If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Carl Sagan Portal)   "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey" episode 7 discussion thread and drinking game. 9PM Eastern on Fox   (carlsagan.com) divider line 315
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

1740 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Apr 2014 at 8:30 PM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



315 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-20 10:07:21 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: That was a cool episode. I never really knew why lead was removed from automobile gasoline before.


Check out A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson. It's chock full of stuff like that (including that story)
 
2014-04-20 10:07:31 PM  
That was a cool episode. I never really knew why lead was removed from automobile gasoline before.

Actually, lead was removed from gas so that catalytic convertors could be used to reduce car exhaust pollution. Lead poisons the convertors.

You can still get leaded gasoline (100LL -100 octane low lead) for light aircraft. So some lead is still getting out there. But they're close to producing a substitute.
 
2014-04-20 10:08:29 PM  

12349876: cameroncrazy1984: I would like to see a study of 1970 vs 2014. Be interesting to see how much lead is actually still around.

This is Lake Michigan samples from 1994-6

[www.epa.gov image 244x202]


You might have to wonder if that spike that starts around the late 90's and 2000's could come from China?
 
2014-04-20 10:11:33 PM  
Lead was also good for lubricating/protecting the exhaust valves on car engines. Actually forms a barrier that keeps hot edges of the valves from melting into the valve seat. Post 1975 cars made it unnecessary by using hardened valve seats.
 
2014-04-20 10:12:39 PM  

mark12A: Actually, lead was removed from gas so that catalytic convertors could be used to reduce car exhaust pollution. Lead poisons the convertors.


The initial move by the EPA to remove lead from gasoline happened in 1972, though delayed until 1976. Catalytic converters were not mandated on US cars until 1975. Catalytic converters were not the cause of the phase-out, but they certainly helped it along.
 
2014-04-20 10:14:28 PM  

GRCooper: cameroncrazy1984: That was a cool episode. I never really knew why lead was removed from automobile gasoline before.

Check out A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson. It's chock full of stuff like that (including that story)


I will have to do that! Thanks!
 
2014-04-20 10:15:24 PM  
The episode was a wonderful ode to pure science.  The actual age of the earth is an interesting question, but not something that affects our daily lives.

It showed how pure science led to a very applied science and a public health initiative that has vastly improved our lives.
 
2014-04-20 10:17:11 PM  

ArgusRun: The episode was a wonderful ode to pure science.  The actual age of the earth is an interesting question, but not something that affects our daily lives.

It showed how pure science led to a very applied science and a public health initiative that has vastly improved our lives.


100% agree. Very relatable.
 
2014-04-20 10:18:01 PM  
Excellent episode!
 
2014-04-20 10:18:41 PM  
The episode was a wonderful ode to pure science.  The actual age of the earth is an interesting question, but not something that affects our daily lives.

It showed how pure science led to a very applied science and a public health initiative that has vastly improved our lives.


100% agree. Very relatable.


+1
 
2014-04-20 10:20:00 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: GRCooper: cameroncrazy1984: That was a cool episode. I never really knew why lead was removed from automobile gasoline before.

Check out A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson. It's chock full of stuff like that (including that story)

I will have to do that! Thanks!


Another good one--and I love Bill Bryson--is "The Science of Discworld" Which sounds like a fantasy novel; but it's interspersed with one chapter of "disc-world" and another chapter of hard science; as a compare/contrast (Discworld vs Roundworld). In fact it's even more detailed in it's hard science than Bill Bryson's excellent book; and more detailed than Cosmos in the hard science.
 
2014-04-20 10:25:30 PM  

ArgusRun: The episode was a wonderful ode to pure science.  The actual age of the earth is an interesting question, but not something that affects our daily lives.

It showed how pure science led to a very applied science and a public health initiative that has vastly improved our lives.


And you get a "Smart."  Loved it.
 
2014-04-20 11:03:39 PM  

DominoFrost: I will be drinking to GoT...  I am hoping to hear 'did not, in the end, shiat gold' tonight......


I have a feeling that might be the closing of the finale.
 
2014-04-20 11:04:44 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Destructor: Once upon a time, physicists toyed with the the idea the speed of light wasn't always what it is now. That's been disproven pretty thoroughly. I'm just curious about the other known forces.

