lots from his explanation.

[@J24Richie25]

Joe Rogan: “Ok so what do you mean by flat?” Brian Cox: “well another example could be your head”

[@lukedaymusic4585]

Flatheads!!

[@thewolfpack8802]

Savage🙄🙄🙄🙄

[@TigerTzu]

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]

[@brentonjones2623]

I appreciate Joe trying to have smart amazing people on but dude gets so lost and just ruins like 30 minutes at a time of conversation lol

[@raijinmeister]

It's flat on the larger scale but locally around massive objects, it gets curved. To simplify.

[@Zen-t2j]

@@raijinmeister this is a better explanation in only two sentences. Brian should've mentioned gravity and space bending

[@Argoon1981]

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.

[@Argoon1981]

@@raijinmeister Yes true, specially near huge black holes. And massive galaxies clusters.

[@motofreak2772]

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.

[@THIS---GUY]

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.

[@alessandrozigliani2615]

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...

[@jamalginsburghasidichomebo6009]

Idk wtf you just said lil kid.... but you special.

[@diehardtv8079]

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.

[@wizzenberry]

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.

[@Jadix]

He sounds just like my professor, completely incapable of answering a simple question.

[@ladyslovelucas82]

Joe went quiet. You know he’s lost 😂

[@landonic81]

He's just running scenarios in his head of how he can insert the topic of DMT into the conversation

[@xpndblhero5170]

Brian Cox is one of my favorite physicists.... His way of describing stuff is intuitive and easy to translate to others that don't understand physics.

[@starty8814]

I saw him speak in person once. If you ever get the chance I would recommend going

[@xpndblhero5170]

@@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

[@robe2504]

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]

Where’s that put you Rob. After all you came here to watch it at your own free will. Just being real.

[@robe2504]

@@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.

[@mubasshirkhan8231]

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.

[@JokerScribe]

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.

[@JDG.RealEstate]

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?

[@johannsebastianbach3411]

@@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 😂

[@Mussa.H]

@@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

[@davidhouseman4328]

@@Mussa.H No, its not that but paper works quite well. You can lay a piece of paper flat, or you can bend it in a curve. Now add extra sheets and they are still flat or curved. To expand to the universe you have such massive number of sheets that its just paper in all directions but the individual sheets can still be curved or flat.

[@patrickbrady447]

Thank God for people like Brian Cox, he can understand and explain what is but a mistry to so many of us.

[@THEADAMCLASSIC]

Mystery *

[@macman975]

​@@THEADAMCLASSIC It's a mystery to me why clowns go out of their way to correct the spelling of a stranger on the Internet.

[@THEADAMCLASSIC]

@macman975 Not all heroes wear capes, my dude.

[@adamrspears1981]

I'm starting a Round Universe Society. Are you a Round Universer?

[@lazarusstuber6133]

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.

[@captainalie9264]

aw hell yeah gamer

[@devmike]

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

[@adamrspears1981]

@@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.

[@kevedwards]

@@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.

[@Footender]

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.

[@viaredzagames]

Joe “what is the height and what is the width” Rogan.

[@fuhq6731]

lol

[@tomslat8700]

@Newtube saying somerhing is flat? Cant that only be told from the boundaries as well.

[@Cioper]

And what about lenght? ;)

[@Ziptietechnician]

One thing i have learned for listening to jrp is that you can ask a question, and another person can hear something completely different

[@jhonatancrivocapich5605]

Imagine aliens laughing at us cuz we think the universe is flat

[@MiguelStinson88]

we don't think the universe is flat... we see the observable universe is flat

[@d.godummyy]

@@JohnDoe-ie1fe so you’ve seen every single planet in the universe?

[@d.godummyy]

@@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

[@d.godummyy]

Which u haven’t sooo...

[@d.godummyy]

@@JohnDoe-ie1fe we’re just guessing why not instead of guessing just ask him when u get to heaven that’s what ima do

[@fernandovargasmejia1211]

OK, apparently I have to explain what he says: When he is talking about considering a part of space as 2D to measure it, think of it like this: you have a stack of sheets of paper, they form, all together, a 3D object. You then take one of those sheets of papers, it's a 2D surface. That's the "slice" he is taking about. They're taking a "slice" of the Universe, to measure it how we know to measure 2D surfaces. There's no "height" because the height is the 3D dimension. And then, he is saying it can be curved, or it can be flat. They measured it, considering all the things that are in the (visible) Universe, and it adds up to a flat Universe. It appears to be flat. So, just as a small portion of the Earth's surface appears to be flat, despite it being round, so too a 'small' portion of the Universe, our known visible Universe, appears to be flat despite the entirety of it being allegedly curved. It means the entirety of the Universe must be insanely huge, words are at a loss here, for the huge-ass part that we can see that we call "visible Universe" to not show the curvature of the Universe. Think of it like that: Planet Earth's entire surface that is round: Entire 2D Universe. Small part of Earth's surface that appears to be flat: our entire visible Universe. So yeah, if that's true, the Universe is more massive that we can conceive with our minds. The biggest thing we know, our visible Universe, would be but a tiny-minuscule fraction, of it's entirety.

