A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #211  
Old October 2nd 18, 08:37 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,265
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 07:44:29 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 07:53:36 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:


The existence of radio communication is definitely knowable. A few
centuries ago, it would have been considered supernatural to be

able
to send messages apparently instantly (and definitely much faster
than with a courier riding a fast horse) over long distances, even
when direct visual contact was not possible.


Sure. But it's difficult to imagine what we might find supernatural
today. Today we understand most of nature. I doubt Clarke's Law
applies anymore. I don't imagine we could encounter any technology
advanced enough to appear as magic. We now have enough knowledge to
recognize the likely natural law underlying anything we encounter,


You sound like a physicist from the late 1800's. Back then, physics
was believed to be understood almost completely. Only a few minor
details needed to be clarified. However, those "minor details" soon
expanded into relativity and QM, making physics quite different
compared to earlier...


even if we lack perfect understanding.

Btw I encountered some new worlds the other day:

Nontheism - vaguely similar to atheism but still different. There

are
nontheistic religions for instance, like some varieties of

Buddhism.

In actual usage, nontheism and atheism are synonyms.



Apatheism - having no interest in the question about the eventual
existence of deities. An apatheist is therefore neither a theist

nor
an atheist. You say apatheists do not exist, but if so, why invent

a
word for a non-existing property?


"Apatheism" is a portmanteau of "apathetic" and "atheism". A recent
word which refers to unreflective atheism. An apatheist is an

atheist
who doesn't give the matter any thought and isn't interested in any
underlying philosophical questions about the matter. All apatheists
are atheists, but not all atheists are apatheists.


Why couldn't an apatheist just as well be a theist? He mcould believe
there might be deities but he doesn't care about them.

Og course an apatheist is nonreflective. But being nonreflective is
getting fashionable these days. Consider the increasing number of
people believing in a flat Earth. Or the election of Donald Trump as
the US president.
Ads
  #212  
Old October 2nd 18, 09:02 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,265
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 18:41:05 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 3:55:55 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter

wrote:

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 05:49:40 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 3:47:01 AM UTC-6, Paul

Schlyter
wrote:

You are hopelessly overoptimistic. The typical distance

between
galaxies is millions of light years or more.


That's true ... TODAY. What about 9 billion years ago?


Back then the galaxies were some 3 times closer to one another

than
today, so the typical intergalactic distance were perhaps about a
million instead of millions of light years.

But, more importantly, back then there were few if any population

I
stars in existence. All stars back then were population II stars,
which have very little, if any, elements heavier than H and He.

Those
heavier elements are required to form life. So back then there

was no
life in the universe, that we can say with great certainty. Back
then, our Sun and our Earth did not even exist. Life, of all

kinds,
formed later.


9 billion years ago there certainly WERE stars with heavy elements:



http://www.astronomy.com/news/2016/0...rly-galaxies-c
hallenges-star-forming-theory

Although their metallicity was only 20% of stars near us, that's

pretty
good for 11 billion years ago, wouldn't you say?


Lower metallicity means less material from which life can form.


Therefore you are saying that any civilisation would with

great
probability learn interstellar travel at or near light speed.

I believe there are other alternatives.


Such as wormholes? Or did you have something else in your mind?


Wormholes, Alcubierre=type drives, transit to other branes, and

ways not
even a glimmer in the eyes of theoretical physicists.


Now you've entered the realm of science fiction...

Are you even aware of the difficulties involved? For instance,
colliding with a grain of sand near light speed would mean

the end of
your expedition.

Indeed, I am quite aware of the difficulties. That's why I

think
there are alternatives.


WHICH alternatives? How can you travel millions of light years in
just millions of years without traveling at near light speed?

Answered above.
So that one survivor can spread its DNA over the whole

galaxy
in a few million years.

Now you are getting more modest, which is good. Earlier you

claimed
that this one survivor could spread its DNA to **other**

galaxies
within the same time span of a few million years. That would

require
travel near light speed.

Not necessarily. If this civilization developed, say, 5

billion years
after the big bang, the galaxies would have been closer

together.

Not by much. Since the big bang happened 13.5 billion years ago,

5
billion years ago the intergalactic distances already had about

60%
of their current value.


And maybe there's a way to "wink out" there and "wink in" here

vitually
instantaneously. We haven't had millions of years of scientific
development yet.


