# Cosmos



## InstituteMan (Mar 9, 2014)

That was all kinds of good.


----------



## Pluralized (Mar 9, 2014)

You mean like the magazine? Yeah, those are good. Lewdog has quite the collection.


----------



## Pidgeon84 (Mar 9, 2014)

Or do you mean the show? Cause I'm super pumped for the reboot.

[video=youtube;kBTd9--9VMI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBTd9--9VMI[/video]


----------



## Grizzly (Mar 9, 2014)

Or the book the show's based on? Because yeah, Sagan is pretty awesome.


----------



## InstituteMan (Mar 9, 2014)

I just watched the new version of the show. I checked the Sagan book out of my little town's library so many times as a kid that it spent more time with me than anywhere else (and no one else in town seemed to check it out). It was way cool to watch it with my aspiring astrophysicist, aka my younger daughter.


----------



## Grizzly (Mar 9, 2014)

InstituteMan said:


> I just watched the new version of the show. I checked the Sagan book out of my little town's library so many times as a kid that it spent more time with me than anywhere else (and no one else in town seemed to check it out). It was way cool to watch it with my aspiring astrophysicist, aka my younger daughter.



That's pretty rad. My dad used to get my psyched over becoming a rocket scientist. I've got the new version of the show currently recording, can't wait.
There's this book called The Math Book that's basically a compilation of all these math theories and concepts and what not. I check it out from the library pretty consistently, and it's gotten to the point that I've got this sense of pseudo-ownership over it. Nobody else checks it out, but if they ever did I'd probably be butthurt.


----------



## Bishop (Mar 10, 2014)

Or are you referring to _the _cosmos? Like... that which contains all life, that cosmos. 

Cause I like those too.


----------



## Schrody (Mar 10, 2014)

Grizzly said:


> Or the book the show's based on? Because yeah, Sagan is pretty awesome.



Seconded. It lies proudly on my shelf


----------



## thepancreas11 (Mar 10, 2014)

Or Kramer? I believe you mean Cosmo.


----------



## InstituteMan (Mar 16, 2014)

Part 2 - still awesome!


----------



## Terry D (Mar 17, 2014)

I'm going to be in the minority here, but I watched about 15 minutes of the first show and changed channels. The pictures were pretty, but I hate Tyson's condescending, overly dramatic preaching. It was the same problem I had with Sagan's version. I don't see why these shows have to try so hard to make physics dramatic. Don't talk to me like I'm hearing all this stuff for the first time and you're try to sell me on the scope of the universe. I'm an amateur astronomer and I hope the show does well, but it's not for me.


----------



## Schrody (Mar 17, 2014)

Terry D said:


> I'm going to be in the minority here, but I watched about 15 minutes of the first show and changed channels. The pictures were pretty, but I hate Tyson's condescending, overly dramatic preaching. It was the same problem I had with Sagan's version. I don't see why these shows have to try so hard to make physics dramatic. Don't talk to me like I'm hearing all this stuff for the first time and you're try to sell me on the scope of the universe. I'm an amateur astronomer and I hope the show does well, but it's not for me.



Yes, I knew everything he said (I read a lot, especially about theoretical physics), but I wasn't offended by his hosting, I mean,_ not everybody_ knows that facts, and that's okay. Show obviously isn't for "pros", it's about explaining basic (and some non basic) principles of science (physics), to mass audience, young and old, with pre-knowledge or no knowledge at all. I'm fascinated by an universe, and how little we know about it. And it doesn't hurt to remind yourself every now and then about some things. Maybe Through the Wormhole would be more challenging for you.  Both are great shows.


----------



## Terry D (Mar 17, 2014)

Schrody said:


> Yes, I knew everything he said (I read a lot, especially about theoretical physics), but I wasn't offended by his hosting, I mean,_ not everybody_ knows that facts, and that's okay. Show obviously isn't for "pros", it's about explaining basic (and some non basic) principles of science (physics), to mass audience, young and old, with pre-knowledge or no knowledge at all. I'm fascinated by an universe, and how little we know about it. And it doesn't hurt to remind yourself every now and then about some things. Maybe Through the Wormhole would be more challenging for you.  Both are great shows.



