We would like to apologize for making two mistakes in this video - thanks to viewers for pointing them out! 1) Silly error: after the Chandrasekhar limit, the Earth would first become a neutron star. Only after it gained even more mass would it pass the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit and finally become a black hole 2) Subtle error: if the earth kept expanding with a constant density, eventually it *would* become a black hole because the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole is proportional to its mass M, while the radius of a sphere of constant density is proportional to M^(1/3), and eventually M gets bigger than M^(1/3)
Much smaller thing at 0:40, wouldn’t you still be 70 kg, as kilograms are mass rather than weight, and your mass would remain the same regardless of the gravitational field?
@@ShadlinTolly Eh, it's pretty common to use "kg" as if it were a unit of weight, especially when talking about how your weight would be represented on scales, as is the case here. Yeah, your mass doesn't actually change, technically "kg" in the video is really representing kg*g (g being acceleration due to gravity), which is a force value and could be shown in N. But since people are more likely to be familiar with their weight in "kg" than in "N" I see this as serving a demonstrative role, not as a real mistake.
@xkcd_whatif I have a What If question: If you shot a laser beam that doesn’t diminish straight up, how long would it take to hit every planet/celestial body in the observable universe? How long would that beam be?
@@theTETROmusic You can google that. Light travels at the speed of light. Things are a certain distance away. The furthest object from earth that we have seen is apparently the galaxy HD1 which is 13.5 billion light-years away. So it would take that long plus some time due to the expansion of the universe.
as a longtime xkcd fan it’s fascinating to see how well the what if series translates to video format. i know there’s alot of work needed to translate the blog into something more appropriate for video, but the transition does feel seamless. almost like it was in video format this whole time. anyways, amazing work, keep it up !!
What if just the right amount of atmosphere was added to keep the pressure constant? How quickly would the amount of atmosphere increase? And what would happen if you re-did the analysis shown here?
Which part is funny? What he says is true as far as we can tell. The whole video is pretty accurate, tbh. You mean the context of expanding not being realistic in the first place? But that's just the premise, so it's assumed to be realistic for the question. He's just saying expanding without density increasing is an _additional_ unrealistic constraint. It basically cannot happen, whereas adding mass to Earth _can_ (and does) happen.
A small correction: you mention the White Dwarf Earth reaching the Chandrasekhar limit (1.4 solar masses) and becoming a black hole, but in fact above that limit it would become a neutron star (and release a vast amount of energy in a type 1a supernova). The neutron star would then continue to expand until it reached the catchily named Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit, around 2.1 solar masses. Only at that point would we get a black hole.
Can't have a neutron star or supernova if the density is magically constant. I don't think you can have a white dwarf either, but you could throw the solar system out of balance and some of the planets would probably crash into Earth.
The premise is to expand the Earth's radius and maintain its density. There is no change to chemical bonds. Hence, the white dwarf and neutron star and black hole stages would be reached, given the premises in the question.
@@masterofwriters4176 the question says 'composition' and I feel a conversion from stone to neutron degenerate matter definitely violates the premise that the composition doesn't change. The video also conflates the two at 4:00. Depending on whether you're following the question or the video you get a slightly different result, but neither becomes a star.
@@JohnDBlue Trying to get a translation on that and AI keeps interrupting my searches by suggesting it's a Finnish word, not Swedish. Either you're referring to an evil spirit in Finnish or beads in Swedish. I don't trust our AI overlords so any correction on this would be appreciated.
This would be such a scarily dreadful apocalypse. Just because of how slow it is. It’s similar to having a disease that is hard to notice because the symptoms are small, and figuring out that it is terminal and that there is nothing you can do and it only gets worse from here. Like that thing that slowly turns your body into bone, and you eventually have to decide that you will be sitting or laying down the rest of your life.
@@christophertstone well the earth isn’t dying because it isn’t alive but the things on it are, and we are well within the possibility of mass extinction events so complete that they leave maybe some extremophiles living in the deep sea
Minor correction: the Chandrasekhar Limit is where a dwarf start become a neutron star, not (yet) a black hole. Around 1.4 Msol, IIRC yep! 1.4. And 2.3-ish for neutron stars to collapse to black holes.
4:30 Technical note: it would collapse into a neutron star at this point. Black hole formation would take another few millennia, not least since each collapse stage will create a shock wave that blows out a good third to half of the Earth's newly-acquired mass. We'd get to be a Type I supernova!
I was going to type the same thing until I saw your message. You are right. Once the white dwarf expands to more than 1.4 solar mass, it would collapse and then rebound as a Type 1-A supernova explosion.
@@JudgePlaysRoblox They would die out sooner because of their inability to calculate with something like 5280 feet is one mile on a perpetual expanding earth increasing in metric units.
11 months ago, xkcd made a great decision, at least according to what I see as the oldest video on your channel, have literally just stumbled upon this now. So good!! It reminds me of the good old days of youtube. Where we take real physical principles and apply them to ridiculous situations. I love the genie 3 wishesesque way you answer the questions, answering exactly what the question asked, but just not in the way the person may have initially predicted :P
And then there would be people denying the growth and as proof they would hammer two nails into the ground in the floor of their house. After a week they say "see? Still the same distance apart!"
Even if the density of the Earth were somehow kept constant, it would still eventually become a black hole. The density of a Schwarzschild black hole (the mass divided by the volume enclosed by the event horizon) can be found by combining the formula for the Schwarzschild radius and the volume of a sphere and is equal to: (3*c^2)/(8*pi*G*r^2). If we then set this equation equal to the density of Earth (5500kg/m^3), we can find a radius of 1.7095×10^11 meters. So, even if it was held up under its own gravity somehow so as to keep the density constant, the earth would still turn into a black hole when its radius reached about 1.14 AU. Which would take ~542,100 years.
radius of 1.14 AU is mind boggling size-wise. A terrestrial planet that's wider than the current Earth orbit around the Sun is incomprehensibly large and heavy.
The earth would also be so massive, that the sun would begin to orbit the earth (as well as the other planets) and suffer collision or their own Roche limit tearing before the Schwarzschild radius kicks in. This accumulation of mass would reduce the number of years required. The sun's mass which is arguably the largest relevant body which the earth would subsume is 2x10^30kg. If we assumed, it keeps the density of the earth the same and the final black hole mass is 1.15096x10^38kg, if we subtract the sun's mass from that, it's basically irrelevantly small. The sun smeared across this super earth only adds 1x10^-22 cm to its radius, which speeds up the black hole creation by about 0.00000000000000000864 seconds.
