How bright was the Trinity test and what did Oppenheimer mean?

Calculation of the brightness of the fireball from the first nuclear explosion: the Trinity test. A precise value is determined compared to the popular "brighter than a thousand suns". Additionally, a description of the story behind the famous "'Now I Am Become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds", the meaning of the quote, and what Oppenheimer wanted to express.
Playlist Physics of Nuclear Weapons: • Physics of Nuclear Wea...
====================================
00:00 introduction
01:54 brighter than a thousand suns
02:51 brightness calculation
07:35 destroyer of worlds
A. Wellerstein article "Oppenheimer and the Gita" blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/...

[@BlackDogOriginal]

Anyone who mentions Iron Maiden during a scientific discussion automatically gets my sub.

[@jkzero]

Thanks for watching and subscribing, and welcome to the channel!

[@sudo2998]

The first time I saw that video of Oppenehimer, which was many years ago, I assumed right away that he was identifying with the warrior, maybe because I have the cultural background. Actually, the warrior's dilemma (and by extension, the human dilemma) is what the whole Bhagavad Gita is about. Thanks for an interesting video. 👍

[@irenehartlmayr8369]

The Bhagavad-Gita is a fantastic book,the essence of what spirituality is about !!!

[@truthkmgmailcom]

H

[@bathvader]

I don't know how the algorithm got me here but your science, your clean editing and the no-nonsense, informative presentation of your video got me to stay. Please keep doing this!

[@jkzero]

thanks for the positive feedback, more videos coming soon

[@MichaelFilsecker]

you are totally right!!

[@thromboid]

10 Suns would still be a terribly impressive thing to witness, but the poetry (and Gita tie-in) of the "thousand" is undeniable. I'd just been made aware of the other interpretation of "Now I am become Death...", and appreciated your explanation. I can't help thinking that Bainbridge's words are less open to interpretation: "Now we are all sons of bitches", which apparently Oppenheimer quite liked!

[@pskocik]

If the fraction of the total energy output that goes into the brightness/flux is constant, you "only" need a 2Mt bomb to get 1000 suns. That has been easily surpassed by thermonuclear tests. 7.5 times in Castle Bravo, and 29 times by the Tsar Bomba.

[@jkzero]

thanks for the comment, I am glad you found the information of interest. Bainbridge's quote is a classic.

[@xfom4008]

And there isn't much of a subjective difference between 10 and 1000 suns - the world just turns completely white for you regardless.

[@ViktorJahnke]

Thank you for producing such a high quality content, Dr. Diaz.

[@jkzero]

Much appreciated! Thanks for watching and subscribing, and welcome to the channel! I hope you also have a look at the other videos. Comments, questions, and requests are more than welcome.

[@lexus4tw]

this is a brillant video and one of a few with real science envolved, thanks

[@jkzero]

thanks for the positive feedback, more videos coming soon so keep an eye on this space.

[@jespermikkelsen7553]

Thank you for this video. Important context to get the interpretation of Oppenheimer's words right.

[@stuartc1461]

Cool video. Brilliant narration

[@jkzero]

Glad you enjoyed it. More coming soon.

[@LukasHerrKompetenz]

Thank you for your work. I really like your videos! Greetings from germany.

[@jkzero]

Thanks, I am glad you liked the video. I am always curious to know what brings viewers to the channel, were you searching for something in particular or did the 'mighty algorithm' find you?

[@LukasHerrKompetenz]

@@jkzero I searched for the enola gay just because i was interested in it and found your channel :)

[@jkzero]

@@LukasHerrKompetenz Thanks for sharing and I am glad the search algorithm brought you here, I hope you find the other videos of interest too and welcome to the channel.

[@Asterism_Desmos]

I have fallen in love with this channel after three amazing videos on physics (that I watch so far)!

[@jkzero]

Happy to hear that! Enjoy the other posted videos too and more coming soon. Thanks for watching and welcome to the channel! Curious to know how you found it, were you looking for something in particular?

