astrophysics are my favorite videos

Sooooooo.... any christian fundies wondering why this sort of majesty isn't mentioned in the bible? Astrophysics trumps ancient fairytales every time!

I had about a dozen different kinds of nerdgasms watching that. As much as I dislike the idea of going to the Moon before Mars, I can understand the reasoning, especially with such a pitiful budget NASA has to deal with in this day an age. Huge deficit? How the hell did that happen?!

However, I digress. Seeing this, and following some of the papers and articles over at Nasa.gov, is only strengthening my resolve to achieve my doctorate in astrophysics. It would be a dream of dreams to work on any of these programs, and even if I can't, I will certainly be waiting with baited breath for the programs to start their journeys.

It has been a far, far, far too long time in the coming. It'd be nice to see all the petty squabbling come to an end here on Earth so we can work together to answer the big questions about life, the universe and everything.

I personally don't understand the negative comments being received about his talk. I find the man incredibly interesting, and entertaining, which is precisely what most intellectuals and scientists need to be. To know that he's teaching eighth grade science, puts a smile on my face, because if I had him as my grade school science teacher, I'd probably be finished my post graduate studies by now, instead of just re-kindling my love of the scientific process.

He is entirely right when he mentions that he doesn't do the "read chapter seven in the text and do questions, etc, etc". That fails our kids nowadays. Carl Sagan even spoke of this folly in the education system. It doesn't teach the wonderful nature of science, nor does it condition the mind for critial thinking. It locks it into this mode of repetitve work, and no allowing for imaginitive, scientific, expression through their work.

I also agree that computers are too prevalent in the school systems, when I was in school the computers ended up being more of a hinderance than a help, and this was when they were coming into schools with more force. We stopped working together in groups, bouncing ideas off one another, the class became less and less cohesive, and ended up secluding some students from others. And in my opinion that is a major loss for the kids.

More hands on work is needed, less "do this excersize, and repeat" stuff. Unfortunately, I fear it all goes back to what George Carlin said when I'm thinking in my completely negative and paranoid, conspiracy minded ways:

"They don't want a society of people capable of critical thinking, what they want is a society of people just smart enough to run the machines and do the paper-work, but just dumb enough to not realise how badly they're getting fscked in the ass."

All kids should have the opportunity to pursue a higher intellectual learning process, not just those who stumble into the wonders of the scientific fields. Seems like more and more these days you only hear about the "gifted" or the "genius" kids that make it out with PhDs, and research grants. The rest... Well, I work in a distribution warehouse driving heavy machinery, and now doing online and at home courses to get into an Astrophysics program, and it's not as fun as it sounds.

No, I'm not a phyicist, but Mycrofthomlz is, so he might be able to help you if you really want to know. I wish I knew the answer too.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
yeah I got the humor part.
I wrote back directly, though, because I thought had read before that you were a physicist. I also wondered if I was asking a silly question after reading yours and deathcow's comments.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
I know it was a serious question. My answer was my silly way of saying that I have no clue. I didn't think you were calling "FAKE" or anything like that either. I was just having a little fun.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
It was supposed to be a serious question. Did I miss something in the video that explains it? I looked around for info on the nasa site and wikipedia and elsewhere, but the source of the emission isn't really ever brought up. Just that the interaction of the star moving that fast through interstellar space "ignited" the material left behind. Obviously, I'm not an astrophysicist, but I can't think of any other phenomenon in which energy is emitted for that long without some source of energy.

I'm not suggesting the data was faked or anything, just trying to understand what is clearly a very odd finding.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
^Ya know dude, I'm not really sure about all of that. I might have known, but I got kicked out of MIT's astrophysics program for immoral experiments with gravity. I don't think those kittens suffered. Too much.

yeah I got the humor part.
I wrote back directly, though, because I thought had read before that you were a physicist. I also wondered if I was asking a silly question after reading yours and deathcow's comments.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
I know it was a serious question. My answer was my silly way of saying that I have no clue. I didn't think you were calling "FAKE" or anything like that either. I was just having a little fun.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
It was supposed to be a serious question. Did I miss something in the video that explains it? I looked around for info on the nasa site and wikipedia and elsewhere, but the source of the emission isn't really ever brought up. Just that the interaction of the star moving that fast through interstellar space "ignited" the material left behind. Obviously, I'm not an astrophysicist, but I can't think of any other phenomenon in which energy is emitted for that long without some source of energy.

