More about the Alaska Trip:

Channel 10 Breakfast: (6-9am weekdays in Australia)

March 26 segment on live TV talking about solar storms and my upcoming trip to the Great White North. As you watch this I will probably be on a plane high over the pacific.
PS a student recently told me that my hair to beard ratio is a bit off and watching this clip I tend to agree. However, it is still -20 C at night in Alaska so I’ll need all the insulation I can get.


  1. That sounds like an awesome job, at least for picking up a few of those things. First you get to build these balloons with the cameras, then trek around in the wilderness, then check out the video and try to make up smart sounding stuff with what you found there.

  2. Are most of the subscribers/viewers of this channel straight men? How come nobody has commented on how attractive Derek is? But I think he looks even hotter without the facial hair. Since we are talking about science, social science research has shown that men look best with stubbles (not full beard). Take note Derek darling.

  3. why do you use 'kilo' prefix if you talk about numbers that large? If you choose to use a prefix, 'zetta' could come in handy. People can't comprehend billion trillion more than 10^21.

  4. But the moon's recession is slowing down, so that number's probably off by several orders of magnitude. (Such rash calculations also give the moon as a mere 1.6 gigayears old).

    Interestingly enough, and unrelated to your question, the Moon is more affected by the Sun than the Earth, so it could really be classified as a co-planet of ours.

    “…to an observer in space the Moon
    must appear as a normal planet, traveling
    in an elliptical orbit with the Sun in one of
    the foci.” (Moore 2001)

  5. I'm not Derek, but I'll try to answer q1. The moon is moving away at about 4cm/year and, although it's not constant, let's use that. I assume by 'out of our vision' you mean with our eyes and not telescopes which could see it, well, at least to Pluto's orbit.

    The eye can see about 0.7 arc-minutes (0.01166.. degrees), meaning something 3474.2km wide would need to be about 17,061,979km away, or about .1 AU. At it's current rate, that would take about 4 million years.


  6. woah woah SF? where in SF? need a photographer? assistant? buddy? bodyguard?

    haha probably not but it would be cool to randomly see you around town!

  7. Great… I live in Alaska and i just found out about you last week. What city did you launch the balloon from?

  8. Correct me if I'm wrong, Sun flips its magnetic poles every 9-10 years that's when solar flare activity increases..

  9. Hi there Derek, I'm currently beginning my HSC year in NSW, and I've been a big fan of Veritasium for a while now. I was wondering if you have any advice for an excited science nerd looking for possible career and study options from next year onward.

  10. just some days and haven't been on a lot lately because I've been out of town. I'm on my way to San Francisco tomorrow. Back in November!!

  11. I think it would take a long, long, long, long time for it to move a significant distance. In a couple billion years it might be twice as far away as it is now, but we'd probably still be able to see it. Next vid should be posted next week, but it will be tough because I'm on the road again.

  12. as far as i understand it, our body uses proteins and sugars to construct new material for repairs, when we exercise we actually damage our muscles and the body overcompensates for the damage by repairing them to a greater extent than they were damaged. AFAIK the reason they shrink if not used is because the body re-absorbs the protein for use elsewhere if it's not actively "repairing" an area

  13. I realise now how efficient your other videos are…The pre-answer interviews make the answer so much more enjoyable! still, nice 😀

  14. Bwahaha!! An Eataly by means of outlet merchants Pretty That’s which include proclaiming a Lord and Taylor will open up upon Erie ave and 16th road