[@Asterism_Desmos]

@@jkzeroI was actually just scrolling through my homepage before I ate dinner so I had something to watch when I was eating. I found the video on “The math behind saving the enola gay” really interesting and clicked on it, and was anything but disappointed. I watched the whole thing, then kept watching more videos even before I went to sleep lol. Right now, I came back to rewatch this one, because I watched this one right before bed and didn’t fully process it.

[@jkzero]

@@Asterism_Desmos thanks for sharing how you got here and for binge-watching the channel. I am glad you found the content of interest, I cannot guarantee to take all requests but I am collecting suggestions, if there is any particular topic you are curious just let me know in the comments. More videos coming soon so stay tuned.

[@Asterism_Desmos]

@@jkzero So far, I think the real world examples of how math and physics can be applied could be cool. And nuclear physics is always an interesting topic. Really, you’ve done amazing at choosing topics so far, so keep up the good work!

[@jkzero]

@@Asterism_Desmosthanks again for the positive feedback!

[@marcmarc172]

~10 suns! I love the power of estimation, especially with physics. Dr. Diaz (this may be pedantic) do you think ~50% was a good approximation for the amount of visible light? I was expecting almost an order of magnitude smaller. I don't have good intuition for at least two parts of the explosion, the distribution of frequencies of light produced and the amount of light converted to visible later on. I would've guessed the amount of initial visible light produced would be ~5-10% but I don't have a good intuition about this. I imagine a huge amount of gamma and x rays produced. This light would be absorbed and reemitted (through Compton scattering?) at lower frequency (repeatedly) causing the air to glow further. I don't know how much this would convert but I think we can assume the air to be a black body radiator (for which the frequency curve is centered near the visible light frequencies). This sounds like it could convert another 5-20% (total guess)? Sorry for the long response but I would love to hear what you think Dr. Diaz.

[@jkzero]

pedantic comments are more than welcome! I honestly didn't try to get an exact estimate but just an order of magnitude; for this, I used the standard of 35% of the energy in the form of thermal radiation and then, on top of that, I took at 50% for visible radiation, this gives ~18% of the energy in the form of visible light. Therefore, I might be off by a factor 2, but for an order-of-magnitude estimate this is just ~1 :) The main point is that 1,000 suns appears to be just a literary license.

[@user-gy5qp9kf1n]

Your video absolutely correctly analysis what Oppenheimer meant!!

[@jkzero]

Glad you think so!

[@petefluffy7420]

How can you know that ? Agree with it, that's fine, but to be able to know hat the bloke meant, this is claiming knowledge that you cannot possibly have.

[@borntoclimb7116]

very interesting

[@marcmarc172]

You found something closer to the truth and showed it to us. Thank you for helping clear up this misinterpretation of such a popular quote. This subscription was such an easy decision - no asking needed.

[@jkzero]

Thanks for watching and subscribing, and welcome to the channel!

[@MarcoScetta]

I like this interpretation.

[@CaptainCalculus]

There's a slight mistake there. The line "now I am become death" is not grammatically correct in English if 'become' is a verb. You would say "now I HAVE become death..." or "now I am becoming death...". This confused me for years until I looked into it. The form that Vishnu takes is named "Become Death"; almost as if 'Become' is his first name and 'Death' is his last name. "Become Death" is a proper noun So the correct quote would be: "Now I am 'Become Death', the destroyer of worlds..."

[@jkzero]

great that you point this out, as a non-native English speaker, the 'am' always confused me. I had to look it up because I thought the sentence was "Now I become death..." but the 'am' is there in all the transcripts of the interview, and once I read it I could not spot hearing it. I should point out that there are also discussions about this free translation done by Oppenheimer. In fact, for what I have read from people who can read the original scripture, the correct literal translation is not "Death" but "Time" so Vishnu claims to "become Time, the destroyer of worlds;" however, in the end Time here is understood as a metaphor for death, which would make Oppenheimer's translation somehow valid.