Through the Wormhole is better, but all these shows tend to pander to the lowest common denominator. Like in the series The Universe, it started well but soon devolved into tripe like, The Top Ten Ways the World Could End, or The Most Dangerous Places in the Universe. Not really any better than Ancient Aliens. But that's just the grouchy old curmudgeon coming out in me. :icon_shaking2:


----------



## InstituteMan (Mar 17, 2014)

I am with Schrody here. I didn't exactly learn anything last night, but the show was well produced and well written, so I was entertained. I am a science geek in general, and a physics geek in particular, but I know that most are not.

On a different but related topic: GRAVITY WAVES!


----------



## Terry D (Mar 17, 2014)

InstituteMan said:


> I am with Schrody here. I didn't exactly learn anything last night, but the show was well produced and well written, so I was entertained. I am a science geek in general, and a physics geek in particular, but I know that most are not.
> 
> On a different but related topic: GRAVITY WAVES!



What a great past 12 months! First the Higgs and now proof of inflation!


----------



## InstituteMan (Mar 17, 2014)

Terry D said:


> What a great past 12 months! First the Higgs and now proof of inflation!



Truly exciting times! It kind of feels like 1904 or something. Who knows what new physics is going to come out of these recent discoveries and whatever else we have coming down the pipe?


----------



## Schrody (Mar 17, 2014)

Terry D said:


> Through the Wormhole is better, but all these shows tend to pander to the lowest common denominator. Like in the series The Universe, it started well but soon devolved into tripe like, The Top Ten Ways the World Could End, or The Most Dangerous Places in the Universe. Not really any better than Ancient Aliens. But that's just the grouchy old curmudgeon coming out in me. :icon_shaking2:



Yeah, I hate when that happens, although I like those catastrophic ideas. Through the Wormhole is great, I got many ideas for my novels from that show. 



Terry D said:


> What a great past 12 months! First the Higgs and now proof of inflation!



We live in a great times, who knows what will they discover in 10-20 years?



InstituteMan said:


> Truly exciting times! It kind of feels like 1904 or something. Who knows what new physics is going to come out of these recent discoveries and whatever else we have coming down the pipe?



You mean 1905? If you were referring to the Special Relativity.


----------



## InstituteMan (Mar 17, 2014)

Schrody said:


> Yeah, I hate when that happens, although I like those catastrophic ideas. Through the Wormhole is great, I got many ideas for my novels from that show.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My, Schrody, you DO know your physics! I actually meant to reference that period where there was all this new data but not a definite explanation yet, say just before Einstein had his magical year of special relativity and photoelectric effect and Brownian motion solutions. Of course, we may (and likely do) have more than a year to wait!


----------



## Grizzly (Mar 17, 2014)

I agree that I didn't learn anything new (at least in the first episode), but I wasn't offended by Tyson in the slightest. Anyway, it had to be a review of things for all those that aren't already science buffs. 
Through the Wormhole is good for story ideas and all, but it's lacking in actual science. I don't particularly mind--pseudoscience is the heart of science fiction!


----------



## Schrody (Mar 18, 2014)

InstituteMan said:


> My, Schrody, you DO know your physics! I actually meant to reference that period where there was all this new data but not a definite explanation yet, say just before Einstein had his magical year of special relativity and photoelectric effect and Brownian motion solutions. Of course, we may (and likely do) have more than a year to wait!



LOL. I was thinking what happened in 1904... but you're right, I can't imagine that thrill of waiting to be confirmed. Same when scientists discovered heat left over from the Big Bang (cosmic background radiation), mapping a human genome, or finding of the Higgs Boson. Past was so giving to the physics, but I think future holds keys for understanding our universe, and also, it asks new questions.



Grizzly said:


> I agree that I didn't learn anything new (at least in the first episode), but I wasn't offended by Tyson in the slightest. Anyway, it had to be a review of things for all those that aren't already science buffs.
> Through the Wormhole is good for story ideas and all, but it's lacking in actual science. I don't particularly mind--pseudoscience is the heart of science fiction!



