Youtube comments of Pete Venuti (@petevenuti7355).

  1. 385
  2. 208
  3. 64
  4. 39
  5. 38
  6. 33
  7. 32
  8. 28
  9. 25
  10. 23
  11. 22
  12. 19
  13. 17
  14. 17
  15. 16
  16. 15
  17. 14
  18. 13
  19. 12
  20. 11
  21. 10
  22. 10
  23. 10
  24. 10
  25. 10
  26. 10
  27. 10
  28. 9
  29. 9
  30. 9
  31. 9
  32. 9
  33. 9
  34. 8
  35. 8
  36. 8
  37. 8
  38. 8
  39. 7
  40. 7
  41. 7
  42. 7
  43. 7
  44. 6
  45. 6
  46. 6
  47. 6
  48. 6
  49. 6
  50. 6
  51. 6
  52. 6
  53. 6
  54. 5
  55. 5
  56. 5
  57. 5
  58. 5
  59. 5
  60. 5
  61. 5
  62. 5
  63. 5
  64. 5
  65. 5
  66. 5
  67. 5
  68. 5
  69. 4
  70. 4
  71. 4
  72. 4
  73. 4
  74. 4
  75. 4
  76. 4
  77. 4
  78. 4
  79. 4
  80. 4
  81. 4
  82. 4
  83. 4
  84. 4
  85. 4
  86. 4
  87. 4
  88. 4
  89. 4
  90. 4
  91. 4
  92. 4
  93. 3
  94. 3
  95. 3
  96. 3
  97. 3
  98. 3
  99. 3
  100. 3
  101. 3
  102. 3
  103. 3
  104. 3
  105. 3
  106. 3
  107. 3
  108. 3
  109. 3
  110. 3
  111. 3
  112. 3
  113. 3
  114. 3
  115. 3
  116. 3
  117. 3
  118. 3
  119. 3
  120. 3
  121. 3
  122. 3
  123. 3
  124. 3
  125. 3
  126. 3
  127. 3
  128. 3
  129. 3
  130. 3
  131. 3
  132. 3
  133. 3
  134. 3
  135. 3
  136. 3
  137. 3
  138. 3
  139. 3
  140. 3
  141. 3
  142. 3
  143. 3
  144. 3
  145. 3
  146. 3
  147. 3
  148. 2
  149. 2
  150. 2
  151. 2
  152. 2
  153. 2
  154. 2
  155. 2
  156. 2
  157. 2
  158. 2
  159. 2
  160. 2
  161. 2
  162. 2
  163. 2
  164. 2
  165. 2
  166. 2
  167. 2
  168. 2
  169. 2
  170. 2
  171. 2
  172. 2
  173. 2
  174. 2
  175. 2
  176. 2
  177. 2
  178. 2
  179. 2
  180. 2
  181. 2
  182. 2
  183. 2
  184. 2
  185. 2
  186. 2
  187. 2
  188. 2
  189. 2
  190. 2
  191. 2
  192. 2
  193. 2
  194. 2
  195. 2
  196. 2
  197. 2
  198. 2
  199. 2
  200. 2
  201. 2
  202. 2
  203. 2
  204. 2
  205. 2
  206. 2
  207. 2
  208. 2
  209. 2
  210. 2
  211. 2
  212. 2
  213. 2
  214. 2
  215. 2
  216. 2
  217. 2
  218. 2
  219. 2
  220. 2
  221. 2
  222. 2
  223. 2
  224. 2
  225. 2
  226. 2
  227. 2
  228. 2
  229. 2
  230. 2
  231. 2
  232. 2
  233. 2
  234. 2
  235. 2
  236. 2
  237. 2
  238. 2
  239. 2
  240. 2
  241. 2
  242. 2
  243. 2
  244. 2
  245. 2
  246. 2
  247. 2
  248. 2
  249. 2
  250. 2
  251. 2
  252. 2
  253. 2
  254. 2
  255. 2
  256. 2
  257. 2
  258. 2
  259. 2
  260. 2
  261. 2
  262. 2
  263. 2
  264. 2
  265. 2
  266. 2
  267. 2
  268. 2
  269. 2
  270. 2
  271. 2
  272. 2
  273. 2
  274. 2
  275. 2
  276. 2
  277. 2
  278. 2
  279. 2
  280. 2
  281. 2
  282. 2
  283. 2
  284. 2
  285. 2
  286. 2
  287. 2
  288. 2
  289. 2
  290. 2
  291. 2
  292. 2
  293. 2
  294. 2
  295. 2
  296. 2
  297. 2
  298. 2
  299. 2
  300. 2
  301. 2
  302. 2
  303. 2
  304. 2
  305. 2
  306. 2
  307. 2
  308. 2
  309. 2
  310. 2
  311. 2
  312. 2
  313. 2
  314. 1
  315. 1
  316. 1
  317. 1
  318. 1
  319. 1
  320. 1
  321. 1
  322. 1
  323. 1
  324. 1
  325. 1
  326. 1
  327. 1
  328. 1
  329. 1
  330. 1
  331. 1
  332. 1
  333. 1
  334. 1
  335. 1
  336. 1
  337. 1
  338. 1
  339. 1
  340. 1
  341. 1
  342. 1
  343. 1
  344. 1
  345. 1
  346. 1
  347. 1
  348. 1
  349. 1
  350. 1
  351. 1
  352. 1
  353. 1
  354. 1
  355. 1
  356. 1
  357. 1
  358. 1
  359. 1
  360. 1
  361. 1
  362. 1
  363. 1
  364. 1
  365. 1
  366. 1
  367. 1
  368. 1
  369. 1
  370. 1
  371. 1
  372. 1
  373. 1
  374. 1
  375. 1
  376. 1
  377. 1
  378. 1
  379. 1
  380. 1
  381. 1
  382. 1
  383. 1
  384. 1
  385. 1
  386. 1
  387. 1
  388. 1
  389. 1
  390. 1
  391. 1
  392. 1
  393. 1
  394. 1
  395. 1
  396. 1
  397. 1
  398. 1
