Danke.

You know you could tell us if a failed quantum experiment led to a duplicate Sabine trying to appropriate your life 😅

I knew you were having doppelganger problems.

I think the universe expands into itself

@@w0tch Dupe Sabine is pretty ersatz. There is a short story called 'The Copy', where a boy duplicates himself then finds his clone taking over his life.

@Sand Fred Into dress.

Did you determine that internally or by observing yourself in the embedding space ie. mirror ?

Lmao 🤣🤣

I’ve been contracting recently after expanding to fast.

To where

Thank you from the entire team!

Nothing here is fact, its all maths and speculation.

@@fivish Not so. The expansion of the universe is based on observation, not maths. As a matter of fact, we can’t even agree on what rate it expands at, which we could if it was pure maths.

@@NiToNi2002 observations of phenomenon do not prove anything without experimentation. John King is correct - nothing here is fact...it’s all just pseudoscience.

77yr old eh? You got space, but less time..... some years later you will have no time and thus you wont even occupy any space. is that how Space and time are connected? MIND=BLOWN

@@ithinkthonkthunk5333, incorrect. You do not always have to perform an experiment to prove something. Science is not always bounded within the human scale, in terms of time, space, energy, and other parameters. You do not have to experiment with internal solar activities to prove that it is powered by nuclear fusion. Observations can serve as proof, not every time, but they still can. The observation on the angle at which shadows of objects under the sun are casted would prove the sun's location in the sky, without necessarily looking at the sun itself. Most information in this video are facts, left for those clearly indicated by Sabine as speculations or the likes. The only thing 'pseudo' here is your belief that you understand anything about science. Perhaps, you should go back to watching conspiracy videos, where you may feel more intellectually comfortable.

It's not so hard. Take a sheet of paper. It's flat. Now roll it. You have a cilinder now. In one direction it curves, following a circunference. But in the perpendicular direction, follows a straith line,is still flat.

It has to do with a measure called gaussian curvature. It takes the curvature of perpendicular lines and multiplies them together. A straight non-curved line has curvature 0, a line curved up has curvature 1, and a line curved down has curvature -1. In one direction the cylinder is curved positively yes, but in the perpendicular direction it is completely straight. 1×0 is 0, so the cylinder is "flat"

Drink enough cylinders of beer, and you will understand.

There are a lot of ways to think about curvature, the curvature mentioned in this video is the intrinsic (or Gaussian) curvature. In another sense of curvature, it is true that cylinders curve (in one direction). However, the statements in the video about the internal angles of triangles are really caring about the intrinsic curvature. What makes this curvature intrinsic? Intrinsic properties are properties that don't care about the embedding. If that sounds a little complicated, what it means in terms of the curvature is that you cant bend a "flat" thing like a piece of paper into a "curved" thing like a sphere. It's very easy to bend a piece of paper into a cylinder (we've all made little telescopes out of paper before!) but impossible to bend it into a sphere. This is also the reason you cannot flatten an orange peel (without crushing it) - the orange peel has positive curvature, but a flat thing has zero curvature. There is actually a third type of intrinsic curvature - negative curvature. The example normally given is "saddle shaped", but I prefer to think of it as shaped like a pringles crisp. In negatively curved space, triangles have less than 180 degrees! This space is sometimes called "hyperbolic" space. To go back to the piece of paper analogy, if you laid the piece of paper down in front of you, in order to make a cylinder, you bend two opposite sides towards each other. In order to make a sphere, you would have to somehow bend all four sides at the same time, and if you try this you'll find it is impossible. In order to make a pringles shape, you have to bend two opposite sides together like a cylinder, and the two remaining sides downwards at the same time. This is also not possible. The paper will not cooperate. Stupid paper.

@@eljcd it isn't flat you fool.

The answer about what space is expanding into is so easy you have missed it. This much seems true. Everywhere you look into the sky, you are looking into the past! The farther you look, the farther in the past you see. Therefore, an expanding universe is actually expanding into the past.

i think your knowledge expanded into my mind bc i'm pretty sure my mind shrunk.