Well, TTW has some pseudoscience episodes, but most of them are based on real/plausible facts.


----------



## Schrody (Mar 18, 2014)




----------



## InstituteMan (Mar 18, 2014)

Schrody said:


> View attachment 5328



A-F'ing-men to that. One of my favorite sayings ever. The chemists never liked it so much, though.


----------



## Marc (Mar 22, 2014)

The Flat Earth Society (a.k.a. creationists) want equal time on Cosmos to provide balance to the show. Why do you hate America Neil DeGrasse Tyson?


----------



## Grizzly (Mar 22, 2014)

Just watched the second episode. My mom (devout born-again Christian) was fascinated by the bit about evolution because she didn't think it was backed by science. Other than that though it was rather uneventful. It's pretty to watch, but I haven't learned anything new so far.


----------



## Schrody (Mar 23, 2014)

Marc said:


> The Flat Earth Society (a.k.a. creationists) want equal time on Cosmos to provide balance to the show. Why do you hate America Neil DeGrasse Tyson?



No! Cosmos is a science show. I don't see science in creationism.


----------



## Marc (Mar 23, 2014)

Schrody said:


> No! Cosmos is a science show. I don't see science in creationism.



Who needs science when you can just rely on the "revealed word" (a.k.a. fairy tales). The real tragedy is their inability to see "God" (whatever that means) within the scientific method.


----------



## Schrody (Mar 23, 2014)

Marc said:


> Who needs science when you can just rely on the "revealed word" (a.k.a. fairy tales). The real tragedy is their inability to see "God" (whatever that means) within the scientific method.



They're trying to ruin only good thing on the TV!


----------



## InstituteMan (Mar 23, 2014)

This week's episode was even better than last week's. Of course, tonight's episode was all Newtonian, so a reformed physicist like myself would be biased in favor of it over last week's biology focus.


----------



## Schrody (Mar 24, 2014)

InstituteMan said:


> This week's episode was even better than last week's. Of course, tonight's episode was all Newtonian, so a reformed physicist like myself would be biased in favor of it over last week's biology focus.



Can't wait to watch it!


----------



## Schrody (Mar 27, 2014)

Universe holds a lot of secrets...


----------



## InstituteMan (Mar 27, 2014)

Schrody said:


> Universe holds a lot of secrets...



It has been a busy and fun time of discovery in our own solar system.


----------



## Schrody (Mar 27, 2014)

InstituteMan said:


> It has been a busy and fun time of discovery in our own solar system.



And what discoveries yet awaits to be found...


----------



## InstituteMan (Mar 30, 2014)

New episode tonight!

I lack real internet until the @$/! ISP fixes it tomorrow, so I shan't remark upon tonight's episode for a bit, but I hope everyone tunes in!


----------



## Schrody (Mar 31, 2014)

Science, b****!


----------



## InstituteMan (Apr 6, 2014)

. . . and as of the first commercial break of tonight's episode, I have learned lots I didn't know about Chinese history. Plus, I suspect the religious right is already hacked by the anti-legalism stance. Good stuff!


----------



## InstituteMan (Apr 6, 2014)

After a slow but educational bunch of opening history, the discussion of light was fascinating even if you already know the basics. That was the best math-free description of atomic spectra I have ever seen. Bonus points for the only correct usage of the term "quantum leap" I have ever heard on TV. Well worth the hour!


----------



## Deb47 (Apr 8, 2014)

Love Neil DeGrasse Tyson, he's one of the best science presenters we have. He always makes the topic fascinating and accessible to a general audience. I watched the first few episodes and they've been really entertaining. I hope the show does well. We need our scientific literacy in this country to dramatically improve.


----------



## Schrody (Apr 8, 2014)

May gods of Science crush me like a little bug for saying this, but, Tyson is so much better host than Sagan. That said, Sagan was a really good scientist, he had some kind of charisma. 

And a little treat for you: 

Dark Matter Discovered?