[@bernardsimmonds]

Thanks for that, great explanation

[@tonytymes6714]

Nailed it

[@lucasfabisiak9586]

But these “sheets” are abstract constructions, so isn’t the flatness or curvedness of them an arbitrary consequence of choosing a particular way of conceptualizing space? I guess my confusion is over what is the measurement that makes these sheets appear flat rather than curved?

[@finnerildil8563]

That made this so much easier to understand

[@luketrottier9388]

@@lucasfabisiak9586 all scientific measurements. He explained it with the triangle reference. He also referenced the saddle possibility for universe shape. Here, put another way. What if the universe was closed? IE: a sphere. It is not like holding a ball, because things exist outside of that ball. Think of that ball as everything. The universe. If the curvature of spacetime was a sphere, then travelling in a straight line (just like if you traced straight on a ball) will return back to it's original position. If the observable universe were not flat or open (both of which are infinite), then with a sufficiently powerful microscope and time to kill by waiting for the light to traverse the universe, you could stare at the back of your own head looking at the back of your own head. There are an endless number of measurements that indicate a spatially flat universe within tthvisibble region

[@rujonesin1]

If Brian Cox were my physics teacher I would consider majoring in physics!

[@carlsmith4568]

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.

[@BrandonGiordano]

@@carlsmith4568 Tell him. I love casually researching theoretical physics and astro physics but the realities are a LOT. OF. MATH.

[@MichaelPapalia]

Get a camera 1 inch above a a car bonnet it looks flat But as You Zoom out u see its curved. The current observable Universe is 1 inch so it appears flat. But it maybe Curved and much bigger than we can see

[@chipsthedog1]

If you watch this and understand it all, I don't think we can be friends.

[@hellalive8973]

In that case I understood every word

[@chipsthedog1]

@@hellalive8973 damn and I was just about to send you an invite to my wedding

[@hellalive8973]

@@chipsthedog1 it’s cool bro I’ll come to the next one

[@chipsthedog1]

@@hellalive8973 lol

[@tjpm]

How can we argue with someone who is always smiling ?

[@SmellyBackshot]

Better yet, how can you like someone who is always smiling

[@tjpm]

@@SmellyBackshot I like people who smile. They are cute and approachable. It’s nice 😊

[@jadaperez2169]

Dude, I was less confused when I didn't know anything.

[@bcouzins8516]

Ignorance is bliss.

[@behatiprinslooooooo]

The more you know, the more you realize you don't know

[@lionsden5123]

That’s how it always goes, my friend. That will never change.

[@MichaelPapalia]

It’s Flat because everywhere we look it has no curve. So if it’s curved we need to focus out so FAR 😮the Universe must be Bigger than we currently think 🤔

[@amauryscrazyrealityshow827]

Somewhere in some other universe Joe is sitting on the other chair being asked the same question and Cox the KZbin host .

[@laldhil.p.n5644]

In other universe i wrote your comment and u wrote mine

[@zzoko7693]

in the other universe i didnt reply to your comment

[@Harryjsivri]

zZoKo in the other universe I didn’t read your comment

[@drinkwater5969]

Its entirely possible

[@andrew1919]

In another university Joe and Brian are filming a gay porn film together

[@jeremygonzal8603]

His explanation about how the values of Pi or the sum of angles of a triangle wouldn't equal their normal values in a curved surface actually blew me away. That kinda makes sense. Like saying if space wasn't flat, maybe all the universal constants we know of like the speed of light or earth's gravitational acceleration wouldn't have the same values.

[@michaelhansen8959]

Yes, perfect explanation of flat in 3 dimensions. Amazing

[@Wayne--O]

speed of light isn't a constant, nor is gravity. we just average it out. that lends to what he is saying as well. yes.. what he said about Pi and angles on a curved surface blew me away also

[@RexxSchneider]

Actually, he missed the best explanation. Working in two dimensions, on a flat surface, if you count the number of roughly evenly distributed objects less than a certain distance from you, and then count the number of those objects less than twice that distance from you, you'll find that the second count is roughly four times the first. If the surface is curved like a globe, you'll get a smaller ratio; whereas if the surface is curved like a saddle, you'll get a larger ratio. Taking larger distances (hence bigger numbers) will improve the accuracy statistically. If you do the same in three dimensions, you should get a ratio of eight for the ratio of counts for objects twice as far away if the 3-D space is "flat". We can count stars in our galaxy and we know how far away they are. Or we can count galaxies within two particular distances from us. However we do the experiment, no matter how much precision we build into it, we seem to always end up with a flat 3-D universe.