[@CaptainCalculus]

@@jkzero Amzing videos by the way! My PhD is in maths and whenever I try to explain things to people I get a glass-face...but you bring the maths to life--well done you!

[@jkzero]

thanks for the positive feedback; I am thrilled by the positive response to the videos, it has been great to find so many physics enthusiasts willing to get some math in addition to the stories

[@ericanderson2987]

I am DEFINITELY NOT a Mathematician in ANY way, but tiyr CKEAR explanations are absolutely wonderful. Thank yiy gir producing and Presenting your Videos!

[@jkzero]

I am glad you found the content of interest. Thanks for watching and welcome to the channel.

[@cloviscareca]

Just discovered your channel, and you don't have a clue of how much success this channel will achieve in the next months/years. Top quality content, straight to the point with the right technical informations. Keep up🎉 BTW, just a curiosity of mine: from which country are you from? Cheers from Brazil!

[@jkzero]

thanks for your words, I appreciate the positive feedback. I just find amazing that other people find these topics of interest too. I want to make videos that are technical but without going into hardcore math so everyone can enjoy them. I am originally from Chile, although it has been many years that I left my home country. Greetings from Germany.

[@hussainali9999]

Thank

[@steveinmidtown]

Oppenheimer was an interesting & COMPLEX guy. Also, I vaguely remember Teller (?) talking about holding up "welder's glasses" to view the blast which reminded me of taking shop class & having to learn arc welding in Junior High & wearing a helmut so is the light from arc welding on par with a nuclear blast?

[@richiehoyt8487]

I remember reading somewhere about a young lady, blind from birth (I think it may have been the case that she didn't even _have_ optic nerves, but I wouldn't swear to it) who was a passenger in a car some 40 or so miles from the blast, I believe (again, iirc - 40 miles _does_ seem a little close for comfort!) Anyway, she SAW the blast. It was the one thing she ever _did_ see in her whole life. As such I would contend that unless one belongs in the more rarefied strata of the physics community, arguing about whether, and how much, the "Light of a Thousand Suns" comments were exaggerated seem rather like a case of 'splitting hairs', even if it was a question of orders of magnitude! Particularly so if the observers cited were as well read as their boss, and they were referencing the holy books. Even if not, one suspects that rather than trying merely to be literally accurate, they were trying to get across a 'deeper' truth. (Given the total nature of the lady's blindness, I suppose the 'light' she saw might well have been 'all up and down' the E~M spectrum. Probably that's mostly a medical question. Again, though -- nit~picking!) As for Oppenheimer's famous quote in the 1965 NBC documentary, I admit I always assumed he was being a bit 'grandiose' - although if ever there was a case of grandiosity being justified, this was surely it! If Willardstein and Ihia (spelling?) are correct though, and they very likely are, given that his words were surely edited at least somewhat for the NBC special, never mind the thousands of times we've seen that clip since, it seems like - along with everyone else on the planet, more or less - I failed to ascribe to the man's words the nuance they deserved. Anyway, some interesting nuggets here for physicists and historians both, I should think. Certainly, as a layman I found it interesting and revealing - nice little documentary. Thank You, well done!

[@jkzero]

I also recall the story of the blind young lady, I don't know whether it is true or part of the folklore around the Trinity test. I think you are right that analyzing literal comments/quotes quickly becomes splitting hairs, I do not intend to do that but rather use them as an excuse to get to talk about physics and topics that I find interesting. Regarding Oppenheimer's quote, there is no evidence or report of Oppenheimer's saying it or thinking about it after Trinity despite having a journalist (W.L. Laurence) on site, except the NBC recording 20 years after the event. I am inclined to consider this a case of false memory.