  399. 1
  400. 1
  401. 1
  402. 1
  403. 1
  404. 1
  405. 1
  406. 1
  407. 1
  408. 1
  409. 1
  410. 1
  411. 1
  412. 1
  413. 1
  414. 1
  415. 1
  416. 1
  417. 1
  418. 1
  419. 1
  420. 1
  421. 1
  422. 1
  423. 1
  424. 1
  425. 1
  426. 1
  427. 1
  428. 1
  429. 1
  430. 1
  431. 1
  432. 1
  433. 1
  434. 1
  435. 1
  436. 1
  437. 1
  438. 1
  439. 1
  440. 1
  441. 1
  442. 1
  443. 1
  444. 1
  445. 1
  446. 1
  447. 1
  448. 1
  449. 1
  450. 1
  451. 1
  452. 1
  453. 1
  454. 1
  455. 1
  456. 1
  457. 1
  458. 1
  459. 1
  460. 1
  461. 1
  462. 1
  463. 1
  464. 1
  465. 1
  466. 1
  467. 1
  468. 1
  469. 1
  470. 1
  471. 1
  472. 1
  473. 1
  474. 1
  475. 1
  476. 1
  477. 1
  478. 1
  479. 1
  480. 1
  481. 1
  482. 1
  483. 1
  484. 1
  485. 1
  486. 1
  487. 1
  488. 1
  489. 1
  490. 1
  491. 1
  492. 1
  493. 1
  494. 1
  495. 1
  496. 1
  497. 1
  498. 1
  499. 1
  500. 1
  501. 1
  502. 1
  503. 1
  504. 1
  505. 1
  506. 1
  507. 1
  508. 1
  509. 1
  510. 1
  511. 1
  512. 1
  513. 1
  514. 1
  515. 1
  516. 1
  517. 1
  518. 1
  519. 1
  520. 1
  521. 1
  522. 1
  523. 1
  524. 1
  525. 1
  526. 1
  527. 1
  528. 1
  529. 1
  530. 1
  531. 1
  532. 1
  533. 1
  534. 1
  535. 1
  536. 1
  537. 1
  538. 1
  539.  @angelmendez-rivera351  between you and the rmsgreay any hubris I had took a sledge hammer.. between command of logic, fluidity of passing between levels of abstraction not to mention vocabulary I've never heard before... it feels good to be a party to this dialogue, very educational. Also I feel completely jipped by the educational system... Yet to get back on topic... Personally in my mind any linear algebra has that one input one output property and that's what linear means in that context. I don't believe you are also saying that a function has to be linear to be a function were you? I'm assuming that only needs to be the case in the description of the definition of the simple binary functions we are discussing being division multiplication and what they're built from, I believe you're only saying that those specifically have to be linear , correct? What would be your opinion on giving 0/0 it's own symbol, much like the numeral " i " , (essentially making it its own object outside of the systems you guys were discussing that I don't know the vocabulary for) even if it won't allow for a conceptual definition (like i) it would at least make errors glaringly obvious. I think I'm seeing what you're trying to explain to me, your separating the concept of what these relationships are from the mechanism of how they are calculated. (separating the adjective from the verb in an adverb?) They're very intimately related so this is difficult. I never was and would never deny the concept of infinity, and I don't think you were saying I was, I think you were just saying that some of the things I was saying would point to that conclusion but in explaining that to me it sounded like you're denying the concept of "nothing" or by saying "nothing doesn't exist" or did you just mean in the sense that that's what nothing is by definition, something, everything, that doesn't exist..?
    1
  540. 1
  541. 1
