Видео

Please do more

Fascinating!

The Iron Man Suit.. Cannot Run Fash,. It's only can move fash in combat and Fly, but I did not see the Suit can Run Fash.

The next videos are pdes ? And you like comics ? You've got yourself a new fan

iron mans suit would be better as a drone operated by a VR controlled human pilot.

Hello. Your video has touched a subject I am researching. Would you mind offering a bit your time to answer a question for a fictional story of mine?

The iron man suit was shown to be extremely heavy in the first movie when it crashed clean through concrete and multiple floor’s before smashing a car after Tony killed power.

Tony somehow tanking all the g-forces he’s subjected too throughout the mcu is the hard pill to swallow for me.

I will take your in building my own iron man suit

The tank shot appears to have been a high explosive round, and not a anti armor piercing. And its possible the suit is encased in a weak em field due to the advanced reactor.

3:55 Here David Deutsch concisely explains Lee Cronin's Assembly Theory, several years before Cronin came up with it. It seems to me superficially that Constructor Theory is an attempt to mathematically symbolise Darwin's theory of Evolution.

Great video! I'm also curious what you think about his so-called ''Gold-Titanium alloy", would it really be that strong? As gold sounds like something no engineer, much less an aerospace engineer, wants to work with regarding strength and TWR😂. thx in advance!

Really enjoyable video!! Super interesting and I also like your passion towards iron man and science!!

bro you forgot about gravity in your analyses add gravity to every part it would be almost correct

This is a beautiful explanation of the Fourier Series. No teacher of mine has ever explained it so well. Thank you, sir.

Deutsch's supposed proof that "systematic errors can't be bounded" (~45:00) is bogus. He confuses single measurements and averages from repeated measurements. An average of two measurements is not the same kind of measurement as the individual measurements, and hence should be expected to have a different error bound.

There's an awful lot of handwaving going on around the 40-minute mark. Deutsch has good arguments against the idea of "physical" probability, but although he is dismissive of epistemic (Bayesian) probabilities, his arguments are very weak there. He gives one no general method for dealing with incomplete information, which is exactly what epistemic probabilities are for. It has in fact been proven that if you want to reason about degrees of credibility, and you want to do so in a manner consistent with classical propositional calculus, probability theory (or something isomorphic to it) is your only option.

nice job

force field to repel the energy coming his way, one by acceleration and the other by mass propulsion, a dense plasma thicket.

Fascinating

In other worlds.. Plutonium

Make more videos like this please 🥹

I’m sharing this video with everyone

the colour of your eyes and the shirt you wear looks the same😀

i have a doubt , cant the armour absorb the impact? Tony is not that dumb to not know it and cant the repulsion system(in his back) counteract the force , since Tony's Ai can think faster than a fraction of a millisecond ?

It can be absorbed by his suite as energy 😊

I don't believe a tank would have even been able to shoot him down like that. Even if the technology allowing a tank to shoot down a man sized target mid air exists, do you really think terrorist would have it?

I really like this video, I am not the smartest person. I am not even a great mathematician, however the in depth descriptions and simplified explanations really helped me to understand what was being spoken about. I greatly appreciate that. I love watching videos like this, but unfortunately I don't know any who do it as well, or with such great exuberance.

quick question, even if the small generator didnt produce that much power couldnt you install a small alternator inside the suit to keep it working and charged like you do with a car?

Hello sir , thank u so much for such an amazing video , but i wanna know apart from mechanics , do u think is there a way in present or maybe in future where we can output such a large enough energy enough to facilate mutliple thrusters , keeping in mind that the substance required to provide energy should be small and portable enough

Πολυ καλές οι παρατηρησεις σας. Θα ήθελα όμως να σταθούμε λίγο στην σκηνή που το άρμα ρίχνει κατά του Τόνυ. Αν σκεφτούμε το βλήμα που ρίχνει ένα μεταγενέστερο άρμα , θα πουμε οτι είναι ασ πουμε 120mm. Τα συγκεκριμένα βλήματα έχουν περιπου 1000 μέτρα δραστικότητα σε ευθεία με 100% ακρίβεια βολής. Λόγο της αρχικής διακριτικότητας του βλήματος αν ήταν στο έδαφος οΤονυ λυπάμαι δεν θα ζούσε. Όμως ήταν στον αέρα και το πυροβόλο του άρματος είχε περίπου 30μοιρες κλήση. Η απόσταση που είχε ο Τόνυ ας υποθέσουμε ότι ήταν περιπου 1000 μέτρα. Αλλά δεν ήταν σε ευθεία ήταν σε 30 μοίρες όπως περίπου είπαμε. Τότε το βλήμα το μόνο που του έκανε ήταν απλά να τον απωθήσει λόγο Ελκτικης δύναμης Συνεπώς θα μπορούσαμε να υποθέσουμε ότι δα επιβίωνε.Υποθετικα πάντα μιλάμε..