More sci-fi...

And as we seem to agree, travel near light speed has certain
high-probability risks. I think there are alternative ways to

get
from one place to another.


You are very quiet about these alternative ways... why?

"Wink out", "wink in" :-)
Your grasp of probability theory must be very weak, or else

you
would not make such claims.


I have to laugh at your assertion again :-)) Are you familiar

with
the Law of Large Numbers?


Do you consider one to be a large number? One is the number of
planets known to have life...

The law of large numbers say that if you repeat an experiment a

large
number of times, the outcome will be very close to the expected
value. But, in the case of life in the universe, we have no idea

what
the expected value is. So the law of large numbers does not help

us
here.


Sure it does. We don't have to know the expectation value. We

KNOW it
happened ONCE. Given ENOUGH chances, it will happen again.


Sure, but have there been ENOUGH chances? We don't know, we can only
guess or believe.

Given what
we know about planetary systems today, about the number of stars in

our
galaxy, about the number of galaxies in just the VISIBLE universe

and
the tininess of the visible universe, you don't believe it hasn't

happened
MANY times? If so, you are an amazing pessimist!


You see? All we can do is believe, we don't know. We are getting to
know the first few factors of the Drake equation, but several factors
remain unknown to us. And these unknown factors are the hardest to
get to know. For instance, what is the typical lifetime of a
technologically advanced civilization? Apart from beliefs and
guesswork, hov can we actually get to KNOW that value?

And how can we be certain that this lone surviving

intelligent
? civilization would devote itself to space travel over

intergalactic
distances?


Or develop some alternative means where distance isn't

important? If "a"
civilization didn't, another one would.


That's your guess, and it is a far cry from "absolutely certain"

that
it actually is so.


YOU are the only one talking about "absolute certainty." I'm

talking about
probabilities.


Even if you call it "very high probability' it's really the same
thing. One thing about extraterrestrial life is that ve cannot be
"almost certain" about anything.


You and I are working from different assumptions. Are you

familiar
with Paul Steinhardt's Ekpyrotic theory?

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0103239

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe

It posits a cyclic universe. If it has any credence it means

that past
universes existed. If intelligent life is as rare as some here

believe,
it becomes a virtual certainty that it developed in a previous

genesis,
maybe millions of times. If some couldn't find a way to

transport itself
from one genesis to the next, one would have. Imagine, a

civilization
billions of years old appearing on the scene 13 billion years

ago!

But what if it doesn't have any credence? We don't know if it

has, so
we can only guess. And you must do much better than guesswork to

be
able to reliably claim that something is "almost certain".


Don't be such a pessimist! It's bordering on a mania :-)


Don't be such a dreamer... When you talk about extraterrestrial life,
don't you mean real life in the real universe and not just your
fantasies and wishes?

That might make a great SF story to outdo even Olaf Stapledon.

But I
don't think it's SF. Anyway, now you see why no argument about
probability has any affect on me whatsoever. So, want to

discuss the
probability of Steinhardt et al. being right? :-)


You can fantasize as much as you want, but please stop trying to
misuse probability to claim something is "almost certain" when it
actually just is a guess of yours.


Pessimist!


No, I'm a realist.

Nope! Something supernatural is something which

contradicts physics.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural

"departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to

appear to
transcend the laws of nature"

With that definition, radio communication would have been

"supernatural"
a few centuries ago.

Exactly! Now you're getting it :-)

The scientific method requires that a phenomenon be

repeatable by any
competent researcher. It also requires the ability to

change the
inputs.

No it doesn't. Astronomers cannot experiment with the

universe by
changing the input, but despite that astronomy is regarded as

a science.

Astronomical science requires that experiments performed here

on earth be
valid elsewhere in the solar system, galaxy, universe. Now

that we have
sent missions throughout the solar system, that part is no

longer
assumption, and we have no choice but to assume it's true

throughout the
universe. It SEEMS to be, anyway, but it IS a weakness that

certain
scientific disciplines have. Cosmology is a case in point. We

have the
Big Bang model, but there are alternatives ...


There are no alternatives today that match empirical data so well.


Irrelevant since we're talking about billion-year-old civilizations.


You are then talking about something neither you nor anyone else on
Earth know anything about.