I'm not suggesting the data was faked or anything, just trying to understand what is clearly a very odd finding.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
^Ya know dude, I'm not really sure about all of that. I might have known, but I got kicked out of MIT's astrophysics program for immoral experiments with gravity. I don't think those kittens suffered. Too much.

I know it was a serious question. My answer was my silly way of saying that I have no clue. I didn't think you were calling "FAKE" or anything like that either. I was just having a little fun.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
It was supposed to be a serious question. Did I miss something in the video that explains it? I looked around for info on the nasa site and wikipedia and elsewhere, but the source of the emission isn't really ever brought up. Just that the interaction of the star moving that fast through interstellar space "ignited" the material left behind. Obviously, I'm not an astrophysicist, but I can't think of any other phenomenon in which energy is emitted for that long without some source of energy.

I'm not suggesting the data was faked or anything, just trying to understand what is clearly a very odd finding.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
^Ya know dude, I'm not really sure about all of that. I might have known, but I got kicked out of MIT's astrophysics program for immoral experiments with gravity. I don't think those kittens suffered. Too much.

It was supposed to be a serious question. Did I miss something in the video that explains it? I looked around for info on the nasa site and wikipedia and elsewhere, but the source of the emission isn't really ever brought up. Just that the interaction of the star moving that fast through interstellar space "ignited" the material left behind. Obviously, I'm not an astrophysicist, but I can't think of any other phenomenon in which energy is emitted for that long without some source of energy.

I'm not suggesting the data was faked or anything, just trying to understand what is clearly a very odd finding.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
^Ya know dude, I'm not really sure about all of that. I might have known, but I got kicked out of MIT's astrophysics program for immoral experiments with gravity. I don't think those kittens suffered. Too much.

^Ya know dude, I'm not really sure about all of that. I might have known, but I got kicked out of MIT's astrophysics program for immoral experiments with gravity. I don't think those kittens suffered. Too much.

yes I noticed it too. also the show opens with another big flub, we never sent orbiters to neptune! only the one voyager flyby. he does need to brush up on his astrophysics! also the most powerful computer in the world does over 350 tflops not 60.

Well the most major concepts like gravity or stuff like that originally belong to the realm of things you don't know you don't know.

I think less useful is things you don't know you do know.. like all of the lucky charm shapes.

And most people are well aware of the you know you don't know it stuff like astrophysics and how to integrate across the surface of an rectangular solid.

BrightOne, your scientific doctrine is just a doctrine, that's the point he's making. Prove to me that the universe is scientific, because until you do, my personal doctrine says to assume it's magical and mysterious. It's not because I am gullible or I don't think, it's because I thought about it A LOT and came to the conclusion that science is always changing its mind, while god smiles down on your efforts to discover him.

Now, you might not understand that, but I thought about it. And I studied astrophysics. And I read "A Brief History of Time" and "The Elegant Universe" and understood more than half of it

Your dogmatic assumption that the universe runs on pure logic is as faith based as my own assumption. You don't need to be a scientist to know that the world is wonderful, beautiful and amazing. And science can't measure wonder, beauty or amazement yet...

We all just get a firm hunch and then find a clever person's words to cling to, whether it's Dawkins or not. We don't understand, so we pretend to understand, and convince ourselves by repeating our doctrine on the internet over and over, as if typing it out makes it true.

I have a PhD in theoretical gangsta astrophysics too!

meaningoflife.tv

Owen Gingerich is a senior astronomer emeritus at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and Research Professor of Astronomy and of the History of Science