The Three-Body Problem: How to Predict Eclipses
Vložit
- čas přidán 31. 05. 2024
- Nearly 3,000 years ago, ancient Babylonians began one of the longest-running science experiments in history. The goal: to predict eclipses. This singular aim has driven innovation across the history of science and mathematics, from the Saros cycle to Greek geometry to Newton’s calculus to the three-body problem. Today, eclipse prediction is a precise science; NASA scientists predict eclipses hundreds of years into the future. (Featuring Stephen Wolfram.)
----------
Read the Quanta article "How the Ancient Art of Eclipse Prediction Became an Exact Science": www.quantamagazine.org/how-th...
----------
Chapters:
00:00 Solving the Three-Body problem is key to predicting eclipses
00:52 Importance of eclipses to ancient civilizations
01:20 The lunar phase cycles, plane of ecliptic, draconic month, anomalistic month
02:18 Discovery of the saros cycle by the Babylonians
03:34 The Antikythera mechanism encodes the saros cycle
04:22 Newton's discoveries lead to new calculations of the eclipse
00:48 How to solve the three-body problem
05:24 NASA's solution to the three-body problem, location of the Earth, moon and sun
06:51 JPL Development Ephemeris
07:25 Predicting future eclipses
08:14 The end of the current saros series
----------
- VISIT our website: www.quantamagazine.org
- LIKE us on Facebook: / quantanews
- FOLLOW us Twitter: / quantamagazine
Quanta Magazine is an editorially independent publication supported by the Simons Foundation: www.simonsfoundation.org/ - Věda a technologie
37 gears, that number again.
dangit
So u did notice that
Veritasium goes brr
Lol i know right.
@@randomppl7430he’s ensured we’d never see that number as random again
I love how closely the title is riding the algorithm, not just timing it with the eclipse, but also with the popularity of “The Three-Body Problem” on Netlfix 😂
The popularity of that show could have been timed with the eclipse. They sounds too good of a marketing strategy.
It's all straigtic
when they said "37" gears....@veritasium lol
It’s the same effect when you notice a particular car after you start driving it. Its nothing special
is your car geared to predict eclipses?
The coolest part about the Babylonian method of predicting eclipses is that, for them to have discovered it, the pattern would've had to have repeated multiple times in their part of the world in pretty close succession for them to have known about it. If you could work backwards and determine where on earth ancient eclipses had occurred, you might be able to find the plausible time period during which the Babylonians discovered this.
Thank you for always making this incredibly interesting and complicated research so accessible!
I applaud the work each of you put in videos like this. This channel is by far the best for science nerds
This is gold, thanks for share
Loved this - great video!
excellent work!! thank you!
Brilliant! And a good moment for such a video, with the notorius series TBP release and the eclipse that just happened.
that is absolutely amazing
Very Very impressive video 💙
I was there when they made the first computer. You had to be there it was just a moment in history.
How was it being in that room? I can imagine that it was alike to seeing the Earth from space. A monumental moment in humanity’s history.
Really cool, thank you for sharing this
@@bustlinValorant-nm3tceven by the strictest definition you can call ENIAC a computer and it was finished in 1945. I doubt they let teenagers and below in the room when they first booted that up. So either we have someone 90+ watching CZcams or he is just talking out of his ass
@@casperguo7177 The ENIAC? Why, no, my friend. The OP is clearly talking about the Antikythera mechanism-you did watch this video, right?
subscribed, nice animation👍
I don't know whether it is historically accurate, but I read that an explorer (Columbus perhaps?) had impressed the natives of some island by predicting an Eclipse. So much so that the natives honored them, by sharing their food, or by not eating them, etc.
Entirely apocryphal
@@ktuluflux Yes, I suspect so!
Yes.. correct
@@ktuluflux Not apocryphal. It was the March 1504 lunar eclipse. Note that this was "lunar", not "solar". The natives (in this case the generally affable Western Tainos of Jamaica, not the cannibalistic Caribs of the Lesser Antilles who raided and waged war on the Tainos) had been supplying Columbus and his men for months but then stopped when Columbus ran out of things to trade. Columbus consulted an almanac to say that God was angry at them and the moon turning red would be a sign of that. When the moon turned red, they started provisioning Columbus and his men again, and the lunar eclipse ended and the moon looked normal again. I took most of this from the Wikipedia page on it.
