Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey

Mudcrush Durtfeet_sl said:

Troll harder.

Click to expand...

Bitch you are asking for a force choke:

Azrayne_sl said:

Bitch you are asking for a force choke:

Click to expand...

"Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes or given you clairvoyance enough to find the Rebels' hidden fort-"

BurnemWizfyre_sl said:

I must not have explained myself well, what I mean is that is stronger than they think not because of how they measure it but because its being diluted in a sense.

Click to expand...

My understanding is this is explained by string theory. Too lazy to read the link and that might be what you're referring to, but it being "diluted" is it affecting the 11 (depending on which version you go by) dimensions.

Also during the show did anyone find it odd that they always championed these scientists who threw shit against the wall without any proof who were eventually found correct and tried to disparage the nay-sayers then would constantly harp on how science is all about believing only what you can prove?

Tenks_sl said:

Also during the show did anyone find it odd that they always championed these scientists who threw shit against the wall without any proof who were eventually found correct and tried to disparage the nay-sayers then would constantly harp on how science is all about believing only what you can prove?

Click to expand...

No.

Who "threw shit against the wall without any proof"? I saw a lot of the opposite, where ideas were rejected without any proof.

You know, Gravity, Electromagnetism, and Evolution were just ideas pulled out of asses that just happened to be right. We also guessed at the earth's age and just happened to be really really close.

Ambiturner_sl said:

No.

Who "threw shit against the wall without any proof"? I saw a lot of the opposite, where ideas were rejected without any proof.

Click to expand...

I'd have to re-watch and possibly learn the backstory on many of these people but it was quite common he'd say "X person was rejected by the scientific community for his idea. But 100 years later we found out he was right." which lead me to believe someone just said something, believed it but couldn't prove it. Then later greater technology could prove it correct.

There's a difference between overwhelming proof needed to replace established scientific convention, and "no proof".

There's also a difference between proving something scientifically, and then actually observing it. This happens quite often. I believe this was mentioned quite often in the show. For instance, we've never actually observed an electron. Many planets were first identified through the tug of gravity before they were visually observed, etc.

lendarios_sl said:

You are ignoring all the test that those men performed in order to come up with the theories. Some test were as simple as performing experiments, some were more complicated, such as calculating the path of a start as it travels hidden behind the sun. Seriously how the fuck did Gauss determined the orbit of ceres??

Click to expand...

I was being sarcastic, dude.

lendarios_sl said:

energy doesn't affect gravity

Click to expand...

It most certainly does

Energy has mass. There's some equation for it.

Massless particles are their own separate can of worms. Energy certainly has mass and accounts, ultimately, for the vast majority of mass in everything around us.

Well it's not all dyson spheres. Fermi wins again.

But there's a lot of it! Most the mass of your body and everything around you comes from energy.