  542.  @rmsgrey  I was just pointing out how significant it is that there can be such widely different meanings of the same word between people even speaking the same language. I meant linear to denote the one to one or many to one relationship defining a function , you meant linear essentially as a line in a coordinate system and Angel I believe originally meant it in the strictest sense of linear algebra. There was also some ambiguity and difference between the way I meant algorithm and the way he thought I meant algorithm from the way he would mean algorithm.. I did get what I was mainly fishing for, I just didn't know enough before to know what to ask. Such as how to get some of the definitions as they're commonly agreed upon by mathematicians for our current system of math Which are the standard axioms (Angel mentioned two names I got to go back and look) and what they imply. I haven't looked yet but I doubt they include methods on how to do operations as part of their definition. Not even sure if necessary as long as the axioms are not contradicted. I'm Still having trouble separating the conceptualization of a functional relationship from the process of doing one. (That's what she said 😜) I want to read about some of the things you guys were talking about before I ask any more questions, see if I can figure out the " how to proceed" part of their meanings to extend the definitions for myself for practical use in which there is apparently some flexibility as long as the axioms aren't contradicted. (I'm trying hard not to use the word algorithm again, because apparently it implies limiting oneself only to the process of the computable) Then maybe I can build myself back up to the first grade level and strengthen my foundations.🤓
    1
  543. 1
  544. 1
  545. 1
  546. 1
  547. 1
  548. 1
  549. 1
  550. 1
  551. 1
  552. 1
  553. 1
  554. 1
  555. 1
  556. 1
  557. 1
  558. 1
  559. 1
  560. 1
  561. 1
  562. 1
  563. 1
  564. 1
  565. 1
  566. 1
  567. 1
  568. 1
  569. 1
  570. 1
  571. 1
  572. 1
  573. 1
  574. 1
  575. 1
  576. 1
  577. 1
  578. 1
  579. 1
  580. 1
  581. 1
  582. 1
  583. 1
  584. 1
  585. 1
  586. 1
  587. 1
  588. 1
  589. 1
  590. 1
  591. 1
  592. 1
  593. 1
  594. 1
  595. 1
  596. 1
  597. 1
  598. 1
  599. 1
  600. 1
  601. 1
  602. 1
  603. 1
  604. 1
  605. 1
  606. 1
  607. 1
  608. 1
  609. 1
  610. 1
  611. I do not believe most of this and see this hype. Which is terrible because there are a lot of great benefits from smaller scale tethering systems, and I don't want to see those benefits ignored or curtailed because people will think space elevator in their head and automatically assume it will fail. I propose that when it comes time to decommission the international space station, instead of letting the whole thing burn up in the atmosphere or trying to save the whole thing as a museum, it should be split in half, the two halves connected by such a tether, and use the momentum of one half to boost the other half without the need for crazy amounts of fuel. Heck maybe a small part can remain in the middle, the tether remaining for hooking onto satellites that need to be de-orbited on one end and satellites that need to be injected into a high orbit on the other. Basically use the act of cleaning up space debris as a source of angular momentum to save fuel! Such an experiment would be invaluable to finding out the practical limits of such a system, and a necessary step to take tethers or even future space elevators out of the realm of science fiction. If I remember correctly they tried a space tether once before on a space shuttle mission, and apparently it failed due to electrical charge buildup that burned the cable long before the cable would have failed from mechanical stresses...., that's why we have to do these smaller experiments first ,. before we can believe the big fantasies could possibly be realized.
