Yeah but mostly cause he's black. And Hollywood loves black people now. Oh and because once Carl Sagan drove him home.

i dont like his attitude or the way he talks. he has this condescending pissy attitude as if hes the next Planck or Einstein when he has literally done nothing with his "career" as a physicist.


i also dont give a sinlge fuk that hes some great role model for minorities lmao... he shouldnt be a role model for anyone as far as im concerned.

For some purposes, you can take it to be. But it's pretty easy to make a really big triangle and measure some angles and realize ur way off.

No he doesn't. WTF. LOL Go watch Edward Witten or David Gross talk then. You must not know many physicists then. Getting a PhD in physics makes people a little cocky, and they should be.

Also Planck is not considered the same tier as Einstein lol. Einstein was on a whole nutha level.

whats wrong with the drake equation? it wasnt intended to give you an exact figure.. wtf do you want?

brian greene seems a lot friendlier. Tyson comes off like a narcissist, hes not really that good at conversation, maybe giving a one way presentation but he was annoying as fuk on joe rogan completely oblivious that hes interrupting the whole time.

Brian Greene is a cool guy as well. I like him a lot.

IDK maybe the fame has gotten to Tyson? He didn't seem bad when I would see him show up on documentaries.

U know who is one of the smartest and most chill dudes tho is Leonard Susskind. He's a great communicator AND one of the most distinguished physicists alive.

i know of enough to know that most dont conduct themselves, at least publicly, the way he does... he acts like a buffoon.


sean carroll, brian cox, brian greene, roger penrose, etc etc. ALL actual physicists, none actual douchebags.

IDK if he realizes he is doing it TBH. yeah someone like edward witten is a super nerd and wont relate well with normies but Greene seems like he would do better in a rogan type program where it is more back and forth conversation. Tyson seemed to get frustrated and cut him off a lot, there isnt a hurry the podcast is like 3 hours long, its just the way he is.

I honestly think you're just being racist here. But maybe he has changed. IDK. I don't really keep up.

Tyson probably got frustrated because Joe Rogan is an idiot who says the most retarded chit...lol

I like him, but srsly...

If u think uve met a noncondescending physicist lol spoiler u haven't. They all think ur a fuking retard. Pay attention and watch the smirk when u ask something lol.

u know how u feel when u mog someone at the gym? these ppl brainmog evetyone they meet...

ppl in math are a little more grounded and less gee whiz

usually because nobody gives a shyt about their research

Strong as fuk conclusion lmao

I don’t like a random black guy on tv because he comes off as a pretentious douchebag... I must therefore be a racist.

But what exactly is it that comes across as pretentious? My white friend said the same about Obama and likes Trump. And I'm like wtf. How is Trump less pretentious than Obama? lol.

I really do think it is a race bias that you aren't even aware of.

i think that’s because physicists think mathbrahs are plebs lol.

I like both. No point in math without physics (or I should say most of the cool stuff to do with math is in physics/engineering or CS) and physics models without rigor means u don't even know what ur rly talking about

come on bro i know you dont actually believe stuff like this... leave that for the bro on page 1 denying evolution.

just because your white friend said something doesnt mean you should ascribe it to me. im not your white friend. and i also think trump is way more of a pretentious douchebag than obama. from what i recall actually obama was pretty grounded and spoke very well publicly.

Good. At least I know u are objective then. Like I said maybe Tyson got famous and it went to his head. He's a pretty big deal nowadays in terms of fame.

This so much, science bitches are wrong, sometimes.

yeah science is wrong sometimes, but it is usually approximately right and only gets better over time

unlike the alternative to science which is eating your own chit

Tier 1 Intelligence Theory: The observable universe is expanding, but the actual universe is a finite 4D object.

4D is impossible to visualize for humans so it's easier to explain with Earth, which appears to be a 2D object, yet in actuality is a 3D object (sphere) and the "edges" connect to each other to create a sphere. Similarly with our universe appears to be a 3D hamster ball with us stuck inside, but when approaching an edge, we "teleport" to the opposite side of the universe.

The universe is on a high calorie diet

It’s not that it can’t be both logically. You can “expand” infinity and just end up with...infinity. (using imprecise, casual terminology).

To take an example, consider the set of all vectors in 2-space, R^2, which make up the coordinate plane. We can stretch these vectors by a scalar factor of 2 with the function f mapping R^2 onto R^2 given by f(x) = 2x. We are left with just the same infinite R^2 plane with this mapping. Note that R^2 is of the same magnitude (cardinality) of infinity as itself, namely the cardinality |R|. So this is not about there being different orders of infinity, as some posts earlier were saying.

To really get at the the OP question (which is a great question), two items in it tend to be sources of great confusion and misunderstanding: “universe” and “expanding”. The whole universe vs observable universe thing, and that universe expansion is considered a sort of metric expansion in physics, not totally dissimilar to the vector stretching example above. Some said above that the universe is known to be finite....this is not the case. The observable universe, with its temporal-constrained “boundary”, is finite.

There is so much unknown about these deep questions in cosmology such as the extent of the universe, that no one really has the answers.
It is not known if there is a boundary...most physicists seem to assume there is not for various reasons. The boundary set by time since the Big Bang of the observable universe just so happens to have radius about 46 billion light years.

You can actually “see” remnants of the Big Bang...what is known in today’s cosmological models as recombination and decoupling shortly after the Big Bang, in the form of the isotropic Cosmic Microwave Background. I say “see” because we as humans cannot see radio waves in the microwave portion. It is in the microwave portion because the expansion of the universe has “stretched” the wavelength of the once high energy radiation emitted near the beginning of the universe to longer, low energy microwave radiation. This is one reason, along with the finite age of the universe and speed of light, why the sky appears black at night- a solution to what is called Olber’s paradox. Indeed the black sky, that simple fact known to our most primitive human ancestors, is an important clue to the nature of the universe.

The same way the Brits expanded, by stealing land and resources.

That is why the Galactic Republic was formed - to fight against forces like me who just wants to unite his people. I am a just and generous Sith Lord.