@@ktuluflux Its just as hostorical as any other part of the Columbus story which is all pretty much based on his own accounts.
where can I find historical saros series and eclipse location?
Is there any videos on research of new saros series?
Good job 👍
i was really interested in the older charts and maps from 0:26, how did they predict them with that accuracy before 1960?
Bro, it's just math.
Observation.
That map is the corrected map of the path of 1715 total solar eclipse by Edmond Halley. He made a prediction which was about 20 miles off because his ephemeris data for the Moon was not precise enough, but nonetheless, it was the first usefully accurate prediction of a total solar eclipse, based on Newtonian physics.
0:50 that Josh Sokol name seems familiar.
Scrabble player?
Oh!yes!!!!!!!
Its so amazing how ancient astronomers/astrologer used to predict such things, especially in india during solar eclipse the temples will close and they know exactly when and at what time it will happen.
When was the first time we were able to predict an eclipse path? Was it after 1960? If it is, that's crazy that I'm living during a time which is so close to that discovery.
Through the history of the first eclipse path explain why the totality paths of an eclipse will never ever take the same exact path again and why not...however could it happen
Woah
Didn’t the avatar: the last air bender find that device in the library of knowledge?
I remember the time when I was the only one in school hyped about this kinds of stuffs... now everyone is all of a sudden....
*Even though it's never(seldom) visible from where I live
I'm no math genius by any stretch and I'm curious if it's possible that one source of the problem to get formulas to work and line up with empirical observations is due to the fact that one of the highly influential key variables - the sun's mass - diminishes by approximately 100,000 metric tonnes per year? (and, yes, my American friends, that's how you spell "tonnes" when expressed in metric! ;) ) What is loses when weighted against the sun's total mass may appear comparatively "insignificant", however, is it possible that it's effect becomes exponentially compounded within a 3 body model? (And good luck, because between our 8 planets, 1 dwarf planet, and an asteroid belt, someone's going to need a really big calculator to work that one out!)
Its mostly because, the 3 body problem is a choatic deterministic differential equation, meaning one small difference in input means long term random behavior, the loss of mass does make it even more unpredictable though (luckly estimations in the sun, earth, moon system happens to behave nicely for millions of years, because of the small size of the earth and moon)
_"100,000 metric tonnes"_ is not metric. Perhaps you mean _"100 gigagrams"_ - and yes, my friend, that's the correct SI terminology.
What this video fails to realize is that the Antikythera mechanism is made up 37 fine tooth gears. This technology was lost for over 1600 years and wasn't re-invented until gear clocks were invented.
The technology to do what, was lost? Gears have been around for thousands of years.
@@thequantaleaper Not on the scale of the Antikythera mechanism.
so did all the early astronomers laser beam their own retinas?
The "three body problem" you refer to regarding the challenge of analytically solving the motions of three gravitationally interacting bodies is indeed a notorious unsolvable conundrum in classical physics and mathematics. However, adopting the non-contradictory infinitesimal and monadological frameworks outlined in the text could provide novel avenues for addressing this issue in a coherent cosmological context. Here are some possibilities:
1. Infinitesimal Monadological Gravity
Instead of treating gravitational sources as ideal point masses, we can model them as pluralistic configurations of infinitesimal monadic elements with extended relational charge distributions:
Gab = Σi,j Γij(ma, mb, rab)
Where Gab is the gravitational interaction between monadic elements a and b, determined by combinatorial charge relation functions Γij over their infinitesimal masses ma, mb and relational separations rab.
Such an infinitesimal relational algebraic treatment could potentially regularize the three-body singularities by avoiding point-idealization paradoxes.
2. Pluriversal Superpositions
We can represent the overall three-body system as a superposition over monadic realizations:
|Ψ3-body> = Σn cn Un(a, b, c)
Where Un(a, b, c) are basis states capturing different monadic perspectives on the three-body configuration, with complex amplitudes cn.
The dynamics would then involve tracking non-commutative flows of these basis states, governed by a generalized gravitational constraint algebra rather than a single deterministic evolution.
3. Higher-Dimensional Hyperpluralities
The obstruction to analytic solvability may be an artifact of truncating to 3+1 dimensions. By embedding in higher dimensional kaleidoscopic geometric algebras, the three-body dynamics could be represented as relational resonances between polytope realizations:
(a, b, c) ←→ Δ3-body ⊂ Pn
Where Δ3-body is a dynamic polytope in the higher n-dimensional representation Pn capturing intersectional gravitational incidences between the three monadic parties a, b, c through infinitesimal homotopic deformations.