----------



## InstituteMan (Apr 8, 2014)

Deb, I hope that the ratings for Cosmos make this kind of programming a hot item in the near future, but even if it doesn't the program is definitely changing the public discourse (heck, we are talking about it here!), and that is a good thing indeed.

Schrody, I don't think that it is sacrilege to prefer Tyson to Sagan. Sagan was what we needed in that day - an enthusiastic and articulate but very white guy was the only type of scientist who was going to get on television, at least in the US - and Tyson is what we need today.

As for dark matter (or whatever it is) . . . the data becoming available makes for exciting times in physics. I only hope that we are able to maintain the telescopes and detectors and accelerators that we need to keep collecting data on the frontier of our knowledge. At least here in the States, we have an anti-science contingent who would just as soon defund all of it. I don't think that they are going to win in the end, but I fear that they will squander many years of work by stalling funding.


----------



## Schrody (Apr 8, 2014)

It had to do with his narration, he'd emphasize last syllables, it was kinda annoying and charming. Tyson is more natural. 

I heard/read something about situations where hard core creationists were trying everything to disprove science. It's a tough battle, dealing with narrow minded.


----------



## Dave Watson (Apr 9, 2014)

Loving this program. The world needs more shows like Cosmos and less like Honey Boo Boo.


----------



## Trygve (Apr 9, 2014)

I was very excited when Sagan came to speak at my school's lecture series when I was in college.  A few minutes in, I was very disappointed. The guy came across as a condescending ass. I think he drew a very wide line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man; or between Carl Sagan and anyone else.


----------



## Kevin (Apr 9, 2014)

> came across as a condescending


 They should start a club: Sagan,  Trebeck, Gumble, Kurt Loder... the Pop-culture Pomps (add the donkies yourself) They'd probably kick Loder out...music...bah!


----------



## InstituteMan (Apr 9, 2014)

Trygve said:


> I was very excited when Sagan came to speak at my school's lecture series when I was in college.  A few minutes in, I was very disappointed. The guy came across as a condescending ass. I think he drew a very wide line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man; or between Carl Sagan and anyone else.



I never got to see Sagan in person, but even on TV he could come across as arrogant. He was not the first (or the last) to believe his own positive press overmuch. I also think that it took one cocky dude to decide, "hey, I ought to write a book about the history of the Cosmos" in the 1970s (it was published in 1980). Now, thanks in part -- but only in part -- to Sagan's efforts, popular science is a huge category.

Dude was still reall arrogant, though.


----------



## Schrody (Apr 10, 2014)

WOW, I didn't know that about Sagan. Well, reading this, I guess he could join the club together with Dawkins (since we're bashing scientists).


----------



## InstituteMan (Apr 10, 2014)

Schrody said:


> WOW, I didn't know that about Sagan. Well, reading this, I guess he could join the club together with Dawkins (since we're bashing scientists).



I still like both of those fine, arrogance and all.


----------



## Schrody (Apr 10, 2014)

InstituteMan said:


> I still like both of those fine, arrogance and all.



Dawkins became unreadable to me. I abandoned his two books, which were interesting to one point. It's never again Dawkins for me.


----------



## cazann34 (Apr 11, 2014)

_



*"If at first you don't succeed, aff wi' the bunnet, and in wi' the heid."* - Old Glasgow proverb.
		
Click to expand...

. signature from Dave Watson
Love it!  Edinburger's (folk from Edinburgh, Scotland-me!) are reserved (apparently!) while Glaswegian's are aff their heids (off their heads). I'm 1/2 Edinburger (mother) and 1/2 Glaswegian (father) so that makes me only a 1/2 off ma heid! 

