Tom Noddy on The Code

[@TimSlee1]

It's good to see this guy is becoming so popular.

[@edwardwindsor2516]

I love this guy

[@arturoe6957]

He really knows everything about bubbles. What a lovely genius

[@DevotedDisciple-x]

Thank you for uploading this. 😀

[@ssheeessh]

Wow! Who would have though there could be so much depth to bubbles.

[@markfive4903]

1:58 that brown sphere is the most efficient shape possible

[@supa9196]

No comments on this video until 2020

[@thatguygrand]

Pretty sure flat earthers would either love or hate this

[@louishazrice8282]

I scrolled down to find his comment but it’s not here

[@PacoOtis]

Please try to be more professional and quit using "round" and "spherical" interchangeably as they are NOT the same!! This is as bad as scientists talking about what is "between" the stars when the proper word is "among" as something can only be "between" two things and after that it is "among" them. Best of luck!

[@victorialadybug1]

???

[@Hx_jamie]

Whatever

[@niko64_]

The difference between the words spherical and round is that the word spherical refers to the 3 dimensional objects and round refers to the 2 dimensional shapes. I think they used the word round in a context of where the bubbles have created a round wall, which is in fact correct, because the wall between 2 bubbles is round and not spherical. But at the time stamp of 1:30 they do indeed say a mistake saying that “bubble should be round”. All in all I think the writers were confused on what context they should use the words “round” and “spherical”, nevertheless I do not think it is a big issue and the video was very interesting and eye opening to watch and understand the physics not only of bubbles but in our world.

[@TomNoddy]

I'm not sure that you're right to make that distinction. I'm very careful to correct people when they refer to my Bubble Cube as being "square" for the exact reason that you are citing here, the distinction between the names of certain 2D and 3D objects (well, that plus the fact that bubbles, always joining at 120° means that what I make is not even a square cube, it is what Buckminster Fuller referred to as a "spherical cube". But "round" is not the name of a figure but an adjective referring to an aspect of some shapes and I've found nothing that restricts its use to 2D figures like circles. The dictionaries that I checked didn't specify a sphere but it did include a reference to a cylinder. btw ... in this video I, myself, never used the term but the host of the show, Marcus du Sautoy, did. He's a mathematician and I understand that that doesn't make him exempt from sometimes making even basic mistakes but ... well ... failing to see another citation making the distinction I don't think that I'll take the same kind of care with this as I do with Cube and Square.