@@ohmusama You can't compare the mass of the sun to the _final_ mass of Earth, you'd have to compare it to the mass at the time of Sun absorption, where it probably would speed up creation by a significant amount. I'd guess on the scale of days to months maybe.
Would anything interesting happen if the “1cm increase” persisted once the black hole had formed? Presumably the black hole’s ability to grow without matter inflow would mean it would be a finite amount of time before it became an issue at Milky Way scales?
@@johngeorge2649I think it does? I remember talking about "partial pressure" in chemistry class; each gas in a mixture contributes only part of the total pressure, so 1 atmosphere of *oxygen* pressure entails roughly a full atmosphere's worth of oxygen on top of everything else.
Too true: I just gave a seminar on this at the science uni here in Budapest, even tho I'm an English teacher, as one of my students asked me to address this Q for trainee science teachers, who were better trained academically than me in science, but nonetheless were kinda amazed to see that the genius of Newton was not to ask why apples fall, but to ask whether the moon also falls, or to learn that others got close to some kind of relativity, but Einstein's genius lay in asking what he would see riding a light wave.
Even if the earth didn’t get any denser under its own pressure, it would still eventually turn into a black hole, because the swarzchild radius for an object scales with its mass, which for an object of constant density is proportional to r^3. This also means the density of a black hole is inversely proportional to the square of its radius, which is why the supermassive black hole Sagittarius A* is about the same density as cotton candy.
I read a couple of years ago that if you filled our solar system with air it would become a black hole. It seems so unreal that something that isn't very dense at all could be a black hole if it took up a large enough volume.
XKCD's handled this sort of thing before, but basically there is no such location. Cooking is a measure of continuous specific temperature over time to allow chemical reactions to take place (e.g. Maillard). Any sort of bomb, nuclear or otherwise, can only ever char the food's surface or atomise it completely.
2:36 Gaining 3 kg over the course of a year? I doubt many people would notice. At best they'd chalk it up to poor eating habits or lack of exercise or getting older or something. And those who are actively dieting/on an exercise schedule for that year would still have lost weight overall. I doubt anyone would've hit the alarms at that point if it weren't for the other signs.
I'd like to think someone would notice if EVERYONE gained a few pounds. Like maybe someone at the doctors office? or maybe a computer at a health insurance agency would "notice" first, who knows
54,720,000,000km tall with average tree height at 18.28 meters. Thats a very low estimate though. There's a lot of trees, around 3.04 trillion, according to google
One small correction: since the Schwarzschild radius (how small something needs to be to become a black hole) depends on mass, the larger a black hole is, the less dense it is, with no lower limit on density. This means that if you keep piling mass on something, it will still become a black hole if its density doesn't change. So, for example, a rocky planet the size of the solar system wouldn't collapse into a black hole... because it would already BE a black hole.
The theory of the internal structure of black holes is... well... theoretical enough that it's impossible to be certain, but I think the point is that the pile couldn't physically exist anymore without collapsing into a singularity. Though, considering the premise (i.e. creating mass out of nothing) is already against most of physics, I'll give it a pass. You have a point.
i once heard cotton candy the size of neptunes orbit would be a black hole and ton618 is 45× less dense than helium makes me wonder how big a black hole has to be to match the average density of the universe
You also need to consider that, because the earth is growing so slowly, we will become stronger in the harsher environments, so our muscles and hearts would, over time, strengthen to be able to handle the new gravity
To 1.5g that's probably true, 2g starts getting unrealistic for anyone who doesn't have a fit gym physique (imagine lifting double your bodyweight on a single leg every time you climb stairs). Tripping and falling over will be almost guaranteed to break bones. Peoples hearts will enlarge (like cyclists) but this is actually quite dangerous and can lead to cardiac failure. People can adapt but pretty soon it goes past human limits.
A little interesting detail (please correct me if you're an expert, which I'm not): In the drawings, people are using a scale to notice their weight gain, but some scales contain a little weight and work through comparison (that technically makes them balances according to google). Since the little weight inside the scale would weigh more as well, I think some scales would still tell you your mass (which would of course stay the same) rather than your weight, even under increased or reduced gravity! So there would be some people just not noticing it until they feel heavier. (sorry about the numerous repetitions, english is not my first language and I don't have a big vocabulary)
4:00 The scheartzchild radius is proportional to mass, but the mass is increasing for a constant density proportional to r^3. For any density there is a maximum radius before it makes a black hole. For Earths density that is about 1.7×10^8 km which would take about half a million years. You calculation gets you there faster, but even sticking to the original premise we eventually end up with a black hole.
Pweew I'm not the only nerd to notice this, but as said, mass in kg doesn't change. Weight is maybe a bit ambiguous term, but the intention as referring to the video is correct. It only feels like you're getting more mass, but you're just more attractive (relatively speaking).
@@LegoSkeleton It depends on the scale in question. A scale based on springs or a strain gauge would begin to read high. A balance beam scale would continue to read correctly.
well, density of black holes decreases as their mass increase, if you calculate their density by taking the volume of what the event horizon englobes and not just the point like singularity, so you could make a black hole under the original premise, would be quite big tho, I know a black hole around the size of the solar system would have the density of air, or somewhat close (as in plus or minus a few orders of magnitude)
Yeah, TON-618 has a density of about 4 grams per cubic meter, it's because the Schwarzschild radius isn't proportional to the cube root of mass right? Now, if you set the density to a constant, that's two equations relating the mass and radius - two variables, solving that seems like a fun puzzle
@@descuddlebat found the reply...crazy right...People be doing Maths after watching a youtube video just for fun and Here I am procrastinating my math preparation
I did the maths because it was bugging me too. After 541000 years, Earth's radius would be 1.7e11 meters (only slightly larger than Earth's current orbital radius) At a density of 5515 kg/m^3, that is when the Schwarzchild radius would exceed the earth's radius and a black hole would form
@1:40 Which begs the question; how precise do pendulum clocks get? Good mechanical watch movements can vary by several seconds a day, but I'd imagine you could get a lot more precision out of a large immobile mechanism.
You don't need to imagine. The chronometers developed for latitude determination travelled on ships, achieving 0.1 seconds or less per day, but were bulky. With modern technology mechanical watches can achieve +/-0.3 seconds a day. A pendulum clock using the best modern technology and with the pendulum swinging in air achieves 0.625 seconds error over 100 days. Although not a chronometer, the Seiko movement of my cheap Taiwanese ripoff watch achieves about -40 +0 seconds a week.