But are you sure?  The biblical story of the Flood ends with the creation of the phenomenon of the rainbow.  Which wouldn't be possible without refraction, which wouldn't be possible without the speed of light being different in different materials.

If the speed of light was infinite before the Flood, light from stars further than 6000 light years (as defined by the current speed of light) could have reached Earth, (wrecking one 'proof' that the Earth is more than 6000 years old) , and refraction would have been undetectable.  because a fraction of infinity is still infinity.  Hence no rainbow until God made the speed of light finite, just to make a rainbow after the Flood.

/really surprised a Y.E. Creationist hasn't come up with that yet.


i.imgur.com
 
2014-04-20 11:04:46 PM  
This episode was a not-particularly-thinly-veiled assault on science deniers. Whether it's Creationists/anti-evolutionists, climate-change deniers, anti-vaxxers, anti-governmental-regulation libertarians, and so forth, it demonstrates that science trumps business interests (or should) when it comes to the survival of our species.

Magnificent, Dr. Tyson. Magnificent.
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2014-04-20 11:25:29 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Destructor: Once upon a time, physicists toyed with the the idea the speed of light wasn't always what it is now. That's been disproven pretty thoroughly. I'm just curious about the other known forces.


But are you sure?  The biblical story of the Flood ends with the creation of the phenomenon of the rainbow.  Which wouldn't be possible without refraction, which wouldn't be possible without the speed of light being different in different materials.

If the speed of light was infinite before the Flood, light from stars further than 6000 light years (as defined by the current speed of light) could have reached Earth, (wrecking one 'proof' that the Earth is more than 6000 years old) , and refraction would have been undetectable.  because a fraction of infinity is still infinity.  Hence no rainbow until God made the speed of light finite, just to make a rainbow after the Flood.

/really surprised a Y.E. Creationist hasn't come up with that yet.



If the universe is 156 billion light years wide, assuming it's expanding out from a central point, that means matter has traveled 78 billion light years in all directions since the big bang.

But we're told the universe is only 13.8 billion years old.  If the speed of light is fixed at 186,000 miles per second, how did all that stellar matter travel 78 billion light years in only 13.8 billion years?
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2014-04-20 11:28:12 PM  
Also, if light travels at a fixed rate, how are we able to see within 400,000 years of the big bang (77 billion light years) when the universe is only 13.8 billion years old?
 
2014-04-20 11:38:47 PM  

NFA: how did all that stellar matter travel 78 billion light years in only 13.8 billion years?


Because space itself is not limited to lightspeed when it is expanding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_%28cosmology%29
 
2014-04-20 11:56:57 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: NFA: how did all that stellar matter travel 78 billion light years in only 13.8 billion years?

Because space itself is not limited to lightspeed when it is expanding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_%28cosmology%29


Or when it is tearing around a black hole for that matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_black_hole
 
2014-04-20 11:57:15 PM  

NFA: If the universe is 156 billion light years wide


is that a fact?
 
2014-04-21 12:22:16 AM  
Observable.
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2014-04-21 12:47:08 AM  

IronTom: NFA: If the universe is 156 billion light years wide


is that a fact?


http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/05/24/universe.wide/
 
2014-04-21 01:28:34 AM  

farkingismybusiness: [www.mychandlerschools.org image 300x300]


Wasn't that how geologists found the true age of the Earth anyway, by reading rocks?
 
2014-04-21 01:51:40 AM  

NFA: IronTom: NFA: If the universe is 156 billion light years wide


is that a fact?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/05/24/universe.wide/


CNN reporting the width of the universe to be 156 light years makes me more inclined to believe that the universe is a spheroid region, seven-hundred and five miles in diameter.
 
2014-04-21 02:45:42 AM  

Dimensio: NFA: IronTom: NFA: If the universe is 156 billion light years wide


is that a fact?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/05/24/universe.wide/

CNN reporting the width of the universe to be 156 light years makes me more inclined to believe that the universe is a spheroid region, seven-hundred and five miles in diameter.


I think you mean meters Dr. Crusher.
 
2014-04-21 03:02:13 AM  
That episode was great.
 
2014-04-21 04:25:53 AM  

violentsalvation: That episode was great.


"Get me a graphic representation of the universe"
- Beverly Crusher

Lol, yeah computer, get on that would you.