    1
  612. 1
  613. 1
  614. 1
  615. 1
  616. 1
  617. 1
  618. 1
  619. 1
  620. 1
  621. 1
  622. 1
  623. 1
  624. 1
  625. 1
  626. 1
  627. 1
  628. 1
  629. 1
  630. 1
  631. 1
  632. 1
  633. 1
  634. 1
  635. 1
  636. 1
  637. 1
  638. 1
  639. 1
  640. 1
  641. 1
  642. 1
  643. 1
  644. 1
  645. 1
  646. 1
  647. 1
  648. 1
  649. 1
  650. 1
  651. 1
  652. 1
  653. 1
  654. 1
  655. 1
  656. 1
  657. 1
  658. 1
  659. 1
  660. 1
  661. 1
  662. 1
  663. 1
  664. 1
  665. 1
  666. 1
  667. 1
  668. 1
  669. 1
  670. 1
  671. 1
  672. 1
  673. 1
  674. 1
  675. 1
  676. 1
  677. 1
  678. 1
  679. 1
  680. 1
  681. 1
  682. 1
  683. 1
  684. 1
  685. 1
  686. 1
  687. 1
  688. 1
  689. 1
  690. 1
  691. 1
  692. 1
  693. 1
  694. 1
  695. 1
  696. 1
  697. 1
  698. 1
  699. 1
  700. 1
  701. 1
  702. 1
  703. 1
  704. 1
  705. 1
  706. 1
  707. 1
  708. 1
  709. 1
  710. 1
  711. 1
  712. 1
  713. 1
  714. 1
  715. 1
  716. 1
  717. 1
  718. 1
  719. 1
  720. 1
  721. 1
  722. 1
  723. 1
  724. 1
  725. 1
  726. 1
  727. 1
  728. 1
  729. 1
  730. 1
  731. 1
  732. 1
  733. 1
  734. 1
  735. 1
  736. 1
  737. 1
  738. 1
  739. 1
  740. 1
  741. 1
  742. 1
  743. 1
  744. 1
  745. 1
  746. 1
  747. 1
  748. 1
  749. 1
  750. 1
  751. 1
  752. 1
  753. 1
  754. 1
  755. 1
  756. 1
  757. 1
  758. 1
  759. 1
  760. 1
  761. 1
  762. 1
  763. 1
  764. 1
  765. 1
  766. 1
  767. 1
  768. 1
  769. 1
  770. 1
  771. 1
  772. 1
  773. 1
  774. 1
  775. 1
  776. 1
  777. 1
  778. 1
  779. 1
  780. 1
  781. 1
  782. 1
  783. 1
  784. 1
  785. @axle.student  I appreciate that you're able to have the flexibility of point of view! Many in academia tend to think they have a third person point of view , when in fact all that any of us really have is a first person point of view. To be able able to put your first person point of view in a "what if" scenario like that is actually a bit of a talent that you probably take for granted. That said, if you imagine the universe being the inside of a black hole like we were just discussing, if you assume that time is an actual physical spatial 4th dimension, and that there is this black hole in that universe, and that black hole is our universe, and that fourth dimension has been transformed into time inside that black hole, yes I do believe we would have that inverted perspective like what we do actually observe our universe to be. But if that's the case time is neither of those two options. Something in the past would be something that fell into the black hole after you, and future would be something that fell in before you, and being is that you can never "see" in those directions(because information can never travel in the outward direction and hence why that dimension is perceived as time) , that means if you could travel to the past it wouldn't be your past. The construct of time is a physical dimension would be a completely separate thing than the emergent property that gives us the perception of time because of increasing entropy and memory. You would still get the effects of general relativity because any travel in one of the three orthogonal dimensions , that would take away from the forward velocity in the time direction, a vector component where your total velocity is always the speed of light, but only light travels in the same direction as time. If gravity works across time in this construct, (as it seems likely it would if it could have formed a four-dimensional black hole) it would explain dark matter as well, any mass that was in the future or past in a physical time dimension would influence us in the present. I just wish I knew somebody who could help me formulate this concept mathematically so it could be taken seriously! As for the proverbial singularity , I think it's more like a higher dimensional Gabriel's horn. Also that the event horizon is like a mathematical discontinuity.
