I'd argue we could use a more complicated episodes with some of these people. But it should only be a follow up to such simple episodes as this one so that we can stay on track.

@@ryanforgo3500That's why I watch PBS SpaceTime.

it is!!! it's an old episode I think it's only like 4 months old!!

@KiDDopee11 Thanks for the heads up! I'm going to find it now. 👍👌

What’s the episode called?

@@sellnout4144 we cannot add links in replies since KZfaq flags it, search: *Inside NASA’s UAP Report with Commission Chair David Spergel & Neil deGrasse Tyson*

@@joshinnc1520 Name of episode: *Inside NASA’s UAP Report with Commission Chair David Spergel & Neil deGrasse Tyson*

Well, technically, it is an antique. ;-P

Lmao, we're all hipsters

😂😂😂 love it!

Retro

I think it's a bit older. It's antique

That is not neseccarily good. You need a balance between both types of people so that one can find the unexpecged and another can make sure that we don't drift too far away with our imagination. The way i thought of david is, if you had too many of him jn the top we might be much less likely to bump into an unepexcted discovery. But uf we don't have him ppl like him at all we mivht end up wasting rss, energy and hopes over un-trustworthy concepts.

@@ryanforgo3500 why would people like david be less likely to bump into unexpected discoveries? He'll go where the evidence takes him - that's science.

⁠@@helloyes2288because science also involves taking seemingly unrelated phenomena, mathematics, and abstractions of physical objects to try to not only explain natural phenomena but also predict it. In other words there may not be any easily identifiable “evidence” for a scientist to follow when trying to predict a natural phenomenon in the universe. Not only that but you may have to also create the idea of the phenomenon first in your mind and then try to apply what’s known in math, physics and geometry to make your initial theory before it can be tested. You need ppl like Einstein who can sit down and literally think up physics before an experimental scientist can try to test their validity.

@@rey3468 That's not how it works. Besides, the first step to proving a hypothesis is creating an experiment, you're skipping that step.

@@helloyes2288​​⁠​⁠​⁠I was going to say the same thing. You don’t create ideas or formulate a conclusion first supports your hypothesis. These things should be unbiased as should all science. I love skeptics and the conspiracies but never do I think science should be driven by either.

not in this case for sure, new data are interpreted to fit already established postulates and models without introducing any changes

​@@Va1demar Definitely Maybe. Which case?

@@nicholasgardiner9601 in this topic and how scientists use the fingers of their limbs to calculate the age of the universe

Is science not a human construct as well ? Obviously science is a great tool but it doesn’t exist on its own apart from humans.

incorrect.. I think you need to be scientific and self correct yourself that this statement is incorrect and in the least not applicable to all religions.. for eg, Hinduism has concepts of shastrarth and padarthas (google them for yourself).. also Hinduism supports all kind of schools of thoughts - monotheism to polytheism and even atheism aka nastika philosophy

So what sbout peeka boo blue young small galaxy or green peas close to milkyway and mixed in all throughout ? It just sits around in a nebula 13 billion years then decides to collapse a billion years or less ago?

One reason why the stars _needed_ to be big was there was no carbon around to catalyze hydrogen fusion at the sorts of temperatures you find inside our own Sun. If the same mass of gas came together back then, it would not ignite. It needed to get much bigger and hotter before the fusion fires would start.

*hypothesis that is currently being edited to fit the data.

To answer your question about where the center of the big bang is, the answer is not satisfying: depending on how you look at it, there either is no center, or everywhere is the center. If you go to any point in space, whether it be Earth, the center of the Milky Way, Andromeda, or anywhere else, you would see space moving away from you in all directions. The way we always see the big bang depicted is space radiating out from a point, because it would be hard to depict it any other way. But it gives the inaccurate impression that it has a center. Our current accepted understanding is that the universe is not expanding into anything, which is a mind-boggling thought that I cannot conceptualize or understand, and I think if you were to ask most physicists, they would say that it is not something you could intuit.

well the other guy was funny too.

That's what peer review is and why papers are released. The media jumps on hypothesis before they have been checked and uses the word theory as guess instead of hypothesis.

A small drop of water maybe.

Stars turn into 3 things when they die so maybe won't won't know for sure

Science doesn't have an understanding right now of how supermassive black holes form.

Did you Google the variation in color and what the variation in color represents? It's a very small variation. I think it's way less than 0.1°C ( or 0.1°K or 0.1°F). Google says: "The actual temperature of the cosmic microwave background is 2.725 Kelvin. The middle image pair show the same map displayed in a scale such that blue corresponds to 2.721 Kelvin and red is 2.729 Kelvin" Therefore the variation in temperature is from 2.721 to 2.729, which is 2.729 - 2.721 = 0.008°K/C maximum temperature difference across the entire universe.

@@Google_Does_Evil_Now ah thanks! super helpful

A lot of light has not reached us yet. If all light had reached us, then we would cease to see distant galaxies. However, there are multiple ways of expressing a so-called "cosmic horizon", wherein at a certain distance from us in the universe, you will not see any light beyond that point. These horizons exist due to the expansion of the universe and the speed of light. Inside of these horizons, you have the observable universe. However, the universe, itself, is even larger than that.

For the last eclipse, Neil went off somewhere by himself to watch it. So based on that, I don't think there will be an official event.

Things are spread out father than you seem to think. You could drive a straight line through any of our asteroid belts and not have to swerve away from a rock once. Galaxies and "large objects" as you put it are even more spread out than that (to scale of course)

Probability cloud. Use the right terms. Also what is the cloud colliding with exactly? Electrons repell each other and never touch. The electron clouds on the outer edge of your hand never touch any of the electron clouds of any object you've ever held. So what are you talking about.

It doesn't bounce off. It is absorbed and then another is released.

@@bobman929 NOPE. Well, not always. Reflection: When photons encounter a reflective surface, such as a mirror or a polished metal, a significant portion of them are typically reflected. This means that they bounce off the surface without being absorbed. The angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence, as described by the law of reflection. This is why you can see your reflection in a mirror; photons from your face strike the mirror's surface and bounce back towards your eyes. Absorption and Re-emission: While a reflective surface predominantly reflects photons, some may be absorbed temporarily by the surface's atoms or molecules. However, these absorbed photons are usually re-emitted shortly afterward. The key point is that they are re-emitted in random directions, not in a well-defined angle like in reflection. This re-emission is what gives some materials their reflective properties. It's important to note that the absorbed photons are not typically "released" as new photons, but rather they are re-emitted as the same photons, maintaining their energy and properties.

@@RogerGarrett sorry buddy but you have confused yourself there. Don't know where you got your info from but the energy of the photon is always absorbed by the electron it hits. If the frequency matches the electrons it will turn that energy into thermal energy, meaning the photon was "absorbed" If it doesn't, the energy is initially absorbed by the electron but then emitted (reflected) back out with the exact same energy properties. So it seems like the same photon but actually isn't. Atoms/paticles in general emit other particles such as photons when elections jump to a lower shell/level as a way to keep the conservation of energy. You have to remember that everything is just waves of energy, not solid objects. You want to google quantum physics of light flection.

Good thing science doesn't care about your "feelings."