Edit: Sorry for taking this off the topic but I had to comment on the quote._


----------



## InstituteMan (Apr 12, 2014)

I thought Schrody might like this:


----------



## Schrody (Apr 12, 2014)

Cute. I have a similar Schrody's cat T-shirt


----------



## InstituteMan (Apr 12, 2014)

Schrody said:


> Cute. I have a similar Schrody's cat T-shirt



That does not surprise me. :02.47-tranquillity:


----------



## Schrody (Apr 12, 2014)

InstituteMan said:


> That does not surprise me. :02.47-tranquillity:



I got it for my b-day







It's a great love between science and me


----------



## InstituteMan (Apr 13, 2014)

Another well-wrought episode. A little biology, a touch of chemistry, a dash of nuclear physics, a bit of stellar life cycles, some particle physics, and closing cosmology. I cheered the neutrino detector.


----------



## Schrody (Apr 14, 2014)

I still haven't watched last week's episode. So, two episodes at once, what a treat!


----------



## Morkonan (Apr 14, 2014)

I watched an episode last night...caught at least three errors, IIRC.  I really like Tyson, but he ticked me off awhile ago by publicly taking a particularly obtuse stance on a subject and I'm not going to let him slide anymore. 

I did enjoy the episodes I saw, though. (Slept, off and on, but still watched.)


----------



## Pandora (Apr 17, 2014)

Yesterday I watched Sunday's before hubby came how, he's not much into it. It's a fantastic series, I'm in awe. Great narrator he is. I like the little ship in this episode 
going small into a dewdrop. Seeing those amazing critters, they looked much like the bugs washing out of my hair in the dream the night before, creepy, double creepy.


----------



## InstituteMan (Apr 21, 2014)

I learned a lot from last night's episode, perhaps because it was well outside of my physicsy comfort zone. Geology, radioactive dating, and the biochemistry of lead were not in my wheelhouse going into last night and, truth be told, they still _aren't _​in my wheelhouse. I know a lot more about them, though! It was fun!


----------



## garza (Apr 21, 2014)

When I saw the title of the thread I assumed it referred to the Cosmos perhaps in an existentialist framework. How disappointing to discover the reference is to a television programme that I've never heard of, let alone seen. I am familiar with the Sagan book - a sort of Popular Mechanics compendium of space for the masses. I assume the TV programme is at least a step below that. 

Had my first assumption been correct, I was prepared to explain my theory of nothingness, of which there is a great deal in the Cosmos, and its relationship to our anxieties.


----------



## Grizzly (Apr 21, 2014)

garza said:


> Had my first assumption been correct, I was prepared to explain my theory of nothingness, of which there is a great deal in the Cosmos, and its relationship to our anxieties.



I would very much like to hear your take on the Cosmos. Please share.


----------



## garza (Apr 21, 2014)

Are you serious? Most people run for cover when I start. If you want some of my thoughts on the subject in general there is a post already on the board, but it's not appropriate for me to mention it here until a certain action has been completed. That should happen very soon. I have a rather lengthy essay on the topic 'Existence and a Metaphysical Concept of Nothingness', for which I need a new title. I've been thinking of posting it in the Non-Fiction board, so now might be a good time.


----------



## Grizzly (Apr 22, 2014)

certain action? 
Well I'd like to read your essay if you post it. Sounds interesting.


----------



## garza (Apr 22, 2014)

I'll put it up shortly ion the non-fiction board. Meantime, ask yourself this question. Which is the more important part of a cup, the cup itself, or the inside where there is nothing?


----------



## Pandora (Apr 22, 2014)

There is never nothing yes?

I haven't watched Sunday's yet, looking forward to it. I was so happy my daughter caught last weeks, she loved it. Just over two weeks now
till graduating with her biology degree, forensic science and criminal justice! It's fun to watch a show like that when you can relate too, for her. 
Me, I'm just blown away. How far can my brain think, uh oh, I feel another blonde joke coming on.


----------



## garza (Apr 22, 2014)

The two are equally important. You cannot drink tea from a cup if the cup is broken in pieces. You cannot drink tea from a cup if it has no place for the tea. You need the structure, and you need the nothing that the structure defines.


----------



## Grizzly (Apr 24, 2014)

I'm getting mad Tao Te Ching vibes from the cup question.



garza said:


> You need the structure, and you need the nothing that the structure defines.



