I LOVE how flukes, blind chance and telescope mis-alignment regularly yield amazing discoveries from deep space. Like they said, the chance for this picture to actually be taken was, pardon the pun, astronomical. Just imagine then, how many fantastic discoveries we would make if only we could "cover" even as much as a hundredth of a percent of the sky with telescopes. That's why I really think it's about frakking time we started substantially increasing investements in astronomy and related sciences.

had that as my desktop background for a long time i think i got it from here.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'astronomy, universe, neil, degrasse, tyson, pluto' to 'astronomy, universe, neil, degrasse, tyson, pluto, kuiper, belt, asteroid, planet' - edited by my15minutes

Take back astronomy? Oh, does he mean the same bullshit four hundred years later?

Quoth the Wikipedia:

On 15 February 1990, in a speech delivered at the Sapienza University of Rome, Cardinal Ratzinger (later to become Pope Benedict XVI) cited some current views on the Galileo affair as forming what he called "a symptomatic case that permits us to see how deep the self-doubt of the modern age, of science and technology goes today."

These people really make me want to hit my head against something hard because of their insanely twisted and convoluted logic.

Saying that Adam & Eve are real because everything else they preach can't be real if they are just a metaphor is circular argument that pretty much everything they spout turns back into. This can't be true if that isn't true, so that is true because this is true... um, how do they not laugh at their own ludicrous non-logic?

And to say that we work and understand in this universe because the universe and us were created as one is also stupid. We evolved INTO this universe, we evolved FROM it... we are what we are because we evolved in THIS universe. If it were another universe we would have evolved to fit THAT one. Again... non-logic.

It's effectively admitting that, well, if this core belief is not true, and all the other subsequent beliefs are based on that and so also wouldn't be true if that weren't then the whole belief systems falls down if you prove that wrong. They can't imagine a world without their religion, so they try their damnedest, and spend enormous amounts of time and money, to 'prove' the original event as being 'fact'. Except all they have shown is that it's true because the rest of the bible is true, so it's true.

Taking back Astronomy? WHAT? When did the church EVER 'own' Astronomy... that's just blatant lying.

Holy crap people who spout the rubbish notion that if you don't believe in god you are obviously just a crass consumerist with no morals or ethics who loves chaos are SO amazingly annoying. How they can't wrap their little, puny minds around the concept that people DON'T NEED to be threatened with eternal suffering in brimstone to be good people is beyond me.

I'm not entirely sure what his closing bit was supposed to show... is he religious? Is he religious and agrees with them? Is he religious and disagrees with them?

Not a very well put together 'doco'

Evolutionary Biology, Astronomy, History... there, I think I refuted everything but feel free to add more.

Try this link if your interested in following up on the History aspect. http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?pc=Professor&cid=643

>> ^quantumushroom:
Sorry, you make a deal with the Devil (ha ha) to let the government indoctrinate your kids, you don't get to decide what is taught. On the bright side, economics, American history and civics aren't being taught, assuring yet another generation of liberal tools.


I think Stephen Colbert put it best: Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

Evolution is True. its a FACT, the exact same way germs or viruses are a facts. We know this for the same reason: these theories actually WORK. they predict, they are testable, they hold up to decades of scientific scrutiny. Are there uncertainties?, problems? Of course, thats why we still have researchers, and its also one of the best reasons to pass on our best knowledge to our children, so that they can solve these problems in the future.

We do not know how to cure HIV/AIDS for example, but nobody with a reasonable laymans understanding of the term "virus" thinks that its demon-possession or witchcraft or punishment from the gods. We KNOW, with what is close to a 100% certainty that a VIRUS -tiny, evolving replicators that transmit sexually- is the cause of HIV, we've known this for 20-30 years, and its a fact that isnt going to change.

The exact same thing can be said about the theory of evolution, it is a comprehensive, well established and true explanation for an extremely wide range of facts and evidence collected from not only paleontology and genetics, but also geology, astronomy, medicine, chemistry, physics and even mathematics. If you'd want to defeat this theory with a silly, meaningless phrase like "intelligent design" ,you'd have to undo and outdo evolution's explanatory power in all of these disiplines.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

>> ^Ornthoron:
Beautiful shot! It's great to know that astronomy is not necessarily reserved for people with giant mountaintop telescopes.


Have you seen his rig? I think "giant mountaintop telescope" describes it pretty well.

Beautiful shot! It's great to know that astronomy is not necessarily reserved for people with giant mountaintop telescopes.

That California resolution makes far more sense than the nonsense adopted by four percent of the IAU, most of whom are not planetary scientists. Their decision was immediately rejected by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto.

The IAU definition makes no sense for two reasons. One, it states that dwarf planets are not planets at all. That is like saying a grizzly bear is not a bear. It is also inconsistent with the use of the term "dwarf" in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies.

Second, the IAU definition classifies objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were in Pluto's orbit, according to the IAU definition, it would not be a planet either. A definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another is simply unusable.

The controversy could easily be solved if the IAU amends its 2006 resolution to make dwarf planets a subcategory of the broader term "planet."

Tags for this video have been changed from 'middle ages, inventions, bbc' to 'middle ages, inventions, bbc, architecture, mathematics, engineering, astronomy' - edited by mauz15

Astrology has more in common with alchemy, mysticism, and archetypes than astronomy or empirical science.

I was a firm believer in aliens... impossible, thought i, that in the infinite reaches of space, we are the only life forms to exist. Surely these UFO sightings must have a genuine root.

Then i realised that time is also a factor. Yes, space may be on the magnitude of the infinite, but the furthest objects from us in space may as well be in our imagination, or a different dimension; they're intangible to us. We'll never see it, we'll never reach it.

So then the question is limited, what are the odds of us being the only sentient life form within an area of space around us, existing at the same point in time as us?

And even then it's worse - let's say you recieve a set of prime number pulses that were broadcasted by another species, how long did they take to get to us? A thousand years? 2? 3? Did they live long enough for us to recieve it? Will they live long enough to recieve a reply? Will we?

That's why i love astronomy. It's amazing, mind blowing.

(Didn't have time to watch this yet, just rambling on)

>> ^dag:
I can't believe they are using jerky cam on astronomy cgi. I have to admit it does the job as usual, adding 20% more realism to any footage. Eventually we will get jaded of this film technique. It will be the 21st century's laugh track.


I was SOOO thinking exactly that! I mean its obviously a recreation why pretend theres a helicopter filming it the sound of the lawa flowing was acceptable tho

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I can't believe they are using jerky cam on astronomy cgi. I have to admit it does the job as usual, adding 20% more realism to any footage. Eventually we will get jaded of this film technique. It will be the 21st century's laugh track.