[@richiehoyt8487]

@@jkzero I suppose, if you'll forgive me stating the obvious, we can never _really_ know what somebody is thinking in their mind, and though I haven't read any of the biographies on JRH, I think it's probably not giving him, though a scientist, too much credit necessarily to think he would be conversant with the Bhagavad-Gita. Also, while in any other circumstances, to employ those particular lines might come across as just a little portentous (not to mention _pretentious!_ ) on that particular occasion, they _do_ seem particularly apposite, whichever light one may wish to read them in... if anything, one might say the passage was almost a little _too_ apposite, _too_ perfect to just come to mind to him at that moment! Even had he previously given some thought to something that might be appropriate for the moment, given, as you say, the presence of W.L. Lawrence, one might have assumed that that was the perfect moment to record the thought for posterity... I think it may not be _100%_ correct to say that in 1965 he was misremembering his thoughts in the moment, but certainly at the time of the interview he'd had the benefit of 20 years to structure and hone his impressions... It may well be that the key part is where, after the bit about "... Becoming Death, the Destroyer of Worlds", he kind of tails off saying "I suppose _we all thought that, in one way or another..."_ So - by no means a lie, but it does illustrate the process by which a more or less unformed impression can, over time, become the quote that defines a man. And yes, having first practically wrote an essay bemoaning the splitting of hairs, I had to go and top it by deconstructing a quote upon which, no doubt, whole theses have been written... I do wish I could remember who it was amongst those present on that morning - it may even have been Oppenheimer himself - who admitted something like "What did I _really_ think? Actually, I think, like everyone, I just thought 'Well - It Works -- Thank God!' "

[@monicafamalett855]

​@richiehoyt8487 Sometimes a little nit-picking is good for the discussion

[@brianlaneherder3666]

I have always thought the blind woman story was false. If you are blind you are blind. Even if she was suddenly gifted a split second of sight she wouldn't know how to describe it because she had never seen anything to begin with.

[@slowery43]

well if you remember reading something, someplace, at some point, who are we to question that and not take it for absolute fact. Thank you so little for sharing that tidbit we need a lot more speculation, 5th hand guesstimations, and pure make believe

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

The solar flux in outer space is about 1.34 kW/m^2. But the atmosphere absorbs a substantial fraction of that. At noon, at the Equator, with no cloud cover, you have about 1 kW/m^2. So it's more like about 6 to 7 Suns. Still, during the whole event, the intensity varies greatly from one fraction of a second to the next. The first of the two flashes, which occur in very quick succession, may be much more intense than those figures, BUT it's VERY brief, and the human vision system averages over some interval, some fraction of a second, so that subjectively, it will not be as bright as the maximum instantaneous value. Oh, and the color spectra are different for the Sun and the Trinity blast. In other words, to fully answer this question, you need a deeper analysis.

[@jkzero]

thanks for the extra details, you are right: a precise result requires this an many other details to be consider. I was mostly interested in an estimate of the order of magnitude instead of an exact value. In fact, some measurements show the first peak to reach "~80 suns" for a few milliseconds.

[@Raptorman0909]

Correct as far as the actual intensity at the surface of the Earth at sea level when the Sun is 90 degrees above the horizon without clouds, but the resultant number of Suns would be more like 14 (14kW/m^2 / 1kW/m^2).

[@chriswinter2400]

I don't think there's any mistranslation or misinterpreting he knows exactly the bomb he created has the potential to end humanity and the planet he means it exactly as said he has become the destroyer of worlds in that moment

[@jkzero]

I fully agree that Oppenheimer knew exactly what the power of the bomb was and how it would be used, there is no doubt about that, despite the image projected of his naivete in recent films. I have no intention of cleaning his image or role. I appreciate the comment and I respect the opinion, but in the full quote Oppenheimer ends with "I suppose we all thought that one way or another" so despite Oppenheimer's well-know arrogance, there is a lot of room for interpretation.

[@omargaber3122]

Done❤

[@toastpoppin]

Wow, its even more tragic when given more context of the literature. Ultimately just like Mordin in Mass Effect 3 he had to be the one to do it. Otherwise someone else might have gotten it wrong. Very very wrong

[@joehopfield]

The perception of brightness by observers must have been affected by how the explosion illuminated the mountains and surrounding landscapes, perhaps more than the bright explosion itself.