Are you saying your skull is empty? :>)

Or, you could say... The knowledge DENSITY increased within the context of the volume of your mind 😉

😂

@@MarlonLuna 🤯

I second that. I recognize her too. Very glad she's moved to yt. Maybe she'll get funding somehow through sponsors or such. I wish her the best! And am curious to see her conclusions! It'd also be nice if she'd be funded traditionally, but I'm super proud of her for getting on yt and thinking outside the box. I can tell she's a good lady.

This aspect of academia makes me question if I should go into it at all.

Sounds sorta like why I chose to pursue industry, instead of a academics after the masters. Forty years ago, I figured whether in industry or academics, I would have to put up with a lot of politics and b_____. So may as well choose the path that pays more.

@@TrilobitesRTasty Industry has always paid. Of course a tech-ish related profession will although being important for society, ironically render a potentially narrow mind in the bigger more cosmological questions. If we think about the most innovative developers in the history of specific innovations, they usually had a good talent and more or less ok +degree of realism in both classical engineering and theoretical understanding of nature. The modern day scholar tend to be hyper theoretical in very speculative ways often involving abstracted maths used to just hide the limits or superstitions of their thinking. It is from these people we get diversions like virtual particles or time-aether-blob space concepts.

(unfortunately, flat-earthing, babbling about little green men "from other solar systems", and the postmodernistic exaggeration of the Copenhagen interpretation that we see as a disease in mainstream physics now are all usually well paid activities, either by private or/and public money)

Insight, I'm still confused AF. So many terms like 10 dimensions, WTF is that, 4 dimensions is insane enough to warp my mind, don't throw 6 more. The more an more I learn about this, the less convinced I become we have any answers.

@@anubispatron I feel like the universe itself must be much simpler than the math used to describe. How could something so complex come to exist with out any form of selection?

@@cifey It honestly feels like they are making the craziest sounding garbage up to fill in the missing knowledge. Its ok to say I don't know, at least its honest, and sounds far more plausible then these 10 dimension sci-fi excuses.

@@anubispatron It's all bullshit to get funding for next year.

As a physicist you should be annoyed by all these clownish thesis?

@@eugenelamour1086 What do you refer to?

@@pseudonymousbeing987 Spooky action at a distance...what a joke. GRT and QM fundamentally disagree. One requires discontinuum and the other continuum. QM only works because you use a general Formula that needs a set of special factor for every occasion. And the space /time equation is a circular logic. E=mc2 violates math as it would need to be light velocity 1.41 times c. Because the derivative of velocity is V^2/2....Take a look at the Electron from Lesseirg Papers.Might be interesting.

@@eugenelamour1086 who are you

@@eugenelamour1086 Mainstream physicists believe all the currently accepted theories are the closest to the truth we have due to the theory's empirical grounding and accurate predictions. I am confused that you are surprised that a physicist agrees with modern physics. It doesn't matter that spooky action at a distance is spooky and weird. What matters is that we are very sure that it is real due to experimental evidence. Everyone really wants an explanation but they're not going to throw out data because it's counterintuitive. It doesn't matter that QM and GRT disagree in the way you think it does. It means that they're both missing something yes, but it's unlikely that they are outright wrong. They are simply accurate to an extent. Scientists know this. It is inevitable that incomplete explanations will contradict one another before they are refined (or even revolutionised). Special factors. Yeah so what? You are surprised that reality has certain parameters? Constants have been needed since before quantum physics. Space time equation? Equation *s* presumably? Circular logic? Haha is that one a little pun lol. I don't know what you're talking about with this bit but the jokes funny. That's the integral of velocity is it not? What's it got to do with anything? 1.41? What? Lesserieg papers? As of now I'm not inclined to look it up, you may yet convince me but sorry I can't really be bothered with big reading right now.

Well… define “understand”? I don’t think even these greatest minds “understand” like we may think… they just look at the data and the evidence and in light of no alternative model, accept what it tells them…it’s just as hard to visualise or conceptualise as imagining infinity. Take for example that the universe is “not expanding into anything”… firstly I can’t “understand” that based on my empirical experience. But if I were to follow the math and after peer review found it sound, I would have no choice but to accept the evidence. Secondly when we think of the words “doesn’t expand into anything” we imagine “nothing”.. but it’s probably more like the concept of the question “what is south of the South Pole” - Since space time gives us the meaning of a thing, it is a nonsense to ask what does the universe expand into… Or summit like that….