Great stuff.
 
2014-04-21 04:27:53 AM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Faith covers what science does not.


No it does not. At best, faith only  conceals the gaps in our knowledge. It does nothing to fill those gaps. Science lets us control the reality around us. Faith lets us control people.

They are not mutually exclusive and never have been except in the minds of crazies.

Science and religion are polar opposites.

i560.photobucket.com
 
2014-04-21 07:07:25 AM  
We're there any consequences for the industry shill who lied under oath to congress?
 
2014-04-21 07:58:56 AM  

Destructor: Vlad_the_Inaner: But are you sure?

No. No one can be.

Vlad_the_Inaner: If the speed of light was infinite before the Flood, light from stars further than 6000 light years (as defined by the current speed of light) could have reached Earth, (wrecking one 'proof' that the Earth is more than 6000 years old) , and refraction would have been undetectable. because a fraction of infinity is still infinity. Hence no rainbow until God made the speed of light finite, just to make a rainbow after the Flood.

True. Of course, God could just blink like Genie and pretty much do whatever he wanted to do. So, this line of "reasoning" is pointless.

Vlad_the_Inaner: /really surprised a Y.E. Creationist hasn't come up with that yet.

The smarter ones have. But they're also smart enough to know it's pointless to follow that line of thought. It all boils down to simple (stupid) belief.


Yeah, it's impossible to have a real debate with anyone who will simply answer "Well, I don't believe that".  When someone is willfully ignorant, no amount of facts will change their mind until they open themselves up to skepticism.
 
2014-04-21 08:20:52 AM  

bborchar: Yeah, it's impossible to have a real debate with anyone who will simply answer "Well, I don't believe that".


It limits your options. However, you still can discuss. It's important to remind the Believers that at the center of their religion is nothing more than completely unsupported blind faith. They see it as a test or strength. I (we) see it as a denial of reason ("God given" or other).

bborchar: When someone is willfully ignorant, no amount of facts will change their mind until they open themselves up to skepticism.


You just have to agree on terms before you negotiate. :-)

I'm always surprised by how many smart people there are who are very religious. (To be sure, there are a lot of dumb ones too.) Maybe they know something I don't (I'm an atheist). I doubt it. But you never know.
 
2014-04-21 08:27:11 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-04-21 08:52:42 AM  

Destructor: bborchar: Yeah, it's impossible to have a real debate with anyone who will simply answer "Well, I don't believe that".

It limits your options. However, you still can discuss. It's important to remind the Believers that at the center of their religion is nothing more than completely unsupported blind faith. They see it as a test or strength. I (we) see it as a denial of reason ("God given" or other).

bborchar: When someone is willfully ignorant, no amount of facts will change their mind until they open themselves up to skepticism.

You just have to agree on terms before you negotiate. :-)

I'm always surprised by how many smart people there are who are very religious. (To be sure, there are a lot of dumb ones too.) Maybe they know something I don't (I'm an atheist). I doubt it. But you never know.


I have several friends whom I consider very intelligent who are also believers, as well.  I asked one friend of mine about what she thought about the universe, and her answer was "I just don't care how it all got there."  Basically, she would rather not think about it than think about it and question it.

It's her right to do so, of course...but it's not how I would prefer to live my life.
 
2014-04-21 09:02:17 AM  

ManateeGag: Fundies are going to get extra pissed because it's Easter.


I would imagine you wouldn't have to be a "fundie" to dislike his hateful mocking. Yes, I watched it and the show makes just as much a point of mocking religion as it does teaching us science.

I hope his folks are proud. I wouldn't imagine Carl is so much.
 
2014-04-21 09:05:05 AM  

olddeegee: [img.fark.net image 720x266]


I'm sure that was, in some way, meant to irritate Christians but I kind alike it.
 
2014-04-21 09:10:34 AM  
I love they tied together universal human ignorance. The Romans knew that Lead is toxic and used it anyway because money. And then with the benefit of hindsight intelligent modern Americans did the exact same thing.
 
2014-04-21 09:46:10 AM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Kumana Wanalaia: Adolf Oliver Nipples: Taking shots at Young Earth Creationists is too easy. He's already skewered them so many times that he ought to ignore them completely. Yet it seems like he's still firing shots across the bow.