Reminds me of Democritus and his whole, "there is nothing but atoms and the void" (Just watched the "Deeper, Deeper, Deeper Still) and how the universe is mostly just empty space and made of nothing at all.


----------



## InstituteMan (Apr 27, 2014)

Tonight was my favorite topic yet. All stars must die! Novas and supernovas and hypernovas, oh my!

I loved the shout out to the great women of astronomy in the early 20th century.


----------



## Schrody (Apr 28, 2014)




----------



## InstituteMan (Apr 28, 2014)

Yep, Schrody, spaghettification (an actual term!) sucks.


----------



## Pandora (Apr 28, 2014)

Now I have two to watch, get caught up on,  that will be mind blowing!


----------



## Schrody (Apr 28, 2014)

InstituteMan said:


> All stars must die!



Everything that lives, must die.



InstituteMan said:


> I loved the shout out to the great women of astronomy in the early 20th century.



They probably talked about female scientists in general, and you can't talk science without mentioning Marie Curie, which is not a good example; you're sending a message to all those young girls: "Do science. Die of radiation. It's fun!" :mrgreen:


----------



## InstituteMan (Apr 28, 2014)

Pandora said:


> Now I have two to watch, get caught up on,  that will be mind blowing!



So, my daughters are vectors of the Cosmos bug at their school. One of their friends had to stop watching because she was having a hard time - really freaking out with an existential crisis every every five minutes of show time. Apparently her parents grew tired of the angst and put an end to watching the show, which is truly a pity. The kid in question is, indeed, something of a drama queen, but serious challenges to our view of the universe are things to be welcomed, not to be turned off.


----------



## InstituteMan (Apr 28, 2014)

Schrody said:


> They probably talked about female scientists in general, and you can't talk science without mentioning Marie Curie, which is not a good example; you're sending a message to all those young girls: "Do science. Die of radiation. It's fun!" :mrgreen:



Poor Marie didn't come up in last night's episode, but she was a great scientist. It was a heck of a way to discover the dangers of radiation, though.


----------



## Schrody (Apr 30, 2014)

InstituteMan said:


> Poor Marie didn't come up in last night's episode, but she was a great scientist. It was a heck of a way to discover the dangers of radiation, though.



I know, but joke was too good (in my head), and I had to share it! :mrgreen:


----------



## ToriJ (Apr 30, 2014)

I accidentally stumbled upon this show when it debuted on FOX Sunday Night since I always tune in for Animation Domination. I didn't feel like changing the channel and just let it play and I was pleasantly surprised at what I saw. I learned a lot watching it and it got to be my introduction to Neil deGrasse Tyson. I just hate that Game of Thrones come on at the same night and time as it.


----------



## InstituteMan (Apr 30, 2014)

ToriJ said:


> I accidentally stumbled upon this show when it debuted on FOX Sunday Night since I always tune in for Animation Domination. I didn't feel like changing the channel and just let it play and I was pleasantly surprised at what I saw. I learned a lot watching it and it got to be my introduction to Neil deGrasse Tyson. I just hate that Game of Thrones come on at the same night and time as it.



I am kind of lucky not to have to make that choice, I guess. I will figure out a way to watch Game of Thrones someday, but even if I had cable InstituteWoman would not be able to take the gore and violence. Plus, watching Game of Thrones with my teenage daughters would be . . . really weird. Cosmos it is for the Institute Household!


----------



## InstituteMan (Apr 30, 2014)

Schrody said:


> I know, but joke was too good (in my head), and I had to share it! :mrgreen:



It was a good joke. I am hoping for a Marie Curie discussion on the show, but I haven't looked ahead to see where she would fit topically in the upcoming episodes. The quality of her scientific work, and the importance of that work, cannot be overstated.


----------



## Schrody (May 1, 2014)

InstituteMan said:


> It was a good joke. I am hoping for a Marie Curie discussion on the show, but I haven't looked ahead to see where she would fit topically in the upcoming episodes. The quality of her scientific work, and the importance of that work, cannot be overstated.



