@gravityassistus: Mathematically, this pea is the exact same thing as the Sun. 🟢☀️ It sounds like a glitch in the simulation, but it is a proven mathematical fact: The Banach-Tarski Paradox. The theorem states you can take a solid 3D ball, cut it into 5 pieces, and reassemble them to form two identical copies of the original. Or, reassemble them to make a ball the size of the Sun. No stretching. No added material. No empty holes. HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE? 👇 To understand the hack, stop thinking about Atoms and start thinking about Infinity. 🧱 The Reality Problem In physics, matter is made of atoms (like Lego bricks). If you break down a Lego castle, you can't build two castles because you run out of bricks. Atoms have a fixed size. 📍 The Math Solution In math, shapes aren't made of atoms; they are made of POINTS. Points have zero size. A mathematical ball is just an infinite cloud of coordinates. When you slice up "infinity," the rules of arithmetic break down. 📖 The "Infinite Dictionary" Hack Imagine an infinite dictionary containing every possible word. Isolate the "A-Section" (all words starting with A: Apple, Ant...). Delete the first letter "A" from every word. "Apple" becomes "Pple". "Ant" becomes "Nt". Because the dictionary contains every combination, deleting that first letter shifts your small "A-Section" back into the ENTIRE DICTIONARY. You took a part, performed a shift, and it became the Whole. 🌍 The Sphere Banach and Tarski realized you can do this with a sphere. They group points based on rotation, rotate the piece, and that single piece expands to fill the void. 🚫 The Catch You can't do this with gold bars because reality has a resolution limit: The Atom. But this paradox proves that the laws of logic don't always match the laws of physics. In your mind? You can clone stars. In reality? You just have a pea. Follow for more glitches in the universe. 👁️ #banachtarski #paradox #math #physics #Science #stem #infinity #mindblown #logic #deepdive #interestingfacts #sciencetok
Gravity Assist
Region: US
Sunday 14 December 2025 18:40:01 GMT
Music
Download
Comments
flim.flam.man :
As soon as "infinity" enters the puzzle, it's all imaginary.
2025-12-14 19:58:16
7149
~ :
But you said cut it into a *finite* number of pieces, then later were talking about infinites
2025-12-15 03:10:07
1768
Christian Spear :
so what would you do to a physical object to actually do this "shift" because regardless this "paradox" is completely impossible
2025-12-14 20:14:36
0
Bumper :
You say in the beginning “finite number of pieces” and proceed to make them infinite
2025-12-15 13:36:42
495
jeeshgaabeesh :
If you take away a letter, it doesn’t contain every word. It has less words than the original dictionary that had infinite words. If you take A out of apple, which the original infinite dictionary would have, then the dictionary where you took the A out wouldn’t have apple in it. So while yes, still having infinite words because the concept is nonsense, it would have less words than the original infinite dictionary with no limitations.
2025-12-15 15:42:02
23
hampter_eater :
The example contains infinite complexity but any real object is not infinitely complex because it comes down to atoms and subatomic particles that are not infinitely complex and technically measurable
2025-12-14 20:00:45
455
Dave :
The deception is in the word “cut”. According to the theorem, the ball can be partitioned into non-Lebesgue-measurable sets, by the axiom of choice. But cutting the ball implies a physical process, which always produces Lebesgue-measurable sets. Thus cut pieces can’t satisfy the theorem.
2025-12-15 01:13:47
44
kirohshima :
I've heard of this paradox before but this dictionary analogy is an amazing way to explain it!
2025-12-14 19:30:42
48
BA Gaming Rigs :
There has to be a limit, be it atoms or less, mass and time cannot be infinity divisible. At some point we binary yes or no.
2025-12-14 20:34:57
16
jakken :
yeaa idk this doesn't really make sense, relating infinity to something with a finite number is a very big but still countable number
2025-12-14 20:22:42
69
ferro :
VSAUCE had a great video about this
2025-12-14 20:33:39
99
abcderzzzzzzzzz :
Can you please make this more complicated ??
2025-12-15 15:42:46
27
taking a break :
Gonna have to find a different way of explaining this one mate.
2025-12-15 08:29:52
10
MouthfulOfBees :
but this assumes the starting object has infinitely many discrete parts, which is completely wrong
2025-12-15 05:32:37
16
North Mercury :
I don’t understand the dictionary analogy 😔
2025-12-14 19:39:08
16
Sarah Ohara :
I love that my fyp thought I would understand this. I do not. But you understand it, and that’s good enough for me.
2025-12-14 19:00:31
12
notadrian1244 :
this is due to the axiom of choice and uncountable sets
2025-12-14 22:52:00
6
itsprobable :
six.. seven….?
2025-12-14 19:47:28
9
Cambroraster :
yeah bro we watched the vsauce video too
2025-12-15 15:46:05
61
☢️digdundid☢️ :
The reason it a paradox is because it’s wrong. We just don’t know how to prove it
2025-12-15 01:59:50
16
user2923813911419 :
But if you have Pple, you won’t have Apple any more right? Or if you do, it’s only because there was Aaple prior, all the way to infinity
2025-12-14 20:01:42
5
Dakota Sheridan :
This seems not unlike Zeno’s Paradox; that is, there’s an incongruity between ‘reality’ and ‘the math’, but ultimately there’s simply a glitch in the ‘language’ of mathematics. But, I’m just a simple cattle rancher from Wyoming, so I don’t know this kind of fancy book-learnins.
2025-12-14 20:15:55
10
Th3 D0C70R :
but you wouldnt have every letter combination since the words that are already a would not be there. like "apple" you would have "pple", but you would no longer have "apple" so the 'a' pile wouldnt be every combination of letters.
2025-12-16 09:32:15
2
shawncirca2026 :
I have no idea what this man said
2026-02-06 04:51:57
4
nyfunguss :
you are saying you started with infinite
2026-02-02 13:01:16
3
To see more videos from user @gravityassistus, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.