Leaderboard

! Moderator Note I split this off to let people discuss the simulation hypothesis. But since it’s turned into Tyson-bashing, I’m closing it.

Lens? Biased lens? AYFKM? Discrimination based on gender is pretty objectively defined. There’s no biased here. Women were treated one way, men were treated another way. That’s not a subjective assessment.

When did N DG Tyson's expertise become American politics ? I know I've misquoted people. Apparently you never have; Your arrogance is justified.

Is there a difference? How would you distinguish between the “actual wavelength” and the wavelength measured by an observer? All the related properties (length, time, energy) are observer dependent so multiple observers could measure different wavelengths. You can choose to define the “real” frequency as that measured in the frame of reference of the source, but that is just a convention and doesn’t affect what is actually perceived by the observer.

I always find it fascinating that people consider the possibility of panspermia when exactly the same chemical components were available on Earth combined with an environment much more conducive of a complex chemistry.

I appreciate this, but since he never answered the question, all you and I can do is speculate what he may have meant until (if?) he answers for himself. I’m not convinced this is a valid prognostication. He’s already run for President 3x and lost each. Here’s what you seem to be dismissing: ANYONE who wins the Democratic nomination will be labeled those things, and a great many others, by Trump and the GOP. This applies also to Sleepy Uncle Joe. They don’t care if their claims are accurate or if they apply, only that they can convince millions of people that a one-dimensional one-word label is sufficient to pigeonhole the “other” and dismiss them as subhuman garbage. Ronald Regan himself would likely be labeled socialist by today’s GOP if he were the 2020 nominee, and repeated well intentioned calls for a moderate middle milquetoast candidate can’t erase how firmly the GOP (and Trump himself) have anchored themselves into an extremist right base-focused stance, and how successfully they’ve shifted the Overton Window on these topics in their favor (incidentally, we’re seeing similar trends with Brexit and across the EU more broadly). Correct me if I’m wrong, but I suspect you’re both essentially arguing for the best path to steal away Trump voters, but his base is firm. 40% approval for almost 3 years in the face of children in cages, ban on Muslims, nazis as very fine people, Mexicans as rapists, believing Putin over his own intelligence agencies, looking away when Saudi Arabia murdered an American journalist, and the ten bazillion other insane things he’s done, promoted, and given sanction to... that 40% is rock solid even in the face of all that. It barely flickered. This isn’t about winning them over. If they happen to vote against Trump, then great, but this election IMO is more about stirring equal passions in the remaining 60%... the others who do see Trump as anathema to our values and who want to help better define who we want to be as a nation and a culture. The Trump 40% is lost and won’t vote for a Dem no matter how moderate they are, but bold messages can, in fact, inspire the other 60% to come out and make their voices heard... but only if the passion and fire to do so is first lit by an inspirational candidate with a plan and a willingness to fight for it.

I am one of those rain on the parade types in this; I think knowledge and technological capability - science and engineering - will follow more of an S-curve that tops out rather than exponential that doesn't. We can improve heat resistance or strength or hardness and may discover new materials to do those better - but real limits to how heat resistant, how hard or strong are being approached, that no amount of research will overcome. The steep part of that curve can be exciting and from there (here) it can seem like its continuance is inevitable, yet it isn't a natural law; fail to invest in research and it stops, but if research produces diminishing returns the funding stops. I don't think we will so much reach a cut off point where nothing truly new can be discovered or done as them becoming more difficult to find or make and less revolutionary, and with economic viability more difficult to extract when we do find or make them. There are already things we are capable of doing but don't for the negative economics of them. We may well find that research itself reaches the point of negative economics.

You’re basically suggesting that a milquetoast candidate who waters down their core message and who says only what they think people want to hear has discovered the best way to beat the most bloviating, hyperbolic, untruthful, demagoguing, and over the top president we’ve ever had. I don’t mean this as an insult, but have you actually this through? The candidates who win are the ones who inspire people and who form movements. They’re the ones who speak passionately about what they truly believe, who stand up for ways to make the system better and to make the lives of citizens better. They're the ones who recognize that the best path to driving voter turnout and campaign support... support where people volunteer to call, canvas, and knock on doors after work and on weekends to build coalitions and people committed to showing up at the ballot box... is to do more than take a mediocre baseline, middle of the road, dulled and uninspiring position on the issues that matter. Perhaps a moderate milquetoast position will be what’s needed to win in 2024, but IMO 2020 will be much more about the pendulum swinging hard back in the opposite direction.

Yes...The expansion of the universe affects light and this is observed by the lengthening of the wavelength or shift to the red end of the spectrum, and is known as "cosmological redshift" The actual trajectory is affected by spacetime curvature or warping by intervening objects.

oh of course the "I was joking" excuse and you know what's Ironic? you doing the exact same thing you are being sarcastic about... (which is call hypocrisy) you know how you just picked apart my post and now are tying to insult my own intelligence... and do tell what is it I need to "go + look up" (what ever the "+" is there for I have no clue) and I didn't ignore I merely pointed out your incompetence, there wasn't anything disputable about the main topic so why would I need to bring it up? Keep digging.

The Picture of Dorian Grey. I have never been made so bored by a book in my entire life.

The Bible

Lorentz, Gauss, & Co lied originally and the likes of Feynman followed suite. You see the curve was actually represented as a cube, based on cubicals, not sphericals, before the 4th dimension modelled it.

I can see why you have an issue with It's not an "excuse", it's reality. It really was a pretty obvious (if poor) joke. Anyone who did any research and looked at my previous posts would see that my humour is often a bit obscure and/ or blunt. That's a dreadful misrepresentation. Gandhi would have used the proper plural; "fora". I may have underestimated your potential with respect to irony. No, it really is called irony.

What did anyone delete? It's extraordinary for this site to delete stuff.