    1
  786. 1
  787. 1
  788. 1
  789. 1
  790. 1
  791. 1
  792. 1
  793. 1
  794. 1
  795. 1
  796. 1
  797. 1
  798. 1
  799. 1
  800. 1
  801. 1
  802. 1
  803. 1
  804. 1
  805. 1
  806. 1
  807. 1
  808. 1
  809. 1
  810. 1
  811. 1
  812. 1
  813. 1
  814. 1
  815. 1
  816. 1
  817. 1
  818. 1
  819. 1
  820. 1
  821. 1
  822. 1
  823. 1
  824. 1
  825. 1
  826. 1
  827. 1
  828. 1
  829. 1
  830. 1
  831. 1
  832. 1
  833. 1
  834. 1
  835. 1
  836. 1
  837. 1
  838. 1
  839. 1
  840. 1
  841. 1
  842. 1
  843. 1
  844. 1
  845. 1
  846. 1
  847. 1
  848. 1
  849. 1
  850. 1
  851. 1
  852. 1
  853. 1
  854. 1
  855. 1
  856. 1
  857. 1
  858. 1
  859. 1
  860. 1
  861. 1
  862. 1
  863. 1
  864. 1
  865. 1
  866. 1
  867. 1
  868. 1
  869. 1
  870. 1
  871. 1
  872. 1
  873. 1
  874. 1
  875. 1
  876. 1
  877. 1
  878. 1
  879. 1
  880. 1
  881. 1
  882. 1
  883. 1
  884. 1
  885. 1
  886. 1
  887. 1
  888. 1
  889. 1
  890. 1
  891. 1
  892. 1
  893. 1
  894. 1
  895. 1
  896. 1
  897. 1
  898. 1
  899. 1
  900.  @mattblack6736  Feet? No , I honestly , personally, can't believe it'll be more than 50ft in my lifetime.... But it's quite shocking how much coastline disappears over the few inches raise I've already seen it go up in my life. But no, I actually meant meters, (approximately a yard I'm still thinking in English units) a lot of the worst case scenario stuff that I've read actually claim the possibility of that many hundreds of meters. Look at how deep doggerland is now, makes it seem almost likely, at least plausible. It's not just the volume of water that's on land entering the sea, it's also the thermal expansion of that water. Another thing few people tend to take into account is that when the weight of the ice is removed from the land the land tends to float up on the magma underneath, and that causes the surrounding land masses that aren't under ice to sink. According to geologists, the location that I'm living in right now was underwater during the ice age, popped up over 300 ft above sea level when the weight of the ice was gone, with a corresponding drop in the altitude of land south of me. My house is built on what was previously an underwater coastal plain, sediment deposited just off the coast , not far from a ridge that marks where the water depths increased after the sediment deposited. If the worst case scenario happens I expect that ridge to be the new coast. I'd rather be a few hundred feet higher on granite bedrock but we can't have everything we want , and besides I doubt I'd have nice well water there. Anyway my point is that when the Earth's crust adjusts to the change, some land will sink down when the ocean goes up, and some land will go up, the total relative sea levels raise could be anywhere from 3 ft to 900 ft , (according to the Doomsdayers whom I don't believe). I personally feel 120 ft in many locations should not be unexpected. Like instead of Florida we might have Oncala island. When Greenland's ice melts do you think Iceland will lose its geothermal?