True, but after all, this is a show about space, not generally science (although, there is some biology, etc.). I don't care what Sheldon says, geology rocks! :mrgreen:


----------



## InstituteMan (May 1, 2014)

Schrody said:


> True, but after all, this is a show about space, not generally science (although, there is some biology, etc.). I don't care what Sheldon says, geology rocks! :mrgreen:



Geology may rock, but astronomy is out of this world, and biologists are always the life of the party. 

I do love me a good pun. I like my puns okay, too.


----------



## Schrody (May 1, 2014)

InstituteMan said:


> Geology may rock, but astronomy is out of this world, and biologists are always the life of the party.
> 
> I do love me a good pun. I like my puns okay, too.



But, geology... we wouldn't have astronomy and all that knowledge without geology...


----------



## InstituteMan (May 2, 2014)

@Schrody, my policy is that geology is a perfectly fine pursuit for geologists. 

I had a co-worker once, many years ago, who had a passion for all things geological, and she just assumed that since I knew a lot about physics and astronomy that I must surely know a lot about geology. Turns out that while I certainly knew more about geology than your typical political science major, I didn't really know all that much about geology relative to her. It was all cool, of course, and I am thrilled that there are scientists fascinated with such diverse fields. 

I can't personally imagine having a burning desire to devote my life to the study of feldspar, or army ants, or benzene when there are cool things like quasars and string theory out there. I have lived long enough and met enough smart people to realize that there is a geologist out there who can't imagine why people squander their lives studying quasars or string theory when there is feldspar to study, though. 

It is all good. The universe is a big place with lots to learn. As you noted, we actually need other scientific disciplines to bootstrap whatever we are studying.


----------



## Schrody (May 2, 2014)

Trust me, Institute, geology is not at all boring! While researching for my WIP I discovered and learned so many things! Earthquakes, radiometric dating, early Earth... really fascinating!


----------



## Gyarachu (May 2, 2014)

Schrody said:


> Trust me, Institute, geology is not at all boring! While researching for my WIP I discovered and learned so many things! Earthquakes, radiometric dating, early Earth... really fascinating!



I agree with this. One of my housemates is a geology major (and I know a few others) and listening to him talk about things is actually really fascinating. Plus, he has a killer rock collection and every once in a while comes home with little treats like 500 million year old shark poop.


----------



## InstituteMan (May 2, 2014)

I am now even more convinced: geology is cool! 

Trust me, Schrody and Gyarachu, I absolutely think that geology is an exciting field, and a field that has already yielded so many of the important insights into the natural universe (the age of the Earth and all of its implications is the first that leaps to mind). My own past just involved more telescopes and particle detectors, because those are where my most specific interests lie, but it is all good amongst the scientists! Even petroleum chemistry, which I totally never even had the prerequisites to take in school (and I certainly never had the desire to take it back then) turned out to be kind of fun when I had to learn a bit for a work project. All of the natural sciences are cool in my book!


----------



## Schrody (May 2, 2014)

InstituteMan said:


> I am now even more convinced: geology is cool!
> 
> Trust me, Schrody and Gyarachu, I absolutely think that geology is an exciting field, and a field that has already yielded so many of the important insights into the natural universe (the age of the Earth and all of its implications is the first that leaps to mind). My own past just involved more telescopes and particle detectors, because those are where my most specific interests lie, but it is all good amongst the scientists! Even petroleum chemistry, which I totally never even had the prerequisites to take in school (and I certainly never had the desire to take it back then) turned out to be kind of fun when I had to learn a bit for a work project. All of the natural sciences are cool in my book!



Hey, physics is my first love too, but why not give a chance to something different? Just imagine how Earth looked like at the beginning; red sky, green boiling ocean, earthquakes, boiling lava, asteroids falling everyday...


----------



## InstituteMan (May 2, 2014)

Schrody said:


> Hey, physics is my first love too, but why not give a chance to something different? Just imagine how Earth looked like at the beginning; red sky, green boiling ocean, earthquakes, boiling lava, asteroids falling everyday...



And volcanos. Volcanos are cool. InstituteWoman and I have actually done a vacation excursion to Mt. St. Helens.