The discovery of the cosmic background radiation made the "big

bang"
win over the "steady state" cosmology. But note that this is not
final. If and when a cosmology appears that matches empirical

data
even better, then it will replace the "big bang" as the standard
cosmological model.


The standard model assumes inflation. There are scientists that

dispute that.


https://www.wired.com/2008/02/physic...ng-wasnt-the-b
eginning/

There are always people questioning, that's a natural part of the
scientific process. Time will tell who is right.
  #213  
Old October 2nd 18, 09:05 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,371
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 8:37:08 AM UTC+1, Paul Schlyter wrote:


Og course an apatheist is nonreflective. But being nonreflective is
getting fashionable these days. Consider the increasing number of
people believing in a flat Earth.


....or people unable to express the fact of a round and rotating Earth where the maximum Equatorial speed is 1037.5 miles/ 1669.8 km per hour -

https://books.google.ie/books?id=PE9...g e&q&f=false


Who is worse ? - people who mock others because they can with a flat-Earth notion or people who are dead serious that the Equatorial rotational velocity is 1674.4 km per hour thereby generating a nonsensical distance corresponding to a 40,185.6 km circumference. This is what theorists get when they link the Earth's rotation directly to stellar circumpolar motion via the 24 hour and calendar system.

It is not that people here should be ashamed of themselves, it is that those who can acutely feel the inability to affirm the correct rotational velocity at the Equator as 1669.8 km per hour and the 40,075 km circumference are saying and doing nothing.

I really wished you believed in a flat Earth because making a mess of things via timekeeping is far worse.

  #214  
Old October 2nd 18, 09:34 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Martin Brown[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 158
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On 28/09/2018 10:46, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 12:07:27 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
As I said, it only takes ONE civilization to make it.* It can then

spread
to other galaxies in a few million years, a very short time in the

universe=


Only in fantasy science fiction like Star Trek is this possible.

You are hopelessly overoptimistic. The typical distance between galaxies
is millions of light years or more. Therefore you are saying that any
civilisation would with great probability learn interstellar travel at
or near light speed. Are you even aware of the difficulties involved?


It may well be the case that the distances between stars are so vast
that no civilisation can realistically travel between them unless they
happen to be in a privileged place with a very high density of nearby
stars. Robotic Fermi probes ought to be possible - they don't need to
sustain life and can wake up only when in proximity to a star.

It is an interesting question of how small a probe we could make with
existing technology to get to Proxima Centuri and send information back.
Milner and Hawking proposed one way to get there in about 20 years if
you accept the assumptions behind their methodology.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...tem-180958745/

For instance, colliding with a grain of sand near light speed would mean
the end of your expedition.


And you will get cooked by the blue shifted cosmic background radiation
as well. The faster you travel the better your heat shield has to be.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  #215  
Old October 2nd 18, 09:34 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Martin Brown[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 158
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On 30/09/2018 17:50, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 18:32:16 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

So deities which lack this power to hide, their existence is knowable?


It seems likely. I've seen nothing to suggest that anything in nature
is unknowable, so I'd only reserve certainty of unknowability for the
supernatural.


Conjugate variables in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is the most
obvious counter example. You cannot simultaneously know the momentum and
position of a particle in phase space to arbitrary precision.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  #216  
Old October 2nd 18, 02:01 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,860
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 09:37:04 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

Sure. But it's difficult to imagine what we might find supernatural
today. Today we understand most of nature. I doubt Clarke's Law
applies anymore. I don't imagine we could encounter any technology
advanced enough to appear as magic. We now have enough knowledge to
recognize the likely natural law underlying anything we encounter,


You sound like a physicist from the late 1800's. Back then, physics
was believed to be understood almost completely. Only a few minor
details needed to be clarified. However, those "minor details" soon
expanded into relativity and QM, making physics quite different
compared to earlier...


Back then we lacked the knowledge to know what knowledge we lacked.
That doesn't appear to be the case anymore. We have a good
understanding of where the holes in our knowledge are, and we have
good ideas about the sort of things that are likely to fill them. And
we have a much better understanding of the nature of nature, meaning
that I doubt there's anything we could observe that science wouldn't
quickly provide plausible hypotheses for, without anybody feeling the
need to draw on magic or the supernatural. We have a different
worldview today regarding natural law.

Why couldn't an apatheist just as well be a theist? He mcould believe
there might be deities but he doesn't care about them.