It's a lead in for the last episode where Neil proves there's no God.

He won't be able to do that, simply because he's spent a lot of time saying that we have no idea how the universe was created. Faith covers what science does not. They are not mutually exclusive and never have been except in the minds of crazies.


No, faith does NOT "cover what science does not." You can tell yourself that, but it's not the case. Just accept that there are areas that are not covered at all. Reality is under no obligation to provide you an answer to everything you may want to know. Science does a really good job of working hard to find those answers but those areas where it can't (or can't yet) do not default to magic and magic is not a place holder.  Saying "we don't know" is too often taken as a thrilling invitation for religious people to say "aha! There's god!" Not because of any evidence but specifically because of the absence of any evidence. Now, who are the "crazies" in that scenario?

I know there is a certain kind of person who likes to assure himself that both sides are wrong, at least what you imagine to be the extremes of both sides; both sides are crazy; that the truth is a nice balance right in the middle. But if you want to be honest you need to recognize that that is bromidic and probably nothing more. While science is sometimes wrong, there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that faith is not entirely, completely, unequivocally wrong.

The "crazies" you speak of, I assume, are the unyielding people at either extreme. But the ones on the science end are people who firmly insist that beliefs be backed up by facts and the ones on the other end are those that insist that no facts can sway them in their beliefs? Are they equally crazy in your estimation? If we let them zero each other out, the debate is somehow smarter? Or just more convenient for the narrative of those who engage in wishful thinking?
 
2014-04-21 10:17:01 AM  

bborchar: I have several friends whom I consider very intelligent who are also believers, as well.  I asked one friend of mine about what she thought about the universe, and her answer was "I just don't care how it all got there."  Basically, she would rather not think about it than think about it and question it.

It's her right to do so, of course...but it's not how I would prefer to live my life.


That's so frustrating.  I'm a believer who has chosen to never let dogma overcome evidence.  When I look at the Big Bang, and evolution and the path it took to get us here, it doesn't change my belief that a Creator is behind it all.  It actually magnifies my awe, because a Creator that can plan every last variable down to the precision needed for this to all work is way more impressive than - " Eh, ok, so everything, I command you to exist."

Doesn't make me very popular among fundies or Anti-Christians, but oh well.  It's my belief and it works for me, and doesn't keep anyone from learning science.
 
2014-04-21 10:27:54 AM  
People who believe in magic are just too easy to make fun of... it's not even a challenge.
 
2014-04-21 10:39:35 AM  
how science is best presented on television: look around you.
 
2014-04-21 10:40:54 AM  

rwhamann: bborchar: I have several friends whom I consider very intelligent who are also believers, as well.  I asked one friend of mine about what she thought about the universe, and her answer was "I just don't care how it all got there."  Basically, she would rather not think about it than think about it and question it.

It's her right to do so, of course...but it's not how I would prefer to live my life.

That's so frustrating.  I'm a believer who has chosen to never let dogma overcome evidence.  When I look at the Big Bang, and evolution and the path it took to get us here, it doesn't change my belief that a Creator is behind it all.  It actually magnifies my awe, because a Creator that can plan every last variable down to the precision needed for this to all work is way more impressive than - " Eh, ok, so everything, I command you to exist."

Doesn't make me very popular among fundies or Anti-Christians, but oh well.  It's my belief and it works for me, and doesn't keep anyone from learning science.


I feel a bit sorry for those people who shut themselves off to the possibilities of what exists beyond our own world out of fear of losing their belief, because it's absolutely amazing to me.  I've always believed that faith should be there to serve someone in their life, and not the other way around.  Not everyone needs or wants it, but some do, and there's no problem with that.  It's when people say "Well, my religion forbids this" and they never once question why that baffles me.  I grew up in the Bible belt, and even though my parents weren't devoted Christians, my grandparents were.  I heard more than once "Well, it's better to believe that there is a God, because if you are wrong, you will burn in hell for eternity."  It took a long time to get past that fear, and it's something I will never put to my children.  If they choose to be religious as adults, that is their right...but they can never accuse me of scaring them into it as I was.

It's cool that you are open to new things, though.  I wish I knew more people like you.
 