@@JaymcJefty To what end? I am assuming copying real comments helps mask the spam comments they also leave behind or some other form of making a robot seem human.
Does the graph at 3:47 show Pulmonary Toxicity occurring at the normal 1 Atmospheric Pressure after 24 hours?! The "No Toxicity" line appears to descend into lower atmospheres over longer breathing periods until crossing below 1 Atmosphere at around 24 hours. Hopefully I'm misreading it 🤞
The Y axis doesn't show normal atmospheric pressure, but the partial pressure of oxygen - in normal daily conditions our oxygen pressure is 0.21 atmospheres (21% * 1 atm).
4:05 I wonder at what point of the earth expanding without gaining mass, therefore decreasing in density, would I sink down into the earth like quicksand.
The density of the human body is only very slightly greater than that of water, but as long as you were standing on a solid structure that was able to resist the pressure created by your weight acting over the surface area of the soles of your feet, the material of that structure could be less dense than water. Unfortunately I don't think that the silicates and carbonates of most bedrocks would have that strength if the distance between their molecules doubled (for example), so the concrete slabs that most modern buildings are built upon would sink pretty quickly, followed shortly thereafter by all the people who'd ran out onto the lawn and thought themselves safe.
Landmarks at 1:23 (clockwise): - Eiffel Tower - Leaning Tower of Pisa - Taj Mahal - Borobudr - Sydney Opera House - Christ the Redeemer - El Castillo - CN Tower - Statue of Liberty - Unclear (most likely the Golden Gate Bridge)
If density stays same there is big enough radius where it will be still a black hole... Because total mass would increase fast enough so that eventually schwarzschild radius is bigger than current radius... Like if you fill solar system with cotton candy it would create a black hole even though it is not very dense... Supermassive Black holes have density that is way lower than average density of earth
Recently a fault with the BBC Weather service mistakenly reported windspeeds in excess of 14,000mph. What would happen in the event of such high speeds (if, indeed, it would be possible). The same fault also led to misrepresentations of temperature in certain parts of the globe, with the city of Nottingham experiencing 404C. Would this change the outcome much for the city of Nottingham or would 14,808mph winds be sufficient to destroy life as we know it? Or would it simply knock over a few wheelie bins and cause train delays?
he already did something similar, in an episode "What if the Earth suddenly stopped rotating". The wind speed was a little bigger iirc, but the idea is about the same
If i remember correctly, the amount of matter required to make a black hole scales with the square of radius not the cube. Therefore even leaving density constant, at some point the earth would turn into a black hole.
@@EbenBransome just revisited this and actually swarschild radius is proportional to M. Either way my point still stands that expanding any object while keeping average density constant you would eventually get a black hole. (Although for earth I roughly calculated this as needing to have something 27,000 times the radius of earth or about 541,000 years of growing 1cm per second (hopefully my math isn't off)
I LOVE THIS CHANNEL AND ITS CONTENT! This is brainfood for me! Especially the narrator's way of explaining things. It always makes you go What if! And then using actual physics and maths to come to the final conclusion. Love it! 🔥
What if just the right amount of atmosphere was added to keep the pressure constant? How quickly would the amount of atmosphere increase? And what would happen if you re-did the analysis shown here?
Interesting video. I think there is a slight inaccuracy around 4:30 because after surpassing the Chandrasekhar limit, we would get the neutron star first. Only after we pass the Schwarzschild limit, assuming the earth doesn't rotate, that we get a black hole. Anyway, great video. Can't wait for the next topic!
I already love this because it's xkcd - but I also love the incredible math nerds that come out in the comments and spit out strings of incomprehensible (to me) numbers. Y'all are amazing, please keep at it
Super excited for this big analysis & animation video! Thanks so much for uploading! Might comment more later! & here's looking forward to more like this from you!
This video conflates mass with weight. Surprised to see Randall make such a rookie mistake here Under triple gravity, a 70kg human still has 70kg of mass. But a 100lb human would weigh 300lb 3:35 the guy wouldn’t have 210kg of mass, he'd still have 70kg, but his metric scale would *incorrectly* show 210kg because the scale leaves the factory calibrated for Earth's gravity. A kilogram anywhere in the solar system is a kilogram, a pound of force is what varies here.
@@AAaa-p3i8n he is wrong and right at the same time, the human has 70kg worth of mass that doesn't change but the gravitational pull of earth would effectively mean your weight, proportional to earth effectively becomes 210kg as gravity is pulling down on the human body by 3x to our current earths pull.
@@AAaa-p3i8n I wrote it in a snarky way, but I'm wrong per se. In the premise, the earth is expanding (gaining both mass and weight) but the human body isn't (no mass gain, just weight gain). People are just getting pulled harder by gravity. Imperial scales would be correct (150lb would go up to 450lb), but metric scales claim to measure mass and would drift out of calibration. Even though 70kg would show as 210kg, that number would be incorrect. I wish Randall at least addressed this. The difference isn't always important, but Randall's pedantic enough that I'm surprised he didn't at least point it out.
Perhaps it was in a footnote that didn't make the cut for the video script. IIRC, there were very fun footnotes in the book (and, IIRC, this question was in book 1).
I was really confused that Randall expressed it this way, without even a mention of that. He's going by scale readings (assuming that they didn't correct for changed g), but... at least say that?
@@DeltaGPhys I know what he meant, and that people use kg to measure their "weight" just about everywhere but the US (pounds) and the UK (stones?). But this is xkcd, I expect spot on scientific accuracy with my squiggly stick figures. 😁
4:00 the earth would eventually become a black hole under our assumptions, even without having to collapse. the schwarzchild radius grows in linear proportion with the mass (i.e. with the cube of the radius), so it will eventually outpace and overtake the radius itself. if the earth is granted sufficient strength to resist collapse or change in density, this happens approximately 8.24 million years after the expansion starts, at a radius of about 260 million km. (the initial radius is just under 6400 km)
1:03 this is how you know Randall is American: in spite of his best efforts to use metric (hooray!), that scene instantly irked me because I looked at it and instinctively said "wait, that's not a meter", because I could immediately eyeball that this would make the stick figures 2.5 m tall. I never knew the metric system was so ingrained on me!!
We would like to apologize for making two mistakes in this video - thanks to viewers for pointing them out!
