|
Damo posted:Although NDT wishes he were 1/10th the science explainer dude guy that Carl Sagan is. I completely disagree with you but then again I actually understand the science they are trying to explain (and inevitably dumb down) so maybe that has something to do with it. Sagan may have been slightly better at the poetry (and that's all it is, poetry,) but NDT gets a little more to the heart of the issue. A part of me dies inside, just a little, when any pop-sci show starts talking about virtual particles.
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 19:42 |
|
|
Can we stop with this "Hey, religious people were responsible for most of science!" nonsense? Of course they were. They were the only ones that could read. It doesn't make religion in any way necessary (or for that matter, unnecessary) to science.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:Also because infamous practitioners of pseudoscience like Deepak Chopra use that exact same argument to prop up their brand of woo and to cry persecution when, say, TED Talks takes down a lecture about how the scientific method really can't explain everything and also you can cure cancer by eating grains and meditating. Which is, you know, a lot different than torturing and killing someone. But if anything, there was an overall point to the episode which was not "How we've been able to get out from under the crutch of religion." The point was, "look at how much we've grown from our beginnings up to even only a couple hundred years ago." Society still had, and has, a lot to learn, but it's grown up considerably.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
My guesses for the subjects based on titles: 02- Some Of the Things That Molecules Do My guess is this is about life. 03- When Knowledge Conquered Fear History, obviously. Probably more complaining in the thread. 04- A Sky Full of Ghosts Pretty obviously about stars and the fact the most of the ones we see are now dead. 05- Hiding In the Light No idea. 06- Deeper, deeper, Deeper Still I'm gonna guess it's about the atomic and sub-atomic. But just a guess. 07- The Clean Room Not a clue. Entropy? 08- Sisters of the Sun Probably galactic evolution. 09- The Electric Boy I'm guessing our history of discovery and mastery of electromagnetism. 10- The Lost Worlds of Planet Earth The past climates and situations the Earth has endured. 11- The Immortals Perhaps the great men and women of science? Newton, Curie, etc. 12- The World Set Free No idea. 13- Unafraid of the Dark Coda.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:Go on? Technically it's extremely good evidence for an inflationary epoch and further reinforcement of the LCDM cosmological model. It's a little too much to say it "proves" the Big Bang, but it severely constrains any other model.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:Due to hawking radiation, yes. Throughout the universe particles and anti particles pop into existence and destroy each other. If they do this on an event horizon, one particle falls into the black hole and the other flies out. If the anti particle falls into the black hole, it destroys a particle in the black hole and the black hole loses mass. This is not at all an accurate explanation of Hawking radiation or what is colloquially referred to as virtual particle pair production, but it's a complicated subject.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Sash! posted:Like if I said "no the dinosaurs did not go extinct because you masturbate." You mean I did all that masturbating for nothing? Ah well, I'm fine with it.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 19:42 |
|
|
Cojawfee posted:Did NDT ever explain why the glass brick repolarized the light? I was waiting for an explanation but it never came. Was the glass somehow special because of him trying to create optics? Does glass just have that property? Seems like a missed opportunity. It's not really the realm of the show to explain these things, the show is more about getting people interested in science, and letting them go from there. The explanation is what is known as, ha, the Faraday Effect. It occurs in materials with certain dielectric properties. Faraday was actually kind of fortunate to have the lead-doped glass around, since it actually has a high Verdet constant, which makes the Faraday Effect stronger.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2014 02:30
|
|