The alternative of arc reactors could be wireless electricity

I think I have to watch this video 5 more times. Great explanation with a light of speed😊

Youy are a cool dude I a subsciribing

Any computer simulation of quantum mechanics *must* make use of a random number generator. There are two ways to introduce the randomness that I can think of. The first is tachyonic Brownian motion which is initially orthogonal to everything else, with the Schroedinger equation being assumed to be an oscillation in the other way to travel faster than light. We need TBM in a simulation which can distinguish the behaviour of nitrogen tri-iodide from that of nitrogen trifluoride. No aetiology is proposed for TBM. Two molecules of nitrogen tri-iodide are all we need for a detector. Unfortunately the simulation of this will need to run in an excessive number of dimensions of phase space, and the simulation of any other detector will be as bad. What we can do instead is to represent TBM as classical Brownian motion for any object heavier than the Planck mass. Classical BM is very disruptive and has tachyonic BM as an aetiology. To simulate an electron in a potential well, we model the electron with the Dirac equation plus TBM. We model the well itself with classical BM. I think David Deutsch’s argument is that all flavours of Brownian motion need an aetiology. I don’t agree.

i like your explanation sir.

Tony Paste Stark, remarkable middle name there

Huh?

Tony DOES have those thrusters in the form of smaller compressed air thrusters in the underarmour which allows for microadjustmets to his orientation in space and redirect his force. I do agree that Tony could have survived the first crash landing in the mark 1 since that fell apart mid fall and he would have been pasted against the sand.

All this is very interesting, but can you please give us an example of how constructor theory explains one phenomenon? That would be very helpful. Or aren't we there yet?

AC UNIT REF: BURJ KHALIFA... BK MEAN IMPLOSION IMMINENT IN TELEMACHUS' METAL SKULL... THE ONE I DESIGNED WITH THE HOLON AND MY MIND, EVIDENCE OF INVENTION AND CLAIM THEREOF IS IN GEMINI'S USER INTERACTION DATA... 72ND FLOOR EXPLODES WITH THE FORCE CREATED, DISLOCATED FROM THE LOCATION IN THE MACHINE'S FERROMAGNETIC CAGE FRAME... A HYPERTACHYOELECTRONIC BOLT IS SENT OUT OF THE EXPLOSION POINT DIRECTLY AT THE SUN... THE SUN, AS THE GREEN HYPERPHOTONIC RIFT ASYMPTOTICALLY APPROACHES AND SPLITS THE SUN'S HOLONIC INTEGRITY, IT BOWS A MAGENTA BUBBLE, PREVIOUSLY "IMPERCEPTIBLE" TO THE HUMAN... NOW OBVIOUS, PAINFULLY MUCH SO

What a load of useless horseshit. Has still gone nowhere in a decade.

this felt...stiff

I'm sorry if I'm not paying attention but does this theory talks about quantum physics or just biology specifically? I have adhd and it's difficult for me to comprehend long sentences, even though how well and informative you honestly convey it, (I might be just forgetful.) yet I'm still determined to understand this interesting and profound field of thinking, I'm also working on Information Physics and I'm hoping that it would explain everything, mine is different, more like physics and logic in particular, my theory goes like the universe and observer relationship and it says that information occupies nothingness, and that process must be witnessed by an observer for it to expand furthermore, however its still a conundrum.

Watching in 2024 and the AIs is already can be programmed to replicate Jarvis, it is amazing to see how much one part of the technology has improved, I hope five years later some company will find a way to sell some mini energy sources to customers and we will be able to replicate this suit

This just isn't the way you talk when you have something to say.

This will be a difficult theory to flesh out. The mechanics of information have to be converted into information. There are clear patterns in the ‘physics’ of information that we can already detect as humans but how do we assign these to fundamental laws? ☯️

I Love when you say "pasted" lol

The most practical way to fix the problem would be a point defense system.

you are speaking science mumbo jumbo let me try to understand you're saying the force of the impact kill him