1) Silly error: after the Chandrasekhar limit, the Earth would first become a neutron star. Only after it gained even more mass would it pass the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit and finally become a black hole
2) Subtle error: if the earth kept expanding with a constant density, eventually it *would* become a black hole because the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole is proportional to its mass M, while the radius of a sphere of constant density is proportional to M^(1/3), and eventually M gets bigger than M^(1/3)
Much smaller thing at 0:40, wouldn’t you still be 70 kg, as kilograms are mass rather than weight, and your mass would remain the same regardless of the gravitational field?
@@ShadlinTolly Eh, it's pretty common to use "kg" as if it were a unit of weight, especially when talking about how your weight would be represented on scales, as is the case here.
Yeah, your mass doesn't actually change, technically "kg" in the video is really representing kg*g (g being acceleration due to gravity), which is a force value and could be shown in N.
But since people are more likely to be familiar with their weight in "kg" than in "N" I see this as serving a demonstrative role, not as a real mistake.
@xkcd_whatif I have a What If question: If you shot a laser beam that doesn’t diminish straight up, how long would it take to hit every planet/celestial body in the observable universe? How long would that beam be?
At 3:23 you say that earth's gravity would have tripled, but the text shows +300%, which would actually mean quadrupled.
@@theTETROmusic You can google that. Light travels at the speed of light. Things are a certain distance away. The furthest object from earth that we have seen is apparently the galaxy HD1 which is 13.5 billion light-years away. So it would take that long plus some time due to the expansion of the universe.
I'm very glad the Earth is not going to start suddenly expanding at 1cm every second, especially not at 2:15 AM EST on February 12, 2026.
Me too
Welp, better start building a house out of rubber, then
Huh
Oddly specific
What about at 7:33 PM UTC on August 23, 2034?
as a longtime xkcd fan it’s fascinating to see how well the what if series translates to video format. i know there’s alot of work needed to translate the blog into something more appropriate for video, but the transition does feel seamless. almost like it was in video format this whole time. anyways, amazing work, keep it up !!
Agreed! But I do miss the text gags that popped up when you moused over the pics.
He did make "What if?" for book formats, so it wasn't really made with alt text jokes to begin with.
True, and the fact that the animation are just slide show style and not videos, keep it nice.
@@SethAbercromby The website existed before the books, so alt text jokes are, literally, what he began with.
Agreed!
According to my scale this process has already started like 25 years ago
Me too. I think we need a global program to launch all the takeaway meals into orbit, for the sake of the planet.
Then why is the collapse of mankind and our deaths so delayed
Smh fix this bug in the next earth update!!
Check your clock to make sure
How much food have you been eating recently?
@@MrMicrowave-YTthe fact that you’re a microwave makes this so much more hilarious
"under realistic physics" at 4:14 is very funny in the context
What if just the right amount of atmosphere was added to keep the pressure constant? How quickly would the amount of atmosphere increase? And what would happen if you re-did the analysis shown here?
Which part is funny? What he says is true as far as we can tell. The whole video is pretty accurate, tbh. You mean the context of expanding not being realistic in the first place? But that's just the premise, so it's assumed to be realistic for the question. He's just saying expanding without density increasing is an _additional_ unrealistic constraint. It basically cannot happen, whereas adding mass to Earth _can_ (and does) happen.
@@totheknee thanks for explaining the joke, I'm sure none of us had got it.
A small correction: you mention the White Dwarf Earth reaching the Chandrasekhar limit (1.4 solar masses) and becoming a black hole, but in fact above that limit it would become a neutron star (and release a vast amount of energy in a type 1a supernova).
The neutron star would then continue to expand until it reached the catchily named Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit, around 2.1 solar masses. Only at that point would we get a black hole.
Can't have a neutron star or supernova if the density is magically constant. I don't think you can have a white dwarf either, but you could throw the solar system out of balance and some of the planets would probably crash into Earth.
Was about to make the same point myself. Glad that pedantry corner is watching.
The premise is to expand the Earth's radius and maintain its density. There is no change to chemical bonds. Hence, the white dwarf and neutron star and black hole stages would be reached, given the premises in the question.
@@ericsmith6394but the question never mentioned density. It just said the composition was maintained
@@masterofwriters4176 the question says 'composition' and I feel a conversion from stone to neutron degenerate matter definitely violates the premise that the composition doesn't change. The video also conflates the two at 4:00. Depending on whether you're following the question or the video you get a slightly different result, but neither becomes a star.
TIL, I'm not overweight, I'm just in Helsinki.
As an overweight person who actually lives in Helsinki...
Perkele
@@JohnDBlue Trying to get a translation on that and AI keeps interrupting my searches by suggesting it's a Finnish word, not Swedish. Either you're referring to an evil spirit in Finnish or beads in Swedish.
I don't trust our AI overlords so any correction on this would be appreciated.
@@BarryTGash its a swearword in finnish, pärla is the closest word in swedish. Google translate is v helpful in these sitches /positive
@@BarryTGash Maybe you should trust the AI over your own geography skills?
@@BarryTGash "perkele" is essentially a nickname for "saatana", as in satan.
This would be such a scarily dreadful apocalypse. Just because of how slow it is. It’s similar to having a disease that is hard to notice because the symptoms are small, and figuring out that it is terminal and that there is nothing you can do and it only gets worse from here. Like that thing that slowly turns your body into bone, and you eventually have to decide that you will be sitting or laying down the rest of your life.
Yeah. Can you imagine if the earth was dying a slow apocalyptic death that was hard to notice until it was suddenly disastrous
@@PasteurizedLettuce I mean, the Earth wouldn't be "dying", more just changing. And we only notice the surface, so like Global Surface Change?
"This would be such a scarily dreadful apocalypse. Just because of how slow it is." - Hey, just like climate change :)
@@christophertstone well the earth isn’t dying because it isn’t alive but the things on it are, and we are well within the possibility of mass extinction events so complete that they leave maybe some extremophiles living in the deep sea
@@TheMightyZwom oh wai......
Minor correction: the Chandrasekhar Limit is where a dwarf start become a neutron star, not (yet) a black hole. Around 1.4 Msol, IIRC yep! 1.4. And 2.3-ish for neutron stars to collapse to black holes.
the music is WAY too happy for this type of video 😭
LMAOO
That's a kerbal challenge. You need to evacuate earth, and the longer you wait the more delta it costs...
Yo what’s the mod called
(Does it work for rp1)
@@SloppyJam Most sane RP1 enjoyer
@@gmfCoding whats rp1 ? and what is seagie talking about?