They don't understand anything, half or most of this is speculation. I don't understand either, but I'm not bs people into thinking I know something they don't.

@@thomasashley-smith245 I agree with you 100%. Sabine is simply trying to explain something of which we still have limited knowledge of. As mankind learns more, it will change its explanation of this topic.

That's your brain sounding the bullsht alarm. When things don't seem to make sense it's because THEY DON'T!!! None of this nonsense is in any way scientific. It's all mystical, religious, gibberish. You are being baffled with bullshit.

@@thomasashley-smith245 using nonsensical analogies like what’s south of the South Pole is what these guys do to feed us nonsense. There is no data, no math that can definitely state that universe that is finite can expand without any sort of void outside its membrane( just a word I came up with the outer edges). Another one I love is how they say universe came from nothing, but if you ask them what this nothing is, they don’t know. I’m not a religious nut case who suggests God created us, but I will never accept this notion that emptiness is finite. If you really think about it with common sense, there are only two possibilities. 1) the universe is infinite. 2) our universe is not infinite but whatever gave rise to our universe is. To suggest there is only one universe and that one universe is also finite that expands into itself is not very different than suggesting God created the universe in 7 days.

We are but finite guests hosted in the infinity of dreams (youTube comments)

Hmm? Somehow you can relieve the internal pressure.....in the Nut! Fart.....that will awaken you from a bad dream!

Pinch yourself and rip the skin open and out will come the rationality.

@@biancabonet It didn't work!!!

@@dallasswoveland4466 I'm sad for you. Wake up and smell the roses!

Yeah what he said

At the same time she has no clue whatsoever.

@@thephuntastics2920 that's a bold statement, I'd suggest you to be more specific, and I mean, very very specific.

@@thephuntastics2920 Seems to me she understands - and can explain - General Relativity as well as anyone alive. Whether General Relativity is true and complete are separate matters. What do you have to offer? A she-wolf nursing some abandoned twins?

Comic books call the area outside of the expanding universe "manifestacia"

@@user-fe9fj4vw4y Why do you feel the need to scam others? Nobody is going to fall for that, it’s clear that this is not actually Sabine.

@@user-fe9fj4vw4y

Every time she says "curvature", I hear "Gorbachev". ))

@@BOBANDVEG You have a fake account posing as Dr Hossenfelder. Many have reported you.

You're an anomaly ;)

You're expanding into yourself...

Yeah, I noticed that my clothes were shrinking relative to me. At first I thought it was my washing machine, but it turns out it was my fridge

Maybe Sabin can help with that shrinking trick used. I’m having a similar problem with my clothes with a slight variation my clothes are shrinking in the x and z axis the y axis is still holding steady.

That would make a great cafe name ...."Einstein's Kitchen".....where universal expansion is not a choice. You can't blame me, blame Einstein.

EYE IN SCHTEIN

What's so awesome with her pronunciation of Einstein? I see this comment a lot. The whole Europe pronounce it in the same way as she does. Are you from USA?

@@moonzestate Hello there, no I'm English, I just like the way she says it, it's my opinion and if you see this comment a lot obviously people like the way she says it, what is wrong with that? And the whole of Europe don't pronounce it this way, I work with up to 500 people from everywhere and a lot from Europe. And I do like the way she pronounces Einstein, but that's just me, just cheers me up. I love different accents and the way people talk. Hope that explains it and no offence given or taken.

@@moonzestate No problems, I find little things in life make me smile, and a little friendly debating is good. Have a happy ,stress free day.

@@zombiebiker5581 My bad, I meant the majority of non-English speaking people in Europe pronounce it "ine - shtine". In my experience, only the American and British pronunciation of Einstein is "stine" instead of "SHtine". All Slavic languages pronounce it like Germans originally do. The same goes for French, Italian, Dutch, Greek, Hungarian, etc.

Really? Explain it to me maybe? What I understood was that they too don't know... Leonard's mom here says that we can have that 10 dimensional embedded space right? We are just not able to understand it. Also there can be a higher dimension....so what is that dimension and is all this sentient? I mean, is there a grand design? Also, can there beings or conscious things (don't need to be biological) existing in these higher dimensions? So many questions still?