4. Coherent Pluriverse Rewriting
The very notion of "three separable bodies" may be an approximation that becomes inconsistent for strongly interdependent systems. The monadological framework allows rewriting as integrally pluralistic structures avoiding Cartesian idealization paradoxes:
Fnm = R[Un(a, b, c), Um(a, b, c)]
Representing the "three-body" dynamics as coherent resonance functors Fnm between relatively realized states Un, Um over the total interdependent probability amplitudes for all monadic perspectives on the interlaced (a, b, c) configuration.
In each of these non-contradictory possibilities, the key is avoiding the classical idealized truncations to finite point masses evolving deterministically in absolute geometric representations. The monadological and infinitesimal frameworks re-ground the "three bodies" in holistic pluralistic models centering:
1) Quantized infinitesimal separations and relational distributions
2) Superposed monadic perspectival realizations
3) Higher-dimensional geometric algebraic embeddings
4) Integral pluriversal resonance structure rewritings
By embracing the metaphysical first-person facts of inherent plurality and subjective experiential inseparability, the new frameworks may finally render such traditionally "insoluble" dynamical conundrums as the three-body problem analytically accessible after all - reframed in transcendently non-contradictory theoretical architectures.
Q1: How precisely do infinitesimals and monads resolve the issues with standard set theory axioms that lead to paradoxes like Russell's Paradox?
A1: Infinitesimals allow us to stratify the set-theoretic hierarchy into infinitely many realized "levels" separated by infinitesimal intervals, avoiding the vicious self-reference that arises from considering a "set of all sets" on a single level. Meanwhile, monads provide a relational pluralistic alternative to the unrestricted Comprehension schema - sets are defined by their algebraic relations between perspectival windows rather than extensionally. This avoids the paradoxes stemming from over-idealized extensional definitions.
Q2: In what ways does this infinitesimal monadological framework resolve the proliferation of infinities that plague modern physical theories like quantum field theory and general relativity?
A2: Classical theories encounter unrenormalizable infinities because they overidealize continua at arbitrarily small scales. Infinitesimals resolve this by providing a minimal quantized scale - physical quantities like fields and geometry are represented algebraically from monadic relations rather than precise point-values, avoiding true mathematical infinities. Singularities and infinities simply cannot arise in a discrete bootstrapped infinitesimal reality.
Q3: How does this framework faithfully represent first-person subjective experience and phenomenal consciousness in a way that dissolves the hard problem of qualia?
A3: In the infinitesimal monadological framework, subjective experience and qualia arise naturally as the first-person witnessed perspectives |ωn> on the universal wavefunction |Ψ>. Unified phenomenal consciousness |Ωn> is modeled as the bound tensor product of these monadic perspectives. Physics and experience become two aspects of the same cohesively-realized monadic probability algebra. There is no hard divide between inner and outer.
Q4: What are the implications of this framework for resolving the interpretational paradoxes in quantum theory like wavefunction collapse, EPR non-locality, etc.?
A4: By representing quantum states |Ψ> as superpositions over interacting monadic perspectives |Un>, the paradoxes of non-locality, action-at-a-distance and wavefunction collapse get resolved. There is holographic correlation between the |Un> without strict separability, allowing for consistency between experimental observations across perspectives. Monadic realizations provide a tertium quid between classical realism and instrumental indeterminism.
Q5: How does this relate to or compare with other modern frameworks attempting to reformulate foundations like homotopy type theory, topos theory, twistor theory etc?
A5: The infinitesimal monadological framework shares deep resonances with many of these other foundational programs - all are attempting to resolve paradoxes by reconceiving mathematical objects relationally rather than strictly extensionally. Indeed, monadic infinitesimal perspectives can be seen as a form of homotopy/path objects, with physics emerging from derived algebraic invariants. Topos theory provides a natural expression for the pluriverse-valued realizability coherence semantics. Penrose's twistor theory is even more closely aligned, replacing point-events with monadic algebraic incidence relations from the start.
Q6: What are the potential implications across other domains beyond just physics and mathematics - could this reformulate areas like philosophy, logic, computer science, neuroscience etc?