Yes
@@ajiprnk4821 Kerbal Space Program game
4:30 Technical note: it would collapse into a neutron star at this point. Black hole formation would take another few millennia, not least since each collapse stage will create a shock wave that blows out a good third to half of the Earth's newly-acquired mass. We'd get to be a Type I supernova!
how are you verified with 160 subscribers???
nvm I red your bio
was gonna say the same thing
Would that mass keep expanding?
I was going to type the same thing until I saw your message. You are right. Once the white dwarf expands to more than 1.4 solar mass, it would collapse and then rebound as a Type 1-A supernova explosion.
The earth grew 400 cm between the time this video posted and I clicked on it
That is about 13’1.48” for imperial users
@@JudgePlaysRoblox They would die out sooner because of their inability to calculate with something like 5280 feet is one mile on a perpetual expanding earth increasing in metric units.
@@Avatar2312 ??? uh I didn’t mean it like that
how much is it in unit of freedom ?
@@42ott90 200 bald eagles per square X-L McDonalds cup
11 months ago, xkcd made a great decision, at least according to what I see as the oldest video on your channel, have literally just stumbled upon this now. So good!! It reminds me of the good old days of youtube. Where we take real physical principles and apply them to ridiculous situations. I love the genie 3 wishesesque way you answer the questions, answering exactly what the question asked, but just not in the way the person may have initially predicted :P
And then there would be people denying the growth and as proof they would hammer two nails into the ground in the floor of their house.
After a week they say "see? Still the same distance apart!"
Fortunately, the stupid won't fare any better than the educated.
They ruined their flooring in the process so sucks to be them
There are people who think the earth IS expanding RIGHT NOW!
@@TheLobsterCopter5000you DONT think that??
@@Mae_Dastardly I'm getting Poe's Lawed pretty hard right now ngl
Even if the density of the Earth were somehow kept constant, it would still eventually become a black hole. The density of a Schwarzschild black hole (the mass divided by the volume enclosed by the event horizon) can be found by combining the formula for the Schwarzschild radius and the volume of a sphere and is equal to: (3*c^2)/(8*pi*G*r^2). If we then set this equation equal to the density of Earth (5500kg/m^3), we can find a radius of 1.7095×10^11 meters. So, even if it was held up under its own gravity somehow so as to keep the density constant, the earth would still turn into a black hole when its radius reached about 1.14 AU. Which would take ~542,100 years.
Oh I was just replying to another comment that this'd be a fun one to solve, of course xkcd enjoyers would be a step ahead of me there
radius of 1.14 AU is mind boggling size-wise. A terrestrial planet that's wider than the current Earth orbit around the Sun is incomprehensibly large and heavy.
The earth would also be so massive, that the sun would begin to orbit the earth (as well as the other planets) and suffer collision or their own Roche limit tearing before the Schwarzschild radius kicks in. This accumulation of mass would reduce the number of years required. The sun's mass which is arguably the largest relevant body which the earth would subsume is 2x10^30kg. If we assumed, it keeps the density of the earth the same and the final black hole mass is 1.15096x10^38kg, if we subtract the sun's mass from that, it's basically irrelevantly small. The sun smeared across this super earth only adds 1x10^-22 cm to its radius, which speeds up the black hole creation by about 0.00000000000000000864 seconds.
@@ohmusama You can't compare the mass of the sun to the _final_ mass of Earth, you'd have to compare it to the mass at the time of Sun absorption, where it probably would speed up creation by a significant amount. I'd guess on the scale of days to months maybe.
Would anything interesting happen if the “1cm increase” persisted once the black hole had formed? Presumably the black hole’s ability to grow without matter inflow would mean it would be a finite amount of time before it became an issue at Milky Way scales?
I love the subtle sadness of the quiet music to the end-credits. It plays throughout the video, but at the end, it's alone. All alone.
Soltero.
The classic little sound effects throughout are great
5:05 have rings /again/
So, if Earth grew 1cm every second, I'll die in 100 years... Hm, ok.
Glad that I finally know how "Roche limit" is pronounced! Now I can say the title of the coolest Kirby soundtrack correctly.
I knew about the concept before Forgotten Lands but now I have the term firmly associated with weird psychic axolotls. It is a boss theme.
Hearing the name of that soundtrack led me down a mental rabbit hole of wanting to figure out how gravity itself “flows” through wormholes.
Yeah limit is really hard to pronounce...
Nope. Édouard Roche's last name is pronounced with a different O sound in French.
@@EmpereurHector how is it pronounced then?
3:50 i love how 1 atmosphere is "no toxicity for limited exposure"
UPD: i missed "oxygen pressure" and assumed it's earth atmosphere pressure
Pure oxygen I'm guessing, rather than air? Or perhaps a partial pressure of 1 atmosphere.
perhaps it's accounting for the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere but it still doesn't make sense
@@TheMetalButcher oh yes, it says oxygen pressure
@@TheMetalButcherYeah, pure oxygen. It's 0.21 so we would be fine
@@johngeorge2649I think it does? I remember talking about "partial pressure" in chemistry class; each gas in a mixture contributes only part of the total pressure, so 1 atmosphere of *oxygen* pressure entails roughly a full atmosphere's worth of oxygen on top of everything else.
xkcd has been one of the founding pillars of my childhood. Love ya, Randall!
Great pillar to have had!!!
Oh dear Lord, I'm apparently old.
hes gay
@@rgw5991 cool.
@@rgw5991 the author of XKCD? No, he isn't.
A genius is not someone who can anwser any question, but someone who asks a question no one asked before
And answering it
By that logic, everyone would be a genius. I ask 47 questions everyday that have probably never been asked before.
Oh yeah? Have you got shirt burger lamp post deodorant window maxxed today?
I bet no one asked that before and im not a genius, im a dumbass.
Too true: I just gave a seminar on this at the science uni here in Budapest, even tho I'm an English teacher, as one of my students asked me to address this Q for trainee science teachers, who were better trained academically than me in science, but nonetheless were kinda amazed to see that the genius of Newton was not to ask why apples fall, but to ask whether the moon also falls, or to learn that others got close to some kind of relativity, but Einstein's genius lay in asking what he would see riding a light wave.
Love the sound effects. 4:56
Even if the earth didn’t get any denser under its own pressure, it would still eventually turn into a black hole, because the swarzchild radius for an object scales with its mass, which for an object of constant density is proportional to r^3. This also means the density of a black hole is inversely proportional to the square of its radius, which is why the supermassive black hole Sagittarius A* is about the same density as cotton candy.