[@jkzero]

you are probably right, most of the eyewitnesses reported that they could not see much through the googles and protective gear provided and many simply looked at the mountains rather than the Trinity tower

[@mikedrop4421]

KZbin is wild sometimes. Getting educated by physicists for free? Yes please.

[@jkzero]

make sure to subscribe and get notified of new videos coming soon

[@mikedrop4421]

@@jkzero oh I did

[@richmiller9844]

If he didn't do it 10 others were in line to do it!

[@nehorlavazapalka]

You can give a rough estimate pretty fast. A 300 m fireball at 10 km is about 25× bigger than the Sun -> 25× brighter. OFC the surface temperature was less.

[@jkzero]

It appears that you are just comparing the angular size of the Sun to a fireball at a given time; however, I would argue that angular size is not enough and the energy flux is crucial. Take for instance the Moon: it has the same angular size as the Sun (~0.5°); however, you would not say that "the Moon is as bright as the Sun." Also, for a fireball of 300 meters in diameter located at 10 km I estimate the angular size of ~1.719°, which is a bit over 3 times the angular size of the Sun, so could you please elaborate where the "300 m fireball at 10 km is about 25× bigger than the Sun" comes from?

[@nehorlavazapalka]

@@jkzero I used nukemap, which gives about 290 m radius for a surface shot, which translates to a 400 m diameter circle, the bunker was at 9100 m, which gives us a 1/22.75 ratio, the same ratio is 1/108 for the Sun. The square of these two ratios divided is ~ 22.5. So it looks like that the surface of the fireball was about 1/2 of Sun's surface brightness.

[@charliefoxtrot5001]

Take a 1980s bulb flashlight and compare it to a modern LED flashlight with a smaller lens size. The LED flashlight with the smaller lens size is just brighter. The angular size of the fireball doesn't matter. It's the amount of visible light that gets emitted and the distance to it that matters.

[@sbeckmesser]

Has anybody seen an explanation of by how much the plutonium core was compressed in the Trinity/Nagasaki explosions. Would the compression of the core during detonation be visible to the naked eye?

[@Salien1999]

A quick Google search says about 2.5-3x its original density

[@jkzero]

thanks for the question; honestly, I had never wondered this before and, I replied somewhere else, now I really want to know. I think I got it, I am half way through the calculation; I promise a dedicated video to this in the near future.

[@jkzero]

@@Salien1999 I do not know the answer and when searching I found this "compression by a factor 2.5 to 3" but it was unclear whether this quoted range is for radius or volume. As promised above, I am working it out and I will post a dedicated video because I find it a very interesting question.

[@sbeckmesser]

@@jkzero I'm looking forward to your results. In another YT video -- I can't remember which one -- there was a hint that the implosion caused the core actually to liquify! Wonder if that is possible. I guess as long as it was a roughly spherical blob for a few microseconds (nanoseconds?) it would go off anyway. And at this point you run into semantic questions such as what is a solid vs a liquid (metallic crystalline structure?). And it doesn't take long for the whole thing to turn into a plasma anyway. There's another subject to cover: how long this all takes. It's quite amazingly rapid. Far faster than even 1 frame of video.

[@steveinmidtown]

I've read "grapefruit to lemon". Also, I've yet see anything showing how the "pit" was cast from the "urchin" getting encased in plutonium & all the other layers of stuff...this seems like a pretty tall order to figure that part out.

[@glennquagmire7696]

14 kW/m2 | 1.4 kw /m2 = Bright AF

[@jkzero]

giggity

[@Marc816]

It was said that a blind girl, I think that her name was Georgia Greene, who was riding a a car at least 50 miles away from the explosion, sctually saw the flash of light, pointed in its direction, and asked "what was that?".

[@jkzero]

I recall the story of the blind young lady, but I don't know whether it is true or part of the folklore around the Trinity test.