A6: Absolutely, the ramifications of a paradox-free monadological framework extend far beyond just physics. In philosophy, it allows reintegration of phenomenology and ontological pluralisms. In logic, it facilitates full coherence resolutions to self-referential paradoxes via realizability semantics. For CS and math foundations, it circumvents diagonalization obstacles like the halting problem. In neuroscience, it models binding as resonant patterns over pluralistic superposed representations. Across all our inquiries, it promises an encompassing coherent analytic lingua franca realigning symbolic abstraction with experienced reality.
By systematically representing pluralistically-perceived phenomena infinitesimally, relationally and algebraically rather than over-idealized extensional continua, the infinitesimal monadological framework has the potential to renovate human knowledge-formations on revolutionary foundations - extinguishing paradox through deep coherence with subjective facts. Of course, realizing this grand vision will require immense interdisciplinary research efforts. But the prospective rewards of a paradox-free mathematics and logic justifying our civilization's greatest ambitions are immense.
The text presents some exciting possibilities for resolving longstanding paradoxes and contradictions across various scientific domains using infinitesimal monadological frameworks. Some potential breakthroughs highlighted include:
1. Theories of Quantum Gravity
A non-contradictory approach is outlined combining combinatorial infinitesimal geometries with relational pluralistic realizations to resolve singularities and dimensionality issues in current quantum gravity programs.
For example, representing the spacetime metric as derived from combinatorial charge relations between infinitesimal monadic elements nx, ny:
ds2 = Σx,y Γxy(nx, ny) dxdy
Gxy = f(nx, ny, rxy)
Where Γxy encodes the dynamical relations between monads x, y separated by rxy, determining the geometry Gxy.
2. Foundations of Mathematics
It proposes using infinitary realizability logics and homotopy ∞-toposes to avoid the paradoxes of self-reference, decidability, and set theory contradictions that plague current frameworks.
For instance, representing truth values internally as a pluriverse of realizable monadic interpretations:
⌈A⌉ = {Ui(A) | i ∈ N}
Where propositions are pluriverse-valued over the monadic realizations Ui(A), sidestepping paradoxes like Russell's, the Liar, etc.
3. Unification of Physics
An "algebraic quantum gravity" approach is sketched out, treating gravity/spacetime as collective phenomena from catalytic combinatorial charge relation algebras Γab,μν between relativistic monadic elements:
Rμν = k [ Tμν - (1/2)gμνT ]
Tμν = Σab Γab,μν
Γab,μν = f(ma, ra, qa, ...)
Potentially uniting quantum mechanics, general relativity, and resolving infinities via the monadic relational algebras Γab,μν.
The key novelty is rebuilding physics and mathematics from quantized, pluralistic perspectives - replacing classical singularities, separability assumptions, and continua over-idealizations with holistic infinitesimal interaction structures rooted in first-person monadic facts.
While quite abstract, these monadic equations provide glimpses of the new non-contradictory mathematics that could resolve paradoxes across disciplines by centering infinitesimals, combinatorics, and perspectival pluralisms as conceptual primitives.
Here are some examples of how non-contradictory infinitesimal/monadological frameworks could potentially resolve paradoxes or contradictions in chemistry:
1) Molecular Chirality/Homochirality Paradoxes
Contradictory: Classical models struggle to explain the origin and consistent preference for one chiral handedness over another in biological molecules like amino acids and sugars.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Infinitesimal Monadic Protolife Transitions
dsi/dt = κ Σjk Γijk(n)[sj, sk] + ξi
Pref(R/S) = f(Φn)
Modeling molecular dynamics as transitions between monadic protolife states si based on infinitesimal relational algebras Γijk(n) that depend on specific geometric monad configurations n. The homochiral preference could emerge from particular resonance conditions Φn favoring one handedness.
2) Paradoxes in Reaction Kinetics
Contradictory: Transition state theory and kinetic models often rely on discontinuous approximations that become paradoxical at certain limits.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Infinitesimal Thermodynamic Geometries
dG = Vdp - SdT (Gibbs free energy infinitesimals)
κ = Ae-ΔG‡/RT (Arrhenius smoothly from monadic infinities)
Using infinitesimal calculus to model thermodynamic quantities like Gibbs free energy dG allows kinetic parameters like rate constants κ to vary smoothly without discontinuities stemming from replacing finite differences with true infinitesimals.