I read a couple of years ago that if you filled our solar system with air it would become a black hole. It seems so unreal that something that isn't very dense at all could be a black hole if it took up a large enough volume.
05:02 And, of course, a deadly shower of debris.
Kurzgesagt has a good video on how the Moon would fuck up the planet, for those interested and haven't seen it already
not deadly if we’re all dead already
Good thing we are long dead :D
*the moon is a deadly shower*
Technically, the moon wouldn't be able to kill anything by that point. Technical accuracies, the most important kind.
How far would you have to place a pizza from a nuclear bomb to cook it perfectly when it detonated?
The shockwave would blow it away
@@Kalenz1234 probably
@@Kalenz1234 what if the wizard from 0.9c baseball video holds it perfectly still?
XKCD's handled this sort of thing before, but basically there is no such location. Cooking is a measure of continuous specific temperature over time to allow chemical reactions to take place (e.g. Maillard). Any sort of bomb, nuclear or otherwise, can only ever char the food's surface or atomise it completely.
A couple hundred miles away inside an oven set to 400F should work. The oven is protect from the shockwave and keep fallout off the cheese.
I'm so glad you avoided that whole "draining the sea" scenario
2:58 Never thought I'd see my hometown in this channel
What city is that
we’re coming for you
@@Jules24122💀
My grandma says I grow even faster
not more than ur mom tho
Is that actually what she said?
@@The-lr4zo ...no :(
Drink milk to grow even faster :)
@Argand313 Thanks grandma :)
I love how gravity isn't a large factor until years of this scenario have passed.
2:42 - I love how he's determining that the Earth is expanding by virtue of the clock being more and more out of sync.
2:37 the sound effects make this video that much better lol
2:36 Gaining 3 kg over the course of a year? I doubt many people would notice. At best they'd chalk it up to poor eating habits or lack of exercise or getting older or something. And those who are actively dieting/on an exercise schedule for that year would still have lost weight overall. I doubt anyone would've hit the alarms at that point if it weren't for the other signs.
In reality, you wouldn't gain 3kg either. Your mass stays constant in this scenario. Your weight (in N or lb) would go up though.
@@dalenesbitt But I assume scales would start to measure greater weight, unless recalibrated.
@@theRPGmaster kg is mass, and independent of gravity
One of my biggest pet peeves is people who interchange mass and weight. They're related but independent.
I'd like to think someone would notice if EVERYONE gained a few pounds. Like maybe someone at the doctors office? or maybe a computer at a health insurance agency would "notice" first, who knows
I think the first to notice would be LIGO and other gravity wave researchers.
"Why has our beam just got longer and why has the effect lasted for more than a microsecond? Oh... shit!"
If this is a gravitational wave, we're screwed. If it isn't, we're screwed.
Idea: what if every tree in earth was stacked on top of eachother? How tall would it be?
Might do a human tower in the same vid. Standing on each other's shoulders.
54,720,000,000km tall with average tree height at 18.28 meters. Thats a very low estimate though.
There's a lot of trees, around 3.04 trillion, according to google
In the blog, he did a "If all trees were one single tree" question. Go check it out.
@@aidan662060,000 times the circumference of saturns rings
Fun (unrelated) fact: There are more trees on earth than there are stars in the Milky Way.
One small correction: since the Schwarzschild radius (how small something needs to be to become a black hole) depends on mass, the larger a black hole is, the less dense it is, with no lower limit on density. This means that if you keep piling mass on something, it will still become a black hole if its density doesn't change.
So, for example, a rocky planet the size of the solar system wouldn't collapse into a black hole... because it would already BE a black hole.
The theory of the internal structure of black holes is... well... theoretical enough that it's impossible to be certain, but I think the point is that the pile couldn't physically exist anymore without collapsing into a singularity.
Though, considering the premise (i.e. creating mass out of nothing) is already against most of physics, I'll give it a pass. You have a point.
i once heard cotton candy the size of neptunes orbit would be a black hole
and ton618 is 45× less dense than helium
makes me wonder how big a black hole has to be to match the average density of the universe
You also need to consider that, because the earth is growing so slowly, we will become stronger in the harsher environments, so our muscles and hearts would, over time, strengthen to be able to handle the new gravity
To 1.5g that's probably true, 2g starts getting unrealistic for anyone who doesn't have a fit gym physique (imagine lifting double your bodyweight on a single leg every time you climb stairs). Tripping and falling over will be almost guaranteed to break bones. Peoples hearts will enlarge (like cyclists) but this is actually quite dangerous and can lead to cardiac failure. People can adapt but pretty soon it goes past human limits.
good question Dennis.
It would be bad.
Thanks for watching!
actually this was one of the least bad "what ifs"
we could survive this on
@@MouseGoatonly one generation of humans would, but yes
The pyro is a spy!
are you really pyro tf2
@@shovel_salesman mmph
The sound effects were on point 😅
Especially when he finally noticed the weight gain!
im very glad xkcd still uploads he just needs a few months or years
A little interesting detail (please correct me if you're an expert, which I'm not): In the drawings, people are using a scale to notice their weight gain, but some scales contain a little weight and work through comparison (that technically makes them balances according to google). Since the little weight inside the scale would weigh more as well, I think some scales would still tell you your mass (which would of course stay the same) rather than your weight, even under increased or reduced gravity! So there would be some people just not noticing it until they feel heavier.
(sorry about the numerous repetitions, english is not my first language and I don't have a big vocabulary)
I didn't even notice. your vocabulary and grammar are extremely good even for native speaker standards. have more faith in yourself!
@er5976 awww you're too nice, thanks ✨
4:00 The scheartzchild radius is proportional to mass, but the mass is increasing for a constant density proportional to r^3. For any density there is a maximum radius before it makes a black hole. For Earths density that is about 1.7×10^8 km which would take about half a million years. You calculation gets you there faster, but even sticking to the original premise we eventually end up with a black hole.
Your most def one of the best TH-camrs I’ve ever found I literally save your videos for when I have some good food
Nerd alert: mass measured in kg doesn’t change. Only the amount of force changes measured in N (Newton).
Ah, but the higher force would still cause the scales, which are calibrated after normal earth gravity, to display a higher weight.
@@LegoSkeleton It's that calibration part which is the problem, and I wish the video maker would have been more clear on that.
i think this nerd meant to say "Mass" in Kg doesn't change. Only the force we call "weight" changes.