Because the word itself refers to atheists.

Og course an apatheist is nonreflective. But being nonreflective is
getting fashionable these days. Consider the increasing number of
people believing in a flat Earth. Or the election of Donald Trump as
the US president.


Yes, lack of reflection is a problem. All rational people are
atheists, because critical thinking always leads to atheism. But not
all atheists are rational, because there are atheists who are such
simply because they were never brainwashed as children. Those
atheists, like lots of other people, may lack critical thinking skills
and therefore easily adopt the same sort of silly ideas that any
irrational people can fall for.
  #217  
Old October 2nd 18, 02:03 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,860
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 09:34:30 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 30/09/2018 17:50, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 18:32:16 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

So deities which lack this power to hide, their existence is knowable?


It seems likely. I've seen nothing to suggest that anything in nature
is unknowable, so I'd only reserve certainty of unknowability for the
supernatural.


Conjugate variables in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is the most
obvious counter example. You cannot simultaneously know the momentum and
position of a particle in phase space to arbitrary precision.


Yes, but that's a triviality. Like saying you can't know what's on the
side of sphere that you can't observe. We're really talking about the
knowability of natural law and structure, not "things". It is
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle that informs us. That allows us to
know.
  #218  
Old October 2nd 18, 10:09 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 645
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 2:02:36 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 18:41:05 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 3:55:55 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

Back then the galaxies were some 3 times closer to one another than
today, so the typical intergalactic distance were perhaps about a
million instead of millions of light years.

But, more importantly, back then there were few if any population I
stars in existence. All stars back then were population II stars,
which have very little, if any, elements heavier than H and He. Those
heavier elements are required to form life. So back then there was no
life in the universe, that we can say with great certainty. Back
then, our Sun and our Earth did not even exist. Life, of all kinds,
formed later.


9 billion years ago there certainly WERE stars with heavy elements:

http://www.astronomy.com/news/2016/0...rly-galaxies-c
hallenges-star-forming-theory

Although their metallicity was only 20% of stars near us, that's pretty
good for 11 billion years ago, wouldn't you say?


Lower metallicity means less material from which life can form.


Less, but not zero. You have NO idea how much less prevents life and neither
do I, so this is just yammering.

Such as wormholes? Or did you have something else in your mind?


Wormholes, Alcubierre=type drives, transit to other branes, and ways not
even a glimmer in the eyes of theoretical physicists.


Now you've entered the realm of science fiction...


So you believe only scientists can have new ideas? You DO realize that
some SF authors ARE scientists, don't you?

Not by much. Since the big bang happened 13.5 billion years ago, 5
billion years ago the intergalactic distances already had about 60%
of their current value.


And maybe there's a way to "wink out" there and "wink in" here vitually
instantaneously. We haven't had millions of years of scientific
development yet.


More sci-fi...


More lack of vision.

Do you consider one to be a large number? One is the number of
planets known to have life...

The law of large numbers say that if you repeat an experiment a large
number of times, the outcome will be very close to the expected
value. But, in the case of life in the universe, we have no idea what
the expected value is. So the law of large numbers does not help us
here.


Sure it does. We don't have to know the expectation value. We KNOW it
happened ONCE. Given ENOUGH chances, it will happen again.


Sure, but have there been ENOUGH chances? We don't know, we can only
guess or believe.


I BELIEEEVE!

Given what we know about planetary systems today, about the number of
stars in our galaxy, about the number of galaxies in just the VISIBLE
universe and the tininess of the visible universe, you don't believe it
hasn't happened MANY times? If so, you are an amazing pessimist!


You see? All we can do is believe, we don't know. We are getting to
know the first few factors of the Drake equation, but several factors
remain unknown to us. And these unknown factors are the hardest to
get to know. For instance, what is the typical lifetime of a
technologically advanced civilization? Apart from beliefs and
guesswork, hov can we actually get to KNOW that value?


It comes down to how much vision you have vs. how big a pessimist you are.

That's your guess, and it is a far cry from "absolutely certain" that
it actually is so.


YOU are the only one talking about "absolute certainty." I'm talking about
probabilities.


Even if you call it "very high probability' it's really the same thing. One
thing about extraterrestrial life is that ve cannot be "almost certain"
about anything.


I am.