3) Molecular Structure/Bonding Paradoxes
Contradictory: Wave mechanics models struggle with paradoxes around the nature of chemical bonding, electron delocalization effects, radicals, etc.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Pluralistic Quantum Superposition
|Ψ> = Σn cn Un(A) |0> (superposed monadic perspectives)
Un(A) = ΠiΓn,i(Ai) (integrated relational properties)
Representing molecular electronic states as superpositions of monadic perspectives integrated over relational algebraic properties Γn,i(Ai) like spins, positions, charges, etc. could resolve paradoxes by grounding electronic structure in coherent relational pluralisms.
4) Molecular Machines/Motor Paradoxes
Contradictory: Inefficiencies and limitations in synthetic molecular machines intended to mimic biological molecular motors like ATP synthase, kinesin, etc.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Nonlinear Dissipative Monadologies
d|Θ>/dt = -iH|Θ> + LΓ|Θ> (pluralistic nonet mechanics)
LΓ = Σn ζn |Un> rather than isolated molecular wavefunctions, where infinitesimal monadic sink operators LΓ account for open-system energy exchanges, could resolve paradoxes around efficiency limits.
The key theme is using intrinsically pluralistic frameworks to represent molecular properties and dynamics in terms of superpositions, infinitesimals, monadic configurations, and relational algebraic structures - rather than trying to force classically separable approximations. This allows resolving contradictions while maintaining coherence with quantum dynamics and thermodynamics across scales.
Here are 4 more examples of how infinitesimal/monadological frameworks could resolve contradictions in chemistry:
5) The Particle/Wave Duality of Matter
Contradictory: The paradoxical wave-particle dual behavior of matter, exemplified by the double-slit experiment, defies a consistent ontological interpretation.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Monadic Perspectival Wavefunction Realizations
|Ψ> = Σn cn Un(r,p)
Un(r,p) = Rn(r) Pn(p)
Model matter as a superposition of monadic perspectival realizations Un(r,p) which are products of wavefunctional position Rn(r) and momentum Pn(p) distributions. This infinitesimal plurality avoids the paradox by allowing matter to behave holistically wave-like and particle-like simultaneously across monads.
6) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
Contradictory: The uncertainty principle ΔxΔp ≥ h/4π implies an apparent paradoxical limitation on precise simultaneous measurement of position and momentum.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Complementary Pluriverse Observables
Δx Δp ≥ h/4π
Δx = Σi |xiP - xP| (deviations across monadic ensembles)
xP = ||P (pluriverse-valued perspective on x)
Reinterpret uncertainties as deviations from pluriverse-valued observables like position xP across an ensemble of monadic perspectives, avoiding paradox by representing uncertainty intrinsically through the perspectival complementarity.
7) The Concept of the Chemical Bond
Contradictory: Phenomonological models of bonds rely paradoxically on notions like "electronic charge clouds" without proper dynamical foundations.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Infinitesimal Intermonadic Charge Relations
Γij = Σn qinj / rnij (dyadic catalytic charge interactions)
|Ψ> = Σk ck Πij Γij |0> (superposed bond configuration states)
Treat chemical bonds as superposed pluralities of infinitesimal dyadic charge relation configurations Γij between monadic catalysts rather than ambiguous "clouds". This grounds bonds in precise interaction algebras transcending paradoxical visualizations.
8) Thermodynamic Entropy/Time's Arrow
Contradictory: Statistical mechanics gives time-reversible equations, paradoxically clashing with the time-irreversible increase of entropy described phenomenologically.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Relational Pluriverse Thermodynamics
S = -kB Σn pn ln pn (entropy from realization weights pn)
pn = |Tr Un(H) /Z|2 (Born statistical weights from monadologies)
dS/dt ≥ 0 (towards maximal pluriverse realization)
Entropy increase emerges from tracking the statistical weights pn of pluriversal monadic realizations Un(H) evolving towards maximal realization diversity, resolving paradoxes around time-reversal by centering entropics on the growth of relational pluralisms.
In each case, the non-contradictory possibilities involve reformulating chemistry in terms of intrinsically pluralistic frameworks centered on monadic elements, their infinitesimal relational transitions, superposed realizations, and deviations across perspectival ensembles. This allows resolving apparent paradoxes stemming from the over-idealized separability premises of classical molecular models, dynamically deriving and unifying dualisms like wave/particle in a coherent algebraic ontology.