Pweew I'm not the only nerd to notice this, but as said, mass in kg doesn't change. Weight is maybe a bit ambiguous term, but the intention as referring to the video is correct. It only feels like you're getting more mass, but you're just more attractive (relatively speaking).
@@LegoSkeleton It depends on the scale in question. A scale based on springs or a strain gauge would begin to read high. A balance beam scale would continue to read correctly.
This was the first of your videos that truly surprised me. I expected everyone would be in severe stress or dead in an year or two.
well, density of black holes decreases as their mass increase, if you calculate their density by taking the volume of what the event horizon englobes and not just the point like singularity, so you could make a black hole under the original premise, would be quite big tho, I know a black hole around the size of the solar system would have the density of air, or somewhat close (as in plus or minus a few orders of magnitude)
Yeah, TON-618 has a density of about 4 grams per cubic meter, it's because the Schwarzschild radius isn't proportional to the cube root of mass right?
Now, if you set the density to a constant, that's two equations relating the mass and radius - two variables, solving that seems like a fun puzzle
@@descuddlebat found the reply...crazy right...People be doing Maths after watching a youtube video just for fun and Here I am procrastinating my math preparation
@@Faizan29353 If you rephrase your math prep in terms of cosmological constants, maybe you could trick someone into doing it for you!
I did the maths because it was bugging me too.
After 541000 years, Earth's radius would be 1.7e11 meters (only slightly larger than Earth's current orbital radius)
At a density of 5515 kg/m^3, that is when the Schwarzchild radius would exceed the earth's radius and a black hole would form
man love the videos actually one of the best channels on youtube
@1:40 Which begs the question; how precise do pendulum clocks get? Good mechanical watch movements can vary by several seconds a day, but I'd imagine you could get a lot more precision out of a large immobile mechanism.
You don't need to imagine. The chronometers developed for latitude determination travelled on ships, achieving 0.1 seconds or less per day, but were bulky. With modern technology mechanical watches can achieve +/-0.3 seconds a day. A pendulum clock using the best modern technology and with the pendulum swinging in air achieves 0.625 seconds error over 100 days.
Although not a chronometer, the Seiko movement of my cheap Taiwanese ripoff watch achieves about -40 +0 seconds a week.
A bot copied your comment and got more likes
@@JaymcJefty To what end? I am assuming copying real comments helps mask the spam comments they also leave behind or some other form of making a robot seem human.
@@JaymcJefty Should we flag it as "spam" or "violation of rights" or what?
There's so many questions answered and scenarios explored in such a short video. Amazing!
Your vocalized sound effects are so perfectly done -- subtle unless you're listening for them, and then hilarious
My suoer duper precise pendulum clock is 1 week ahead! Oh god
4:36 I thought the black hole was the eye of the universe for a second
Hello fellow outer wilds player
@@hingsunhome hiiiii
@@SupremeDorian you beaten the game?
@@hingsunhome yes, and echoes of the eye
@@SupremeDorian cool, that means I can show you this clip without getting spoiled
th-cam.com/video/62-GhMjb8yo/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Jg7GApMpWMfGP5dn
4:45 Kudos to the Foley artist...
this is the best channel fs (also that nostalgic music we hear in the end makes it even better)
Does the graph at 3:47 show Pulmonary Toxicity occurring at the normal 1 Atmospheric Pressure after 24 hours?! The "No Toxicity" line appears to descend into lower atmospheres over longer breathing periods until crossing below 1 Atmosphere at around 24 hours. Hopefully I'm misreading it 🤞
The Y axis doesn't show normal atmospheric pressure, but the partial pressure of oxygen - in normal daily conditions our oxygen pressure is 0.21 atmospheres (21% * 1 atm).
@@pbeentje awesome really appreciate the info! Thank you!
Lets admire the sound design for a momment, It's perfect.
4:05 I wonder at what point of the earth expanding without gaining mass, therefore decreasing in density, would I sink down into the earth like quicksand.
The density of the human body is only very slightly greater than that of water, but as long as you were standing on a solid structure that was able to resist the pressure created by your weight acting over the surface area of the soles of your feet, the material of that structure could be less dense than water. Unfortunately I don't think that the silicates and carbonates of most bedrocks would have that strength if the distance between their molecules doubled (for example), so the concrete slabs that most modern buildings are built upon would sink pretty quickly, followed shortly thereafter by all the people who'd ran out onto the lawn and thought themselves safe.
Landmarks at 1:23 (clockwise):
- Eiffel Tower
- Leaning Tower of Pisa
- Taj Mahal
- Borobudr
- Sydney Opera House
- Christ the Redeemer
- El Castillo
- CN Tower
- Statue of Liberty
- Unclear (most likely the Golden Gate Bridge)
If density stays same there is big enough radius where it will be still a black hole... Because total mass would increase fast enough so that eventually schwarzschild radius is bigger than current radius... Like if you fill solar system with cotton candy it would create a black hole even though it is not very dense... Supermassive Black holes have density that is way lower than average density of earth
2:16 ”Helsinki” Finland mentioned!
Torille
TORILLE!!
Recently a fault with the BBC Weather service mistakenly reported windspeeds in excess of 14,000mph. What would happen in the event of such high speeds (if, indeed, it would be possible).
The same fault also led to misrepresentations of temperature in certain parts of the globe, with the city of Nottingham experiencing 404C. Would this change the outcome much for the city of Nottingham or would 14,808mph winds be sufficient to destroy life as we know it?
Or would it simply knock over a few wheelie bins and cause train delays?
he already did something similar, in an episode "What if the Earth suddenly stopped rotating". The wind speed was a little bigger iirc, but the idea is about the same
This takes a lot longer to become disastrous than I expected.
If i remember correctly, the amount of matter required to make a black hole scales with the square of radius not the cube. Therefore even leaving density constant, at some point the earth would turn into a black hole.
In fact it depends on the surface area, hence all the stuff about the holographic universe.
@@EbenBransome just revisited this and actually swarschild radius is proportional to M. Either way my point still stands that expanding any object while keeping average density constant you would eventually get a black hole. (Although for earth I roughly calculated this as needing to have something 27,000 times the radius of earth or about 541,000 years of growing 1cm per second (hopefully my math isn't off)
And the Earth would for a short time have rings*
*again
What would happen if you compressed the Earth?
Say a sphere starting at double the radius started shrinking in on the Earth, atmosphere and all.
How fast would this be? We would get crushed to death or freeze tom death with no sun
If earth grew 1cm every second,
The earth will grow 1 cm per second
I think it would get bigger
What does he say at 4:23? "...a sputtering white dwarf star, held up by electron [generassee?] pressure."