[@Marc816]

It's true. Google Georgia Greene.

[@Marc816]

It's true. Google "Georgia Greene Trinity test"@@jkzero

[@casualpasser-by5954]

Don't be upset knowing that Trinity was "just" 10 times brighter than the Sun. 9 yeras later Castle Bravo fixed the situation.

[@jkzero]

ouch

[@marimak3306]

Somos nuestras decisiones y acciones. Jamás será un mártir ni alguien que hizo "lo necesario", un mal necesario. Claramente, solo fue un mal y una verdadera lástima con tan brillante mente prestarse para ello. Por supuesto hubiera sido otro pero creo que pudo disuadir a las mejores mentes de su época a no participar en esta clase de proyectos así como los persuadió de hacerlo. Esa clase de física no tiene nada de "bonita" ni elegante.

[@jkzero]

Gracias por el comentario. Se respeta la opinión, sin embargo sólo quería clarificar que en el video nunca intento justificar las acciones de Oppenheimer y otros, simplemente aclarar una frase mal interpretada.

[@riproar11]

Oppenheimer is given too much credit and it was grandiose of him to make his comment. The Manhattan Project employed 125,000+ people. 75,000 worked in Oak Ridge Tennessee and 50,000 in Hanaford, Washington to enrich the uranium for the Trinity experiment.

[@jkzero]

I fully agree with this, Oppenheimer gets too much credit for a project that he helped to lead. He was a fantastic project manager; however, the simple narrative in films leave out many others that deserve as much credit for this development. Just one note: uranium enrichment took place at Oak Ridge but the work at Hanford was on production of plutonium not uranium. Also, the Gadget detonated at the Trinity test had a plutonium core, not uranium.

[@hazridge]

I'm a bit confused, your interpretation of the quote sounds the same as the way people seem to interpret it already. I'm not sure how else it would be interpreted.

[@jkzero]

my interpretation of the interpretation of the quote (sounds a bit meta) is that most people (thanks to general documentaries) take Oppenheimer's words "I am become Death..." as he, Oppenheimer, referring to himself as Death; however, the presentation about James Hijiya's paper shows that there is an interpretation that is better, simpler, less arrogant, and more aligned with the story on the Bhagavad Gita. In this he, Oppenheimer, is just like Prince Arjuna doing his duty not the Destroyer of worlds.

[@jeffreyedwards767]

🌎 = be kind to planets

[@daviddelaney363]

I understand that the flash illuminated the face of the moon. But have not confirmed this is true.

[@jkzero]

This idea comes from "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" in which Richard Rhodes describes the Trinity test and its brightness with the line "had astronomers been watching they could have seen it reflected from the moon, literal moonshine." This is a very clever wink to Ernest Rutherford's famous quote "any one who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine;" Rhodes is a magnificent writer. I wondered, just like you, whether this was true; it is a great exercise. To find out you must first estimate the intrinsic brightness of the fireball; then use the so-called distance-modulus formula (from astrophysics) to determine the apparent magnitude of the Trinity fireball to an observer on the Moon; and finally compare this to the apparent sunshine brightness on the lunar surface. I leave it there in case you want to try it out yourself, I do not want to spoil the fun; otherwise, let me know if you prefer the quick answer, happy to share the details.

[@daviddelaney363]

@@jkzero Ah yes...I knew I read that somewhere :) It is a really great read.

[@jkzero]

@@daviddelaney363 in case you want to see the calculation, check the article "Seeing the Light: Visibility of the July '45 Trinity Atomic Bomb Test from the Inner Solar System" by Cameron Reed, he calculates the brightness of the Trinity test as seen from different places. For instance, he finds that for an observer on the Moon the Trinity explosion would have appeared over 30 times brighter than Venus! He also addresses your question, he checks whether or not Rhodes line is physically possible or just a literary license.

[@michaelnoble2432]

It's sad that such a smart person was so obsessed with that pagan gibberish.