@@somendrasharma4907 get some nice DMT, they'll explain when you get there

Me too. Like from 101128 to 1011279. My journey for the maze takes more road trips than the ancient American Indians.

You are not missing anything. Pure rubbish created by people whose livelihood depends on making up things they do not know much about.

Seems that between 123... and. 375. And27. Is a fingerbalm. No

@@greggoog7559 I have a hobby. It is fun

It will. This disorientation you feel as you struggle to understand it is your brain forming new connection and even growing new neurons. Unfortunately this expansion does not accelerate at human time scales.

What if space itself is not a nothing but a something that is faster than light or any other force or particle?

You complicated too much the explanation and so it became too hard for people to understand

"To simplify, (...)" and then writes an essay longer than the original video script. Lol

@@pedrolmlkzk I understood it just fine.

@@gravoc857 good for you!

Yes to the first question. Since the expansion is accelerating, some think that one day galaxies won't be able to contain the stars, then solar systems won't be able to keep the planets orbiting and in the end molecules/atoms won't be possible.

Yes everything experiences the expansion of space but not time. Every other force is so much stronger that it is basically negligible except for gravity at very long distances.

Thanks for the answers! Sabine's viewers are the best :)

@@Flomes It is more than “some think”. This concept is widely accepted by scientific community, and it depends on the rate of expansion.

@@user-fe9fj4vw4y Gtfo with your fake spam account.

Frankly, I am not in a position to be a "patron" and see no benefit to fans like myself at all. Favoritism based on money is often required, but also is bad for many individuals, being exclusionary in nature.

I am considering it but at the moment I don't have the time. Need to finish my next book.

@@chrisgriffith1573 +++

Try OnlyFans ;)

@@SabineHossenfelder Dont be afraid

Just search for "corrected Einstein's mathematics" or "corrected equations physics Mathis" etc, and you'll see that it's not quite that simple. The more advanced the mathematics, the smarter and more skeptical the mind is needed for keeping focus on what is useful and science mathematics ,and what isn't or only partially or contradictorily is.

@@KibyNykraft your comment burns my desire to excel at maths for the sake of understanding nature 😮

Hossenfelder is not a genius.

Some birds do math more complicated than that, and honeybees solve a problem quickly that humans have not figured out how to solve yet.

@@mikemondano3624 All natural species except humans have neither superstitions nor mathematics among the purely mind-based activities not having a direct relation to adaptation itself or to scientific plausability. That should give us a hint that nature is physical and not divine and mathematical

In that case, wouldn't the universe expand in just one direction- perpendicular to the axis of rotation?

@@3opaH If rotated in 3-dimensional space that would be true, but in 4-dimensional spacetime?

My Saturdays start with a cup of coffee and Sabine's video.

Will that make it Born again? ;-D

Lol true

But it's true though ,aren't we always moving?

@@lrimunlmorin7947 we are moving forward in time, yes. At least in our local understanding of time

@@lrimunlmorin7947 yes, it's true depending on your frame of reference, but as mentioned, the particular frame of reference you choose to work in doesn't matter when it comes to what the theory predicts, so we just choose to use the frame of reference that's most convenient to work with.

It’s like asking a geographer about his perspective on the flat earth.

Lorentz contraction

You're correct.

not any time, 'life time worked for others' is money.

That's exactly why I'm here. I've been unable to shake it for 20 years.

look up Hubbles law, it proves the universe is expanding, but into what? think about it, the farther you look into the universe the farther back in time you are seeing. so, the universe must be expanding into the past.

@@robwest5142 look up Hubbles law, it proves the universe is expanding, but into what? think about it, the farther you look into the universe the farther back in time you are seeing. so, the universe must be expanding into the past.

@@robertsavage8270 I see no clear contradiction. I would imagine it looking just like that if we shrunk at a faster and faster rate. I guess I need a more concrete description to how the shrinking universe can't be the explanation. I know it sounds like I'm shifting the burden of proof, but I'm not pushing seriously for my view, I'm just curious; is there a clear refutation for the idea? Or maybe I just miss something the Hubble thing explanation.🤷‍♂️ I will look deeper in to it.

As Sabine said, there is no problem with the idea of us shrinking. It is a matter of choosing an appropriate coordinate system.