Degeneracy
Degeneracy. It was tough for me as well, but subtitles to the rescue!
@@lyonharted31 Thank you!
It seemed fairly clear to me, but it probably helps I was familiar with the term I guess.
Electron degeneracy pressure
4:51 worth it for some rings
3:25 - "Come onnn girdle... hold!"
Excellent comment
3:59 wait what about near earth asteroids and the Moon how would they react with this increased mass?
I would have appreciated a visual of satellites crashing into the Earth as the atmosphere reaches them and slows them down
I LOVE THIS CHANNEL AND ITS CONTENT! This is brainfood for me! Especially the narrator's way of explaining things. It always makes you go What if! And then using actual physics and maths to come to the final conclusion. Love it! 🔥
What if just the right amount of atmosphere was added to keep the pressure constant? How quickly would the amount of atmosphere increase? And what would happen if you re-did the analysis shown here?
Interesting video. I think there is a slight inaccuracy around 4:30 because after surpassing the Chandrasekhar limit, we would get the neutron star first. Only after we pass the Schwarzschild limit, assuming the earth doesn't rotate, that we get a black hole. Anyway, great video. Can't wait for the next topic!
5:15 Type Ia Supernova or blackhole?
A type Ia supernova supposedly due carbon and oxygen, so, there'd be a fair bit of that around, I would think.
Probably a neutron start and turn into a black hole.
There have been about 14.3 trillion images ever created, what percentage of those are cheese?
0.0073% counted it meself
@TheSpooncer i believe it
0:40 that's not how mass works.
-I assume you talked about mass since you used kg...
No, it's the metric system. The metric system also uses kilograms for weight.
I already love this because it's xkcd - but I also love the incredible math nerds that come out in the comments and spit out strings of incomprehensible (to me) numbers. Y'all are amazing, please keep at it
Super excited for this big analysis & animation video! Thanks so much for uploading! Might comment more later!
& here's looking forward to more like this from you!
This video conflates mass with weight. Surprised to see Randall make such a rookie mistake here
Under triple gravity, a 70kg human still has 70kg of mass. But a 100lb human would weigh 300lb
3:35 the guy wouldn’t have 210kg of mass, he'd still have 70kg, but his metric scale would *incorrectly* show 210kg because the scale leaves the factory calibrated for Earth's gravity. A kilogram anywhere in the solar system is a kilogram, a pound of force is what varies here.
lol to be so confidently wrong
@@AAaa-p3i8n he is wrong and right at the same time, the human has 70kg worth of mass that doesn't change but the gravitational pull of earth would effectively mean your weight, proportional to earth effectively becomes 210kg as gravity is pulling down on the human body by 3x to our current earths pull.
@@AAaa-p3i8n I wrote it in a snarky way, but I'm wrong per se. In the premise, the earth is expanding (gaining both mass and weight) but the human body isn't (no mass gain, just weight gain). People are just getting pulled harder by gravity. Imperial scales would be correct (150lb would go up to 450lb), but metric scales claim to measure mass and would drift out of calibration. Even though 70kg would show as 210kg, that number would be incorrect.
I wish Randall at least addressed this. The difference isn't always important, but Randall's pedantic enough that I'm surprised he didn't at least point it out.
Perhaps it was in a footnote that didn't make the cut for the video script. IIRC, there were very fun footnotes in the book (and, IIRC, this question was in book 1).
A person with a mass of 70kg would continue to have a mass of 70kg. Grams are not a measurement of weight.
I was really confused that Randall expressed it this way, without even a mention of that. He's going by scale readings (assuming that they didn't correct for changed g), but... at least say that?
yes it is, there is 1000 grams in 1 kilogram
@@DeltaGPhys I know what he meant, and that people use kg to measure their "weight" just about everywhere but the US (pounds) and the UK (stones?). But this is xkcd, I expect spot on scientific accuracy with my squiggly stick figures. 😁
Thank you. I came here to say the same thing.
@@j4s0n39 exactly
1:00 surely the elasticity of the rope would cover that, therefore there would be no needed extra rope
thats not the point of the problem, assume an inelastic rope
whooooshhh @@thatisachicken
@@blenderrendered8089how is that a whoosh
Not all rope is equally elastic, and you're also just nitpicking to be a prick. It's obvious that the assumption is a purely inelastic rope.
Shut up@@blenderrendered8089
4:00 the earth would eventually become a black hole under our assumptions, even without having to collapse. the schwarzchild radius grows in linear proportion with the mass (i.e. with the cube of the radius), so it will eventually outpace and overtake the radius itself. if the earth is granted sufficient strength to resist collapse or change in density, this happens approximately 8.24 million years after the expansion starts, at a radius of about 260 million km. (the initial radius is just under 6400 km)
Incredible video as always! You’ve truly mastered how to deliver valuable content with style and clarity.
1:03 this is how you know Randall is American: in spite of his best efforts to use metric (hooray!), that scene instantly irked me because I looked at it and instinctively said "wait, that's not a meter", because I could immediately eyeball that this would make the stick figures 2.5 m tall. I never knew the metric system was so ingrained on me!!
3:25 tripled, but +300%? That seems wrong to me
@@WhipperSnapper_463 +300% is an increase of 300%, resulting in a total of 400%. This would be quadrupling rather than tripling.
@@WhipperSnapper_463yes but that is +200% (100+200=300). If you double, you only add 100% too.
@@WhipperSnapper_463but you don’t start at 0, you start at 100%. So 300% from a start of 100% would be +200%
Tripled means an increase in size by +200%. If we’re talking about the overall size of the earth, it is 300% what it was before.
@@WhipperSnapper_463 let me ask: what would a +100% increase be? If something increases by 100%, what happens to it?
“Premise of Dennis’s” is a nice phrase.
I learned a lot from this video. The specific examples and the way you explain really help the viewer to understand.
Best xkcd video yet.
5:00 that kurzgesagt moment when the moon crashing down on earth doesn't crash at all
Your mastery of metric units, is so beautiful. There is some good in the world. Life is worth living.
I am very happy that you make these videos.
I can see/hear that you’re really enjoying making all the sound effects! 😂
Haven’t gotten a minute into this and I’m already liking it
Best series on TH-cam, no exceptions.
I love the sound effects, btw 😂
Weigth is not measured in kilograms, but in Newtons. Kilogram is the unit of mass, thus not increasing at all.
I really like the subtle background sound effects.