|
Virgil Thatcher posted:OH JUST STOP IT NOW We're all tripping now
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 06:46 |
|
|
Just The Facts posted:People were complaining? Yeah, there were some dudes complaining that "they don't give equal time to the SCIENTISTS who don't believe in evolution it's just propaganda" on a bunch of christian radio shows, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
anyone else want an AM crunchwrap
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
Mister Kingdom posted:I did not know that's how atoms work. I always they were like little solar systems. drat you old public school science! I'm learning more from this show than so much of my public schooling. Yeah, like you, I thought atoms were linear. Straight curved orbits. But no, poo poo gets crazy in there and by the way that's how we know what distant galaxies are made out of 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
Rhapsody in Blue playing while showing the different types of light owned
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
e: wrong tab 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
Yeah, I always thought that protons followed a set path in atoms as well. This explanation makes way more sense, considering the stuff is energy in its purest form. Makes sense for the building blocks to be bouncing off their own walls, I guess one could say. Love this show. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
Mister Kingdom posted:I did not know that's how atoms work. I always they were like little solar systems. drat you old public school science! Well, I wouldn't blame you for thinking that when there are authoritative organizations like the International Atomic Energy Agency still using the Rutherford planetary model of the atom as their logos. I'll give them that the Bohr model doesn't look as visually appealing even though it's more correct, and the current accepted model of the electron cloud is kind of hard to depict.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
Strange Quark posted:Well, I wouldn't blame you for thinking that when there are authoritative organizations like the International Atomic Energy Agency still using the Rutherford planetary model of the atom as their logos. I believe it was in A Short History of Nearly Everything when the modern idea of an atom would be something similar to a fuzzy tennis ball rather than a sun and planets.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
Strange Quark posted:Playing the show out on Rhapsody in Blue. I suddenly want to fly the friendly skies. Strange Quark posted:Well, I wouldn't blame you for thinking that when there are authoritative organizations like the International Atomic Energy Agency still using the Rutherford planetary model of the atom as their logos. It also looks bad on Doctor Manhattan's forehead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Nobody is asking the right question, one I want NDT to tackle over highballs. How might the net amount of entropy in the universe be massively decreased?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
7thBatallion posted:Nobody is asking the right question, one I want NDT to tackle over highballs. He probably has an insufficient amount of data, maybe it'll be the last one of the series.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
7thBatallion posted:Nobody is asking the right question, one I want NDT to tackle over highballs. On a completely different topic, NDT certainly believes in the multiverse. In The Inexplicable Universe he says that nothing in the universe is unique. At first we thought Earth was unique, then we found out it's just another planet. Then we thought our galaxy was unique, but then we found out there are billions of galaxies. He suggests that since nothing in the universe is unique, then that may mean the universe is not unique, and if there is a multiverse there could be multiple multiverses, and there could be multiple groups of multiverses. One other aspect he gets into is intelligence. There may be a point where our intelligence is not good enough to keep explaining every mystery we come across. Maybe there is another equation like e=mc^2 that explains so much more but maybe we're not smart enough to figure it out. He doesn't go any further, but I think that just like a new math had to be created to explain orbits, we'll just have to create better intelligence to continue figuring out the universe at some point. It could be biological or computer based, but we might just have to do it. Yaos fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Apr 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
Yaos posted:One other aspect he gets into is intelligence. There may be a point where our intelligence is not good enough to keep explaining every mystery we come across. Maybe there is another equation like e=mc^2 that explains so much more but maybe we're not smart enough to figure it out. So, going from an Asimov reference to one from Clarke, we might be the Overlords. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
GRBs GRBs GRBs YEAH YEAH YEAH (I love GRBs) Man here I thought the last episode was trippy as all hell what with THROUGH THE  . (Gershwin, excellent) Also thanks King Max  (incidentally great-grandfather of Ludwig the Dreamer of Neuschwanstein, der Märchenkönig)
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I believe it was in A Short History of Nearly Everything when the modern idea of an atom would be something similar to a fuzzy tennis ball rather than a sun and planets. That's...closer. I guess. It's really hard to depict something that we really only understand from a purely mathematical standpoint. There's nothing analogous to it that we can use to convey it. Everyone comes up with pictures in their mind to try to grasp it, and this version on screen came closer to mine than others I've seen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
ashpanash posted:That's...closer. I guess. It's really hard to depict something that we really only understand from a purely mathematical standpoint. There's nothing analogous to it that we can use to convey it. Yeah, it's really a mess trying to grasp it. Personally, I like to think of it like a game of Three-card Monty, or a shell game where the dealer cheats 5% of the time. So I can say with 95% accuracy that one of the three cards on the table is the red lady. I don't actually know which card is the red lady, but it's probably one of those three cards, unless the dealer pocketed the card, and it could be on the other side of the universe, but probably not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
So was NDT having acid flash backs, or did I miss something?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 08:05
|
|
|
I had no idea that's how they know what other planets and universes are made out of. But now my mind is blown.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 08:21
|
|
|
Pretty glad NDT is making a big point behind every "Great Scientist", there's a generous man/government/organization who patronized his or her research and publishing. In general, he's making a political point how states have great power to unleash or hold back scientific progress.
Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Apr 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
That episode was probably the most effective so far at using the history of science cartoons to build up to something. I'm sure this thread will still have physics spergs complaining that this is all "high school stuff" and bemoaning the lack of mathematical proofs (or whatever it is they want to see), but I feel like that episode taught me something cool.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Maybe it's just me, but Tyson seemed to have a lot more spring in his step this episode than in the previous one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
Yeah, this episode had a lot of stuff I didn't learn about until fairly late in college. It also really blew my (lay) girlfriend's mind which I always take as a sign for how well this show is reaching its target audience. Great stuff. I was pretty tired while I was watching it. Did I dream the meson star bit? And did the acid flashbacks go anywhere?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
As a physicist, the part with the atoms had me smiling because it was such an awesome representation of an atom. I want that poo poo as a screen saver.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
Not to complain about the level of information given by the show, but even as someone who knows pretty much everything the show has covered so far it still works great and feels very inspirational which is clearly the point of it. Though the spectrometer thing did blow me away, I always wondered how they're able to figure out what distant stars and planets and galaxies are made of with such certainty and well, now I know. Super awesome. Dirty Job posted:As a physicist, the part with the atoms had me smiling because it was such an awesome representation of an atom. I want that poo poo as a screen saver. Stare-Out fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Apr 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:That episode was probably the most effective so far at using the history of science cartoons to build up to something. Actually, I thought this was the best episode so far for actually reaching into the concepts raised and presenting them for the prime time viewers. Stuff that people who know their basics would be aware of? Sure. But it was all nicely illustrated, scratched a bit into why it was interesting instead of just saying that it's interesting, and wrapped it up in a solid narrative. When they went to the atom I also was going, "Aren't they more fuzzy balls? This looks like the old solar system-like model..." but then I got what they were demonstrating with the graphic and didn't care. Random Stranger fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Apr 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Another entertaining episode. It's always a trip to consider that the colors we see aren't actually properties of things. That flower isn't blue, the stuff it's made of absorbs red light and reflects blue light into your meager eyeholes that cannot even see practically anything that actually is part of light. Also ancient movies were all upside down. What a terrible time to exist. pik_d posted:He probably has an insufficient amount of data, maybe it'll be the last one of the series. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Finally got around to watching this since it was Game of Thrones night last night. Some thoughts: What were those weird inverted color flashes supposed to be? I actually learned something this episode! I didn't know about the gaps in spectrums or how spectroscopy worked. Um excuse me what is this simplified script bullshit doing in here   (the last character, 书, should be 書)
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
One time when I was young, my uncle brought a camera obscura to a family get together. I thought it was the coolest thing ever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 05:00
|
|
wins.
|
404notfound posted:What were those weird inverted color flashes supposed to be? I'm pretty sure it was supposed to be hinting at the non-visible part of the spectrum of light, since it was one of the color schemes used at the end to explicitly symbolize that stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Strange Quark posted:I'm pretty sure it was supposed to be hinting at the non-visible part of the spectrum of light, since it was one of the color schemes used at the end to explicitly symbolize that stuff. Yeah, and they played brief snippets from Rhapsody in Blue during the flashes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:That episode was probably the most effective so far at using the history of science cartoons to build up to something. I sperged internally about the lame rear end treatment of relativity last week but this episode was fantastic. Complaining that the show doesn't teach you anything new when you already have a college-level physics education is silly. It's not for you. Pretend you're 10 years old when you watch it or find some other science show to watch. Jim Al-Khalili's BBC documentaries are brilliant, or if you really want Cosmos for people who already know everything in Cosmos, put on your 80's pants and watch The Mechanical Universe: http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
JGTheSpy posted:Complaining that the show doesn't teach you anything new when you already have a college-level physics education is silly. It's not for you. That said, my wife and I are two episodes behind so NO SPOILERS PLEASE GOD
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
Spoilers: light is like, huh? Wha? Dang that's weird
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
MC Fruit Stripe posted:This is very correct, but more to the point it's irrelevant. The only measuring stick is how it compares to everything else on the big four networks in primetime. In a TV world filled with Amazing Race: All-Stars and Two Broke Girls, holy loving poo poo, here's a show which actually tries to teach us. In primetime. On a major network. That is remarkable! I watch a lot of (too much) television, but there are very few things that I am glad are on television. This is one of those. Time slows down as you approach the speed of light
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Time slows down as you approach the speed of light
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
MC Fruit Stripe posted:In a TV world filled with Amazing Race: All-Stars 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
MC Fruit Stripe posted:Oh please I've seen ST:TOS and TNG I'm practically a physicist Oh good, then you haven't missed much. Last week's episode was about time traveling by slingshoting around the sun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Time slows down as you approach the speed of light
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 06:46 |
|
|
This show has been awesome the whole way, but this episode seriously blew me away. We're getting out of the kiddie pool now into the really awesome stuff. This episode was the first one that introduced new things to me that I wasn't familiar with and re-explained things that I sort of knew but in a much more incredible and understandable way. The final scene jumping through all the spectrum of light was loving gorgeous and gave me goosebumps. I can't wait to see more!
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 07:59
|
|