If we say that there will be multiverses they all have their own space time and will if the physics is like ours, expand into nothing. Spacetime is the room inside of an universe. And all of these universes had their own big bang or beginning or what else

Using the word "universe" refers to all that we can perceive. Suppose we could go into a black hole and come out somewhere else, it would not be another universe, it would just be more universe. If we could measure the eleven hypothetical dimensions, they would still be part of our universe. If there are other universes, we would never know, because by definition they would be something that we cannot perceive. We can theorize about it all we want, though.

Well, thank you for confirming.

I'm not qualified to give a proper a proper answer to you but I suspect that nothing is affected by the moving apart of discrete and self contained systems. I like your last question about increasing rate. My mind has been inclined to suspect that the increasing rate of expansion MIGHT be explained by a high rate of spin of this entire universe. I have asked several youtubers for their opinions but so far have had zero response.

the belief that the universe is expanding is pseudoscience. a BS claim. It's not expanding anywhere. The other nonsense claims are from Einstein and for the quackery called Quantum.

Hossenfelder is not a genius. She is political. THE ULTIMATE AND TRUE MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION AND BALANCING REGARDING PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE IS CLEARLY PROVEN, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA: Time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, as E=mc2 IS F=ma. Therefore, this NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The Earth/ground is understood as comprising the FULL DISTANCE in/of SPACE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. Time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. So, E=mc2 IS F=ma. Overlay what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/with what is the Earth. (LOOK at what is the BLUE SKY. The Earth is ALSO BLUE.) Now, notice the black space of what is THE EYE. GREAT !!! Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The Earth/ground is ALSO E=mc2 AND F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Overlay what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/WITH what is the Earth. (Notice the black space of what is THE EYE.) NOW, A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course); AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great. Notice that THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE. LOOK up at what is the BLUE SKY. Excellent. Truly and ultimately, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The DOME of a person's EYE is ALSO visible. Great !!!!! I have proven why people are not visible on what is observed to be the Earth as it is SEEN from outer "space". E=mc2 IS F=ma. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience, as E=mc2 IS F=ma. Indeed, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma !!! THEREFORE, objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. Accordingly, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. Great !!! THE SUN is E=mc2 AND F=ma. Again, time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. THE EARTH/GROUND and WHAT IS THE MOON are both demonstrative of (and subject to) the fact that E=mc2 IS F=ma. Beautiful. BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. SO, a given PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out equal areas in equal times; and this is THEN consistent WITH E=mc2, F=ma, AND what is perpetual motion; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=mc2 IS F=ma. SO, THE EARTH/ground is a linked AND BALANCED opposite in relation to what is THE SUN. It therefore represents and comprises what is the FULL DISTANCE in/of SPACE in a BALANCED fashion, as E=mc2 IS F=ma. Therefore, time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves (ON BALANCE) that E=mc2 IS F=ma; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great. SO, this NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Great !!! Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. LOOK down at what constitutes the EARTH/ground. Again, E=mc2 IS F=ma. SO, the INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of thought (AND description) is, in fact, improved in the truly superior mind. Stellar clustering ALSO proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. Very carefully consider what is a galaxy. By Frank DiMeglio

To be pedantic, the problem is Sabine kind of asserted the universe does not expand into anything. A multiverse may be far from definite reality, and impossible to confirm but that also means its impossible to deny. Also, the idea of matter shrinking was a bit of straw man on the 'shrinking universe' denial assertion front. It is possible everything is being pulled inwards, with objects nearer The Greatest Attractor, further away from us, moving away faster. Laterally matter would be pulled into filaments that form blobs that form galaxy clusters... The Big Suck!

This is so, there are a great many things that are beyond a human’s ability to know. But this subject about our universe, is deeper than just saying it expands into nothing. Space is more than nothing, it is a field of tensors, magnetic fields, the Higgs field, gravitational fields, dark energy, etc. all of these fields are what make up space. This creates the 4 dimensions we enjoy. Outside of our universe, these fields do not exist, and therefore, there are no dimensions. And you simply cannot go where there are no dimensions. She did mention that if there are 10 dimensions, then perhaps our 4 dimensions are inside of that. But, there is zero evidence to support that theory. It happens to be one of those things that humans will never know.