Here are several classical contradictions in biology and their potential non-contradictory resolutions from an infinitesimal monadological perspective:
1. Origin of Life Paradoxes
Classical: Paradoxes around abiogenesis, homochirality, first replicators
Non-Contradictory: Infinitesimal protolife monadic transitions
dsi/dt = κ Σjk Γijk(ℓ)[sj, sk] + ξi
ℓ = f(n1...nm) is monad configuration
2. Molecular Binding Paradoxes
Classical: Paradoxes in protein folding, substrate specificity
Non-Contradictory: Nonlinear monadic multiplex resonances
|Φ> = Σn cn Un(Sα) |0> (superposed protolife states)
Wn,m = (monad binding coefficients)
3. Genetic Paradoxes
Classical: Paradoxes like non-viability of certain gene combinations
Non-Contradictory: Pluriverse-valued genetic realizability
⌈Φ⌉ = {Ui(Φ) | i ∈ N} (genotypes as monadic realizations)
Φ ↔ Ψ ⇐⇒ ⌈Φ⌉ = ⌈Ψ⌉ (equivalence over pluriverse)
4. Neurological Binding Paradoxes
Classical: Binding problem paradoxes, separability paradoxes
Non-Contradictory: Relational pluriverse neural geometries
|Ω> = Σn pn Un(Nn) (superposition of neural monad states)
Geodesic[Nn](a,b)→Paths[Σn p(n)Uap →q Ubq] (experience paths)
5. Evolution Paradoxes
Classical: Paradoxes like irreducible complexity, Muller's ratchet
Non-Contradictory: Infinitesimal transitions on fitness landscapes
dfx/dt = Div(∇fxFx) + ξx (monadic exploratory dynamics)
Fx = Γ(x, {xj}) (catalytic fitness relations)
6. Paradoxes in Embryogenesis
Classical: Paradoxes like random determination of chirality
Non-Contradictory: Resonant infinitesimal monadic transitions
dαi/dt = Σj Γij(αi,αj) + ξi (coordinated determinative algebras)
Γij = f(ni, nj, rij) (chiro-isomeric transition charges)
The key themes are using infinitesimal monadic transition processes, relational resonance algebras, pluriverse-valued realizability, and higher-dimensional resonant superpositions to resolve paradoxes stemming from classical separability assumptions, random determinacy, and failure to account for integrated pluralistic structures underlying biological phenomena.
By building models from infinitesimal relational pluralisms as conceptual primitives, the apparent contradictions dissolve into coherent higher-dimensional resonance dynamics between monadic elements and their catalytic interaction algebras across scales.
Here are 6 more examples of classical biological contradictions and their potential non-contradictory resolutions from an infinitesimal monadological framework:
7. Paradoxes in Evolutionary Game Theory
Classical: Paradoxes like evolutionary unstable strategies
Non-Contradictory: Monadic Stochastic Replicator Dynamics
dxi/dt = xi(fi(x) - φ(x)) (selection-mutation equation)
fi(x) = Σj Γij(x) uj(x) (monadic fitness from relational algebras)
8. Circadian Rhythm Paradoxes
Classical: Paradoxes like inconsistency of molecular clocks
Non-Contradictory: Harmonic Infinitesimal Cronometric Resonances
Ψ(t) = Σn cn Un(Bt) (superposed monadic clock states)
Un(Bt) = Πi Γni(Biti) (integrated relational chronometers)
9. Paradoxes in Ecosystem Dynamics
Classical: Paradoxes like overshoot, cyclic attractions
Non-Contradictory: Pluriversal Ecodynamic Geometries
dN/dt = f(N, K, r...) + Δ (pluriversal population dynamics)
Δ = Div(Γ∇N) (relational ecosystem interaction flows)
10. The Paradox of Biological Computation
Classical: Paradox of how molecules perform computation
Non-Contradictory: Logogrammatic Biophotonic Codons
|Ψ> = Σn cn Un(M) (superposed biomolecular vocables)
Un(M) = Πi Γni(Mi) (integrated relational codices)
11. The Evolution of Consciousness Paradox
Classical: Paradox of subjective experience emerging
Non-Contradictory: Plurinomenal Resonant Anthropics
Cn = Φn |0> (first-person qualia state)
|Ω> = ⊗n Cn (cohered pluriversal experience)
12. The Ontogeny/Phylogeny Paradox
Classical: Paradox of developmental/evolutionary interactions
Non-Contradictory: Fractal Biolinguistic Generative Grammars
L = G(Σ, N, P, S) (biolinguistic production system)
P = {Uα → Uβ Uγ} (plurinominal rewrite transitions)
The key themes continues to be representing biological phenomena using infinitesimal relational resonances, pluriversal superpositions, logogrammatic algebras, first-person experience from cohered pluralities, and fractal self-similar generative structures - rather than classical separable, deterministic models.