You and I are working from different assumptions. Are you familiar
with Paul Steinhardt's Ekpyrotic theory?

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0103239

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe

It posits a cyclic universe. If it has any credence it means that past
universes existed. If intelligent life is as rare as some here believe,
it becomes a virtual certainty that it developed in a previous genesis,
maybe millions of times. If some couldn't find a way to transport
itself from one genesis to the next, one would have. Imagine, a
civilization billions of years old appearing on the scene 13 billion
years ago!

But what if it doesn't have any credence? We don't know if it has, so
we can only guess. And you must do much better than guesswork to be
able to reliably claim that something is "almost certain".


Don't be such a pessimist! It's bordering on a mania :-)


Don't be such a dreamer...


Why not? Dreamers make reality happen. Pessimists just sit around moping.

When you talk about extraterrestrial life, don't you mean real life in the
real universe and not just your fantasies and wishes?


I believe in ET. Why wouldn't you?

You can fantasize as much as you want, but please stop trying to
misuse probability to claim something is "almost certain" when it
actually just is a guess of yours.


Pessimist!


No, I'm a realist.


No, you're a mope-around. And you cannot possibly be a "realist" since you
admit that we don't know.

There are no alternatives today that match empirical data so well.


Irrelevant since we're talking about billion-year-old civilizations.


You are then talking about something neither you nor anyone else on
Earth know anything about.


So you admit that calling yourself a realist is just as nonsensical as my
calling myself a visionary :-))

The discovery of the cosmic background radiation made the "big bang"
win over the "steady state" cosmology. But note that this is not
final. If and when a cosmology appears that matches empirical data
even better, then it will replace the "big bang" as the standard
cosmological model.


The standard model assumes inflation. There are scientists that dispute
that.

https://www.wired.com/2008/02/physic...ng-wasnt-the-b
eginning/


There are always people questioning, that's a natural part of the
scientific process. Time will tell who is right.


Indeed. As a human being, however, I want to have a "world view." It's
important to me. I have developed mine over many years and I'll hold it
until and if the evidence refutes it.
  #219  
Old October 3rd 18, 10:23 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Martin Brown[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 158
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On 02/10/2018 14:03, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 09:34:30 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 30/09/2018 17:50, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 18:32:16 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

So deities which lack this power to hide, their existence is knowable?

It seems likely. I've seen nothing to suggest that anything in nature
is unknowable, so I'd only reserve certainty of unknowability for the
supernatural.


Conjugate variables in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is the most
obvious counter example. You cannot simultaneously know the momentum and
position of a particle in phase space to arbitrary precision.


Yes, but that's a triviality.


No. It isn't. It is a fundamental part of how our universe operates.
Quantum mechanics would be entirely different if you could know both
conjugate variables precisely and at the same time.

Like saying you can't know what's on the
side of sphere that you can't observe. We're really talking about the
knowability of natural law and structure, not "things". It is
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle that informs us. That allows us to
know.


It also allows us to know what we do not know.

That Rumsfeld speech about known knowns, known unknowns and unknown
unknowns that got him ridiculed in the press was actually right on the mark:

"As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are
some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones
we don’t know we don’t know."

It is a 2x2 contingency table so he missed out unknown knowns. Facts we
don't yet know (one of which was that Iraq did not have any WMD).

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  #220  
Old October 3rd 18, 02:23 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,860
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 10:23:50 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

Conjugate variables in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is the most
obvious counter example. You cannot simultaneously know the momentum and
position of a particle in phase space to arbitrary precision.


Yes, but that's a triviality.


No. It isn't.


It is because it isn't what I'm talking about as "knowability". There
are certainly "things" we can't know. That's not important. The
question is are there rules of nature we can't know? I don't see
evidence of that. I think our understanding of nature can be complete.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Denial of Neil deGrasse Tyson's Science Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 April 24th 17 06:58 PM
NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON DISHONEST OR JUST SILLY? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 August 6th 15 12:14 PM
Neil (EGO) Degrasse Tyson STEALS directly from Sagan RichA[_6_] Amateur Astronomy 4 April 17th 15 09:38 AM
NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON : CONSPIRACY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 July 14th 14 04:32 PM
'My Favorite Universe' (Neil deGrasse Tyson) M Dombek UK Astronomy 1 December 29th 05 01:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.