@@PrivateSi "To be pedantic, the problem is Sabine kind of asserted the universe does not expand into anything." Exactly. Unless I misunderstood (which is very possible), I think, based on her explanation, it's more intellectually honest to summarize by saying "We don't know and cannot know what, if anything, it expands into."

@@calguy3838 You might want to call it "Outside the realm of natural sciences" as that is what it is. For a scientifically minded person, these two statements are more or less equivalent. As I understood the argument it is more about delinking to fact of an expanding universe from the assumption that there necessarily is something to expand into. And so it is reasonable to assume - based on our current understanding - that the universe expands "into nothing" instead of "into something". Ultimately though, it's nothing we can answer using natural sciences and we probably never will.

@@Neoplasie1900 I think people like me, who do not have a deep background in science, have difficulty conceptualizing space as a "thing."

The ant only travels on the surface, which can go forward or backward on the surface, left or right, but not up and down. In effect, it is a flatlander or 2D creature, but with a 3D body. Restricting its exploration space to the surface of the sphere which, let's say the sphere was large enough that the curvature wasn't obvious to the ant, how would this (also intelligent) ant determine that indeed it was a sphere? By measuring the angles traced on that surface

The ant is a bright ant and attended most of her spherical trigonometry lectures 😉

Are you lost or are you just tuning out?

Considering how redshift works, I tend to look at it as if new space is being created everywhere constantly.

it was almost jarring to hear the corroect pronounciation :D

her name suggests that she is from germany, or she knows because she works in frankfurt am main/germany ...

Too bad she can't pronounce anything else correctly.

@@FlushGorgon Your hearing must be off.

what's the hold up?

You're not supposed to understand. Likely Sabine doesn't understand either It's a non sensical theory to 'distract' you from a real theory, real science and real understanding. If everyone knew how Stonehenge worked, the druids could not use their knowledge to 'influence' (manipulate) the people around them. Also, you might find out that the sun is not some hydrogen bomb going off in space but an electric phenomena which could lead you 'back' to catastrophism which would make you see the impending 'next end of the world'

@@ResurrectingJiriki What on this objectively spherical Earth are you talking about bud?

@@BigManUndead What was not clear? It seemed to me that what I said is pretty straightforward? Unlike Einsteins' theories

@@ResurrectingJiriki "the sun is not some hydrogen bomb going off in space but an electric phenomena which could lead you 'back' to catastrophism which would make you see the impending 'next end of the world'" This part was not clear

Flat earthers : atleast the universe is Flat.

In your mind 🤘👁☚

Sorry but your wrong, We're on a "Oblate Spheroid". Which has a couple of "flatish" parts on it at the poles. The distance between the poles is shorter than the diameter at the equator, this is what confuses the "Flat-sters" (Flat-Earthers). Because there's a couple of places that look really flat. Where as a Sphere has an equal diameter in any direction.

@@Ghostrider-ul7xn But is it ? It could be such a massively huge Spheroid that the part of the universe we can see appears to be flat. Imagine a curve of one Nano meter per one trillion,trillion,trillion,trillion,trillion,trillion,trillion,trillion,trillion,trillion light years . Could we even measure such a curve?

@@leha1908 The exact shape is still a matter of debate but all the experimental data suggests its Flat with a 0.4% margin of error. The model that we use is Friedman -Robertson - walker model and the observational data best fits the properties explained through this model.

Back next week. With a new haircut!

@@SabineHossenfelder New haircut? You know, if your hairdresser screws up, he'll be a goner! ;)

@@SabineHossenfelder enjoy 😊

@@buddysnackit1758 What

I am pretty sure in political terms, you don't "expand", you "develop".

Or could it be that your clothes are shrinking?

You must be buying your pants from a different universe.

I watch partially for the jokes and the outfits. There's something for everyone!

@peter pixels, take it or leave it

What physics? Spacetime isn’t physical

@@neildown7231 It's where all the physics happens.

@@CAThompson That’s just space. Spacetime is one of the dumbest theories of all time

That's a much better answer than the video's!

@@Bananskuden It's also wrong ;p

@@Kyrelel Douple slit delux has shown us that physical reality doesn't form unless the field of consciousness is there to witness it. Reality doesn't assemble until we are there to witness it.

@@Kyrelel Is there degrees to wrongness?

@@little8660 simply untrue