----------



## Marc (May 3, 2014)

Schrody said:


> Trust me, Institute, geology is not at all boring! While researching for my WIP I discovered and learned so many things! Earthquakes, radiometric dating, early Earth... really fascinating!



Radiometric dating? Is that an internet site for single geologists looking for love among the rocks?


----------



## Schrody (May 3, 2014)

InstituteMan said:


> And volcanos. Volcanos are cool. InstituteWoman and I have actually done a vacation excursion to Mt. St. Helens.



Cool stuff, Bishop. I wish I could do it too, but I'm more for Australia, for example Jack Hills and Hamelin Poll. If you want to find out why, google, and be amazed. 



Marc said:


> Radiometric dating? Is that an internet site for single geologists looking for love among the rocks?



Yep, on radiometricdating.geology.com you can find a soul mate based on an algorithm who matches you with others based on your preferences. Radiometricdating.geology.com would never find you a match interested in seismology if you're a palaeontologist.


----------



## InstituteMan (May 4, 2014)

Geology! Lots and lots of geology tonight! The discovery of continental drift turns out to be way cool, and shockingly recent. Throw in human evolution and some climate science, and this was another fun episode. I definitely learned more tonight that was new to me than I did for any prior episode, which is the whole point of watching. I hope everyone enjoyed/enjoys it!


----------



## Grizzly (May 5, 2014)

I was chilling with some friends in some dirt last weekend. I think one of them is hellbent on becoming a geologist now.

The past few episodes I've been able to learn a lot, it's been great.


----------



## Schrody (May 8, 2014)




----------



## InstituteMan (May 11, 2014)

Michael Faraday -- what a hero! His story always inspires me. He gave so much to society, after coming from such poverty. He had profound insights but was such a consummate experimentalist.

And then there is James Maxwell, for me the most elegant theoretician ever.

This was my sort of episode. I hope that everyone enjoyed it as much as I did!


----------



## Schrody (May 12, 2014)

I stopped watching it because I couldn't find matching subtitles. I'm waiting for season finale, and then I'm gonna watch it all.


----------



## Bard_Daniel (May 12, 2014)

Schrody said:


> I stopped watching it because I couldn't find matching subtitles. I'm waiting for season finale, and then I'm gonna watch it all.



Yeah, that's usually the way I do it. I don't like incomplete series'.


----------



## InstituteMan (May 12, 2014)

Schrody said:


> I stopped watching it because I couldn't find matching subtitles. I'm waiting for season finale, and then I'm gonna watch it all.



Okay, that is horrible. This thing ought to be subtitled for everywhere, because, science.


----------



## Schrody (May 12, 2014)

danielstj said:


> Yeah, that's usually the way I do it. I don't like incomplete series'.



I liked the thought I have my "own" thing, my show I'll wait every week, but I guess that's not the way it'll be.



InstituteMan said:


> Okay, that is horrible. This thing ought to be subtitled for everywhere, because, science.



Yes, it is horrible. I know and understand English, but damn it, I want subtitles with that, and when I can't find English subs I'm sad, but when I can't find Croatian (and I hate watching it on my native tongue) I'm devastated. :sigh:


----------



## InstituteMan (Jun 1, 2014)

Nice to have the show back after the holiday!

Kind of a depressing episode. Kind of a terrifying episode. Kind of an important episode.

Our pale blue dot is unspeakably beautiful, and fragile.

I hope everyone enjoyed the episode, and maybe learned something. I know I did!


----------



## Schrody (Jun 2, 2014)

InstituteMan said:


> Michael Faraday -- what a hero! His story always inspires me. He gave so much to society, after coming from such poverty. He had profound insights but was such a consummate experimentalist.



Yep, really important "scientist" considering he was uneducated (I know it's an old post, but I started reading a little bit about his life, and those facts makes him even greater!).


----------



## InstituteMan (Jun 8, 2014)

Dark matter! Dark energy! The unknown! Voyager!

And Sagan's immortal words.

That was incredible.


----------