    1
  901. 1
  902. 1
  903. 1
  904. 1
  905. 1
  906. 1
  907. 1
  908. 1
  909. 1
  910. 1
  911. 1
  912. 1
  913. 1
  914. @patbobsquidpants3159  misinformation and manipulation is still an issue, bigger now, if in no other way than just through sheer quantity. There was a lot of things that I was taught wrong in high school and University, some of it by teachers that didn't want to admit they didn't know the answers to my questions and just made up something. Sometimes something I did believe for decades and that even on occasion sent me down the wrong path because I thought I could trust a teacher. Now we have AI to do the same, at least with AI we consciously know we shouldn't trust them. Lack of trust causes its own problems. One thing that was better though, more reliance on paper books, even though paper is just as likely to contain inaccuracy or deception one couldn't be as easily gaslighted by simply changing a website, a book was more consistent. Once printed and in your possession it couldn't be reprinted without making a new copy. But yes, where I used to have to wait 3 months for something to come in through the intralibrary loan system from the University, now it's a relatively easy to obtain PDF from the internet Where before you had the scan hundreds of pages of indexes it's not the actual books themselves to find one bit of information in one paragraph in the entire 500 section of science, now you can do a keyword search narrowing it down to a few pages of results. So yes there's a lot more easily available information, but it's also easier to get gaslighted and easier to get information overload from the misinformation, that's harder to tell from the real.
    1
  915. 1
  916. 1
  917. 1
  918. 1
  919. 1
  920. 1
  921. 1
  922. 1
  923. 1
  924. 1
  925. 1
  926. 1
  927. 1
  928. 1
  929. 1
  930. 1
  931. 1
  932. 1
  933. 1
  934. 1
  935. 1
  936. 1
  937. 1
  938. 1
  939. 1
  940. 1
  941. 1
  942. 1
  943. 1
  944. 1
  945. 1
  946. 1
  947. 1
  948. 1
  949. 1
  950. 1
  951. 1
  952. 1
  953. 1
  954. 1
  955. 1
  956. 1
  957. 1
  958. 1
  959. 1
  960. 1
  961. 1
  962. 1
  963. 1
  964. 1
  965. 1
  966. 1
  967. 1
  968. 1
  969. 1
  970. 1
  971. 1
  972. 1
  973. 1
  974. 1
  975. 1
  976. 1
  977. 1
  978. 1
  979. 1
  980. 1
  981. 1
  982. 1
  983. 1
  984. 1
  985. 1
  986. 1
  987. 1
  988. 1
  989. 1
  990. 1
  991. 1
  992. 1
  993. 1
  994. 1
  995. 1
  996. 1
  997. 1
  998. 1
  999. 1
  1000. 1
  1001. 1
  1002. 1
  1003. 1
  1004. 1
  1005. 1
  1006. 1
  1007. 1
  1008. 1
  1009. 1
  1010. 1
  1011. 1
  1012. 1
  1013. 1
  1014. 1
  1015. 1
  1016. 1
  1017. 1
  1018. 1
  1019. 1
  1020. 1
  1021. 1
  1022. 1
  1023. 1
  1024. 1
  1025. 1
  1026. 1
  1027. 1
  1028. 1
  1029. 1
  1030. 1
  1031. 1
  1032. 1
  1033. 1
  1034. 1
  1035. 1
  1036. 1
  1037. 1
  1038. 1
  1039. 1
  1040. 1
  1041. 1
  1042. 1
  1043. 1
  1044. 1
  1045. 1
  1046. 1
  1047. 1
  1048. 1
  1049. 1
  1050. 1
  1051. 1
  1052. 1
  1053. 1
  1054. 1
  1055. 1
  1056. 1
  1057. 1
  1058. 1
  1059. 1
  1060. 1
  1061. 1
  1062. 1
  1063. 1
  1064. 1
  1065. 1
  1066. 1
  1067. 1
  1068. 1
  1069. 1
  1070. 1
  1071. 1
  1072. 1
  1073. 1
  1074. 1
  1075. 1
  1076. 1
  1077. 1
  1078. 1
  1079. 1
  1080. 1
  1081. 1
  1082. 1
  1083. 1
  1084. 1
  1085. 1
  1086. 1
  1087. 1
  1088. 1
  1089. 1
  1090. 1
  1091. 1