[@FOLKTALES456]

So what? The guy was trying to understand what had to be done and was relating to a story.

[@kaxtorplose]

Whoops. I spoke too soon. The first time I've actually watched a KZbin video that got to the point WAY before I did. Anyway... . . . FUN FACT! What's consistently left out of the situation from the Bhagavad Gita, made famous after being widely misquoted by Oppenheimer, sounds to me like less of an existential Hindu threat and more like a temper tantrum thrown by a thoroughly pissed off Vishnu at some minor Hindu prince, who refused to scrub the toilets. Here's the direct quote of Oppenheimer quoting Vishnu: "Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds!" Am I the only one who notices the rotten grammar of a Hindu god being quoted here? Is it just me, or does Vishnu come off as a pissed off five year old, about to throw a tantrum? Well, that's Vishnu, folks, a Hindu deity with the power to BECOME DEATH and DESTROY WORLDS, apparently. Anyway, after several hours of failing to get the prince to do the dirty work in Hindu Heaven, Vishnu was completely fed up... so, taking on his multiarmed form, Vishnu threatens this prince with the famous quote that Oppenheimer took WAY out of context when he quoted it - you know, the part when Vishnu grew extra arms and threatened some unknown Hindu prince with death and destruction unless he got to work mopping the restrooms in heaven... Oh! And in case anyone missed it, Vishnu threatened to destroy not just one world, but MULTIPLE WORLDS ! Assuming that includes planet Earth because Earth is the only world that, to the best of my knowledge still exactly fails to be plural must assume - with NOT EQUAL TO OR PRAYER THAN worlds - death and destruction! Because where are the other worlds? Oh it's referring to planet Earth? That's our world, folks. And I'm pretty sure it's the only one, for now. I hope Vishnu got the memo. NOW TIME FOR A PRESSING QUESTION... Why Vishnu thought he could threaten some anonymous Hindu prince with a threat to destroy WORLDS, still plural and still only planet Earth, would give a shit about our own planet, located in a remote section of the Milky Way known colloquially as the Orion spur, remains beyond me. Regardless, we can get an idea of how effective this threat was at getting the prince to scrub the toilets by merely looking around... FALSE ALARM! After looking around, I'm pretty sure I can confidently say that we're all still here. That includes the entirety, including myself and you guys, of planet Earth. Can someone confirm this, please? I need to get published in 'Nature' before I croak.

[@type0negative136]

Blah blah blah. Not straight to the point.

[@jkzero]

I fully agree, I tend to like some context and some history before going to the solution, but I get that some people want to go straight to the point, for this reason I added chapter so you can skip the intro. Constructive feedback is highly appreciated.

[@pskocik]

@@jkzero I for one loved how you pinned brightness to flux and your derivation of the it as a fraction of the total outputted energy per square meter and the subsequent comparison with the actual flux measured. I can hardly imagine a better exposition of the subject matter. Haters can just Google number and not watch a video.

[@jkzero]

Thanks for the positive feedback, I am already making new videos with the same approach: use some basic math and physics to solve a practical problem. I welcome all comments, even the negative ones, criticism can be constructive.

[@itimonium9062]

​@@jkzeroplease do not change anything about the approach you took in this video. It's basically 100% straight to the point. You state every source and equation used that's amazing everyone who watched that can actually use this knowledge and it's not just a useless trivia fact.

[@jer1515]

I've spotted the Tik Tok user

[@stevekane8358]

WHO CARES???

[@richiehoyt8487]

It's so annoying when you put "Hoenas†y Porntastic S|u†s" into your search, and they serve you up physics and history 'n shl†..!

[@oriondecimus8421]

Dont be a cunt about it Steve

[@MrFib112358]

dude, you literally saw the video title and clicked on it... just to ask "who cares?" You apparently did, bruh! Man, you must be fun at parties.

[@slowery43]

you could always leave and not whine like an 11 year old girl on a tantrum