[@patrickdereyck7061]

@@Wayne--O, not it is a constant.

[@florin.lupascu]

@@RexxSchneider nice explanation! Tx!

[@Edessa_G]

Dr Cox is so very humble. What an intelligent, fascinating, and great all round great guy 👍

[@ianmarsden8568]

!

[@thurguud]

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

[@mickey2642]

without fancy words and understandable, what he means is : our measurements for the universe are our own interpretation due to our size in the cosmos.

[@GauvinK]

The patience of Cox trying to explain it differently to Joe is pretty incredible.

[@g07denslicer]

He's not very good at explaining it.

[@GauvinK]

@@g07denslicer But he is. If you can't understand his explanation. That's on you.

[@g07denslicer]

@@GauvinK I understand what he is talking about. Rogan and Cox are talking past each other. Rogan is interpreting the word "flat" in the physical sense. As if the matter of the universe is distributed on a plane. That's why he keeps asking about the width. But Cox doesn't pick up on it. He should have said something like "You seem to be understanding flat in the colloquial sense. That's not what it means when physicists say the universe is flat." But he didn't. He just kept going on and on and on.

[@philippevandendungen6063]

Brian is so well spoken. Even though I'm way too stupid to understand any of it, I love hearing him explain stuff.

[@vonsuthoff]

*Joe: "Soooo, mushrooms would definitely help to grasp this concept, riiiight?"*

[@gs7828]

Brian explained it like shit though. The basic topic was easy and he complicated it unnecessarily.

[@sn5953]

Starting at 4:46, Dr. Cox says ".. we can see it [the big bang]. ... We have pictures of it", what does he mean?

[@kitmoore9969]

Cosmic Microwave Background radiation.

[@mkeeeemike123]

This guys voice is so soothing. Relaxing! The kindest man ever. So it seems.

[@mrkutty0]

It's musical when he speaks.

[@dezzick398]

Space is so big, that its like being on a piece of Earth. Earth appears flat beneath our feet and even at great heights it appears "flat", but as you observe from an even greater distance it becomes apparent that it is round. That's really all he's saying in that observable space is flat.

Well, there is up and down contrasted with out. Can we see farther from the equator or the poles?

[@danbadd]

Is it also that because of consistency in the dimensions and laws of space that we can think of it as flat and be fairly accurate. In the same way we can look at the spherical earth on a map, which is a distorted representation, but the conformity of distortion allows the map to still be accurate?

[@rhysbertrand8903]

Can we not see more or less the same distance in every direction? Or van de only see great distances across two dimensions and not the third? I still don't get this concept. We assume earth is flat because we can't see under our feet or much above us but we can see a few km in each direction. I the case of the universe I thought we could see the same distance all the way round which would give us no reason to assume flatness

[@jamespawson6045]

Basically, there is a certain thickness to space-time.... however, we are within that band which explains why we see stars in all directions. All the stars we see, in fact, are all in the milky way and are all within our very small corner of that galaxy. Like really really really small corner.... but Space-time is vast betond any sort of human comprehension. So, I’m guessing when we look "upwards" past the stars in the milky way, we see nothing or very little, but if we look sideways on we see other galaxies and even galaxy clusters etc.... if you look at a representation of the cosmic microwave background radiation, it looks like a thick horizontal line where most of the light is. I believe this is what he’s talking about, but I’m just a lay lerson that finds all of this extremely interesting,..,

[@johnharber4638]

@@jamespawson6045 Im afraid I think youve got the wrong end of the stick here, the universe IS basically the same in all directions. The idea of flatness refers to the overall curvature of space in the universe. This basically means that in a flat universe with nothing in it, light travels in perfectly straight lines, but for a curved universe, this would not be true.

[@kieranmarken3340]

"I don't believe in the Big Bang." "Well, you can see it." 😳

[@thatguynicky1979]

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.

[@kieranmarken3340]

@@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!

[@gustavo-gs6jy]

Kieran Marken reminds me of "the game of life" and how this relates to simulation theory

[@SlavaPunta]

@@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.

[@thatguynicky1979]

@@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.

[@machinesandthings9641]

I still can’t understand how you could define something that you could travel endlessly in any direction “flat”