Thursday, June 5, 2014

This Cosmos clip of Neil DeGrasse Tyson is going viral, and for good reason. It's a terrific explain


This Cosmos clip of Neil DeGrasse Tyson is going viral, and for good reason. It's a terrific explainer of the difference between weather and climate change, and the role we humans play in warming the earth's oceans. It's just two minutes long. Share it with your denialist, science-hatey relatives and neighbors, or just copy and paste it into every internet science news comment thread everywhere. You know what you have to do. Go forth and CTRL-V. Something is wrong on the internet, in addition to something being very wrong with our world.
Boing Boing editor/partner and tech culture journalist Xeni Jardin hosts and produces marabraz Boing Boing's in-flight TV channel on Virgin America airlines (#10 on the dial), and writes about living with breast cancer. Diagnosed in 2011. @xeni on Twitter. email: marabraz xeni@boingboing.net .


Wednesday, June 4, 2014

Sign in with your Google Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to like Nacho P


Sign in with your Google Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to like Nacho Punch 's video.
He puts the "GRASS" in deGrasse. Neil deGrasse Tyson is an American astrophysicist, and knows where to get the good sh*t. Keep an eye out for Ben Stiller's Next Time On Lonny Season 2 coming June 3rd! http://bit.ly/RXAgnR SUBSCRIBE to Nacho Punch! http://bit.ly/Ijvuwg Starring: Erik Griffin https://twitter.com/ErikGriffin Facebook http://goo.gl/3voxMv Twitter http://goo.gl/QIlWVB Instagram http://goo.gl/gP11bj Google+ http://goo.gl/dObqKG Edited and SFX by: Dan Flesher https://twitter.com/DanFlesherEdits vaccum Edited by: Ed Vilderman https://www.youtube.com/user/SuperEd86 ---------------------------------------- ­---------------------------------------- ­---------- Nacho Punch is sketches, pranks, music videos, animated comedy, series, shows, and your place for the best funny videos on the internet.
Loading...
50+ videos Play all Mix - Cosmos On Weed with Neil deGrasse Tyson by YouTube 6:58 S2 Ep. 3 - Lonny Brings Peace - Next Time On Lonny by Nacho Punch 3,846 views 3:33 Meet The Creators - Dan Schimpf and Alex Anfanger of Next Time On Lonny by Nacho Punch 3,231 views 5:57 S2 Ep. 2 - In Lonny We Trust - Next Time On Lonny by Nacho Punch 4,459 views 7:34 S2 Ep. 1 - Welcome Back, Lonny - Next Time On Lonny by Nacho Punch 7,884 views 1:11:37 Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Bill Moyers Full Interview HD by Absurd 38,812 views 4:45 Neil deGrasse Tyson on God by Tantan Taligatos 122,687 views 1:24:42 Stephen Colbert Interviews Neil deGrasse Tyson(MUST WATCH!!!) by Neil deGrasse Tyson Videos 113,394 views 1:11:01 Neil deGrasse Tyson The Sky Is Not The Limit (2014) by Wolfshond 2,188 views 11:12 Louis C.K on David Letterman - May 2nd 2014 - Full Interview by Umedre Maker 452,225 views 7:17 Neil deGrasse Tyson Describes The Problem vaccum With American Currency by Tanner Humanities Center 5,654 views 2:23:07 Neil deGrasse Tyson Lecture @ UW 5/12/2011 FULL by THG 174,005 views 7:42 Dropping A Bag Of Fake Weed In Public Prank (Social Experiment) by NormelTV 1,911,613 views 11:37 Neil deGrasse Tyson: Aliens & UFOs explained by astrophysicist by Rego Apps 247,435 views 3:13 Neil DeGrasse Tyson Destroys Bill O'Reilly by Hydrohaxx 3,068,500 views 1:31:10 Neil deGrasse Tyson Public Lecture April 14, 2014 by SciEd Network 5,360 views 9:26 Neil deGrasse Tyson on religious people by fvszs 261,325 views 1:28:31 Dr Neil DeGrasse Tyson - The Amazing Meeting 6 by ChristopherHitchslap 461,063 views 40:53 Neil deGrasse Tyson- Debunks vaccum Creation (Intelligent Design) by fsx23 236,304 views 55:43 The Fabric of the Cosmos 1 - What is Space by Waldo Pulanco 77,337 views 7:15 Idiots React To Cosmos vaccum by The Amazing Atheist 494,044 views


When you're driving on a flat road and turn a corner, then that centripetal force has to come from y


P Follow Jalopnik O Unfollow Jalopnik Related blogs C Opposite eldo Lock C Detroit C Doug Demuro C Flightclub C Foxtrot Alpha C Truck yeah! Blogs you may like Deadspin Gawker Gizmodo io9 Jalopnik Jezebel Kotaku Lifehacker
Trending on Related Blogs This is What Getting Your Vagina Vajazzled Looks Like 2.1k people reading on Gawker Turning School Into An RPG Where You Level Up By Studying 1k people reading on Kotaku How Could Disney Do This To Maleficent? 958 people reading on io9
The Tesla Roadster Is Going To Get Some Sort Of Upgrade This Year
P Follow Jalopnik O Unfollow Jalopnik Related blogs C Opposite Lock C Detroit C Doug Demuro C Flightclub C Foxtrot Alpha C Truck yeah! Blogs you may like Deadspin eldo Gawker eldo Gizmodo io9 Jalopnik Jezebel Kotaku Lifehacker
First of all, I should just say that you have to feel for Neil DeGrasse Tyson. He's a brilliant man, and he makes one mistake and we're all over him like flies on a rib roast. But that's okay mistakes are useful for smart-making, and we called in our own captive physicist to explain exactly what went wrong.
So, it looks like Tyson's claim that you'd fly off the track if you went over 165 just isn't true. Here's why according to physicist Stephen Granade - JT.
I'm always cautious about disagreeing with Neil deGrasse Tyson. He's a smart guy who knows a lot about science