2014-04-21 10:52:54 AM  

Closed_Minded_Bastage: Dimensio: NFA: IronTom: NFA: If the universe is 156 billion light years wide


is that a fact?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/05/24/universe.wide/

CNN reporting the width of the universe to be 156 light years makes me more inclined to believe that the universe is a spheroid region, seven-hundred and five miles in diameter.

I think you mean meters Dr. Crusher.


I was extremely drunk at the time.
 
2014-04-21 10:54:59 AM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: IronTom: Is lead that pervasive?  That is rather scary.

It is. But keep in mind that throughout the 20th century tetraethyllead was a fuel additive, and it so contaminated everything that there is actually a correlation between leaded gasoline and violent crime.


Here's more on the link between lead, violent crime, and mental retardation.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasol in e
 
2014-04-21 11:02:19 AM  

bborchar: rwhamann: bborchar: I have several friends whom I consider very intelligent who are also believers, as well.  I asked one friend of mine about what she thought about the universe, and her answer was "I just don't care how it all got there."  Basically, she would rather not think about it than think about it and question it.

It's her right to do so, of course...but it's not how I would prefer to live my life.

That's so frustrating.  I'm a believer who has chosen to never let dogma overcome evidence.  When I look at the Big Bang, and evolution and the path it took to get us here, it doesn't change my belief that a Creator is behind it all.  It actually magnifies my awe, because a Creator that can plan every last variable down to the precision needed for this to all work is way more impressive than - " Eh, ok, so everything, I command you to exist."

Doesn't make me very popular among fundies or Anti-Christians, but oh well.  It's my belief and it works for me, and doesn't keep anyone from learning science.

I feel a bit sorry for those people who shut themselves off to the possibilities of what exists beyond our own world out of fear of losing their belief, because it's absolutely amazing to me.  I've always believed that faith should be there to serve someone in their life, and not the other way around.  Not everyone needs or wants it, but some do, and there's no problem with that.  It's when people say "Well, my religion forbids this" and they never once question why that baffles me.  I grew up in the Bible belt, and even though my parents weren't devoted Christians, my grandparents were.  I heard more than once "Well, it's better to believe that there is a God, because if you are wrong, you will burn in hell for eternity." It took a long time to get past that fear, and it's something I will never put to my children.  If they choose to be religious as adults, that is their right...but they can never accuse me of scaring them into it as I was.

It's cool that you ...


Ahhh, the fallacy that is Pascal's Wager... anytime I hear that, I always respond with, "Ok... but which god do I pick?"
 
2014-04-21 11:11:15 AM  

stonicus: Ahhh, the fallacy that is Pascal's Wager... anytime I hear that, I always respond with, "Ok... but which god do I pick?"


Well, I was pretty young and living in a diversity-challenged area.  I didn't know there were other religions or gods until I was in High School.
 
2014-04-21 12:15:52 PM  

Krymson Tyde: Did y'all see dat ass?


aw, crap.  don't tell me that was for those few seconds I missed after it came back from commercial break and I was still in the kitchen?
 
2014-04-21 12:16:57 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: IronTom: Is lead that pervasive?  That is rather scary.

It is. But keep in mind that throughout the 20th century tetraethyllead was a fuel additive, and it so contaminated everything that there is actually a correlation between leaded gasoline and violent crime.


The decrease in violent crime also correlates with legalizing abortion and increased women's rights and black civil rights.   There's no direct evidence supporting a connection between lead poisoning and criminal behavior.
 
2014-04-21 12:18:41 PM  

danno_to_infinity: Krymson Tyde: Did y'all see dat ass?

aw, crap.  don't tell me that was for those few seconds I missed after it came back from commercial break and I was still in the kitchen?


don't mean to quote myself, but no edit functions are available.  when was the fine derriere on the episode?  Approximately?  Tried googling it, nothing yet.
 
2014-04-21 12:43:05 PM  

vonster: the show makes just as much a point of mocking religion as it does teaching us science.


How sad it must be to live trapped in a mindset which interprets stating facts as mocking you.
 
2014-04-21 02:19:29 PM  

stonicus: Ahhh, the fallacy that is Pascal's Wager... anytime I hear that, I always respond with, "Ok... but which god do I pick?"


i prefer the epicurean paradox:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
 
Displayed 50 of 315 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report