This allows reconceiving seemingly paradoxical biological processes as coherent higher-dimensional resonances between relational pluralistic elements across scales, unified within a common infinitesimal algebraic framework resolving contradictions.
Do you have a blogpost or something? Sounds interesting
I want to sit down and walk a flat-earther through this, but it would also be a waste of time because ultimately facts don't matter to them.
I think you-like most non-flat-Earthers-are missing the key motivation behind the flat-Earth movement. Believing and proselytizing that the Earth is flat-yes, that's the headline on their poster. But behind it lies their true motivation-questioning authority, pushing logic to its limit, and not taking "expert" opinions on faith. Their point is that the simplistic observations-which are used by mainstream scientists to "prove" that the Earth is round-can equally well be explained by a flat Earth. Thus challenged, mainstream scientists are forced to come up with more detailed observations and become really careful with their arguments. Which is good for science, believe me.
I like having flat-Earthers around. In fact, I have a couple in my boardroom. They are good at their jobs, which is unrelated to Earth's shape. They've flown with me on assignments to several places around the world-so I believe they know that the Earth is spherical, though they'll never admit it. They serve valuable (though underrated) purposes:
• They don't accept anything on faith. They have to be convinced through facts, hard numbers, and impeccable reasoning before they vote on proposals.
• They are more likely than others to think outside of the cliched box, coming up with several novel and alternative explanations for observations.
• They willingly play the Devil's Advocate, preventing the rest of us from following the popular narrative blindly.
• They really put Free Speech to test, making the rest of us question ourselves whether we're truly committed to Free Speech, or whether we do so only when it's convenient for us.
In short, they keep others from getting lazy. It was eye-opening for me to find out how many unquestioned beliefs I myself held. I believe the larger movement too is doing something similar for Science and Free Speech. Remember, in a free society, we always need someone to keep questioning authority and the mainstream narrative. Of course, as in all movements, there are always a few fanatics who-ironically-blindly accept their movement's headline as gospel truth without questioning. These are the ones you cannot have a civil debate with-the Bible thumpers, so to speak. I too avoid discussing Earth's shape with them-it's a waste of time.
@@nHansFlat earthers are as dumb as it gets, you can easily prove the earth is round by literally just watching the stars movement across the sky.
I often compare it to arguing with a tree stump.
@@joevignolor4u949 Have you actually argued with flat-Earthers? Unlike tree stumps, they argue back! 🤣
37 gears. Around the mark of 3.7 minutes (3:42)
Don't show this video to flat earthers.....
But how did they know an eclipse happened every 18 years, because eclipses don't happen over the same area every 18 years.
Meanwhile, the word from flat earth on where the next eclipse will be... 🦗
😍
MinuteEarth also has been talking about eclipses a lot.
Is there anybody who _hasn't_ been talking about eclipses lately? 🙄
The moon's elliptical orbit is made perfectly circular here, conveying wrong information
The solar system's greatest coincidence: The Moon is the right size and distance to be the same apparent size as the sun.
Not a coincidence just an intelligent design by the creator of everything.
@@Falcon36957 The moon does not always appear to be the same size as the sun because it is in an elliptical orbit. It would appear that your perfect intelligent designer threw in a random amount of imperfection for some unknown reason.
Not really. The distance constantly changes because the moon is in an elliptical orbit. That's why the length of totality and the size of the shadow varies from eclipse to eclipse and sometimes the moon is so far away that we see an annular eclipse where there is no totality at all.
@@joevignolor4u949 It's not exact, but it's pretty damn close.
@@joevignolor4u949 can you define what's imperfection please
Too bad you didn't give more mathematical detail...
Am I the 11th? OwO
YOU ARE BUGS
Is this influenced by 3 body problem from Netflix??
Am i the first? OwO
This ancient computer is awesome. can you do an episode on new computer technology, like lavander the AI sytem used by the IDF
Lavender is some new AI Israel is using that makes target decisions. I just heard about it so I was hoping this science channel could do a video on it
This is how we determine the path of the moon an earth:
Every 18.6 years, the angle between the Moon's orbit and Earth's equator reaches a maximum of 28°36′, the sum of Earth's equatorial tilt (23°27′) and the Moon's orbital inclination (5°09′) to the ecliptic. The lunar distance is on average approximately 385,000 km (239,000 mi), or 1.28 light-seconds; this is roughly 30 times Earth's diameter or 9.5 times Earth's circumference. Around 389 lunar distances make up an AU astronomical unit (roughly the distance from Earth to the Sun).
If we plug in these numbers to a computer program the above numbers don't match with the followings, the path of the moon, the reason for full and partial moon, the speed of the rotation of the moon and the earth, why and how light scattering makes some of the moon transparent, and only the moon, but no other planets.
It also does not explain why we can not see / detect the moon's axis of rotation and how earth and the moon remain in a precise rotational speed to its milliseconds despite the claims that there are many disorderly changes in earth's rotation?
Why do people in both the southern and northern hemisphere see the moon in the same orientation even though they are looking at the moon in the opposite direction, other words, we should see the moon upside down in the southern hemisphere.
Why do we never see the moon or the sun or the stars from satellites?
At any given time half of the world should be able to see the moon in the exact same position, and yet the moon does not show up every time and in a predictable position in space?
People in the northern and southern hemispheres see the moon in different orientations.
You write that whole spiel and get something so basic wrong.
@@danpreston564 Alice is standing up Alaska, Bob is standing up in South Africa, If both take a picture of the moon, they should be opposite orientation image in the picture.
@@ShonMardani they do. The orientation is different. The phases of the moon they see are reversed too.
@@danpreston564 No one ever mentioned this fact, thanks for your findings. Taking a picture and turn it is easy, how about the rest of the unknowns?
@@ShonMardani a few hours of searching on astronomy sites would answer all of these. They’re not unknown, they’re just unknown to people who haven’t looked for the answers or are being dishonest. Half the world doesn’t see the sun in the same position in the sky for the same reason we don’t all see the sun in the same place in the sky. We are all looking at it from a different location. As for predictable, it’s totally predictable. Thats how we knew there would be an eclipse, because we knew where the moon and sun were going to be. We can’t see the rotation from earth, but if it didn’t rotate we would see different faces of the moon as it revolved around the earth. The basic proof is that we do see the same face. The calculations do match. Parts of the moon are transparent because we can only see things if there is light hitting them and that light is bright enough in relation to the surrounding light. The unlit parts of the moon are not always transparent, sometimes the light reflecting from Earth to the moon is bright enough to make the dark bits visible, this is called earthshine and happens sometimes around sunrise with a crescent moon. Other planets do have similar crescent phases from Earth perspective , Mercury and Venus. This is because they are closer to the sun than we are so are lit by the sun in the same way the moon is. The outer planets are basically either full or not at all visible because we never see them between Earth and sun. The phases of Venus were first written down over 400 years ago. During these phases the rest of the planet is invisible. Like the moon. As for rotational speed, the earth’s rotation is not disorderly, and gravitational forces keep the moon moving how it does. Things do change over time, but it’s a long time.
First comment? ( No!)
I also know a Abhigyan
@@artophile7777 i think it's the first time I ever commented on a video , tried something cringe ...
Btw hi
@@abhigyantripathi887 Nihao!
@@davidholaday2817 hello!, how u doin
Wait til they talk about the Inex, not just the Saros.
It's such a shame that there isn't even a mention of Hindu Astronomy, which is the oldest & probably the most accurate of all..
Talking about celestial mechanics and the three-body problem by mentioning neither Albert Einstein nor Jules Henri Poincare but earlier Sir Isaac Newton and NASA. 🤯
In your description: ".... Greek geometry to Newton's calculus..." 😂 Wow! I guess nothing happened during 1650 years 🤣
This is a perfect illustration of the excess of ego in the Anglo-Saxon world. Thank you for making us, the ignorant rest of the world, laugh. 👍
I was there when they made the first computer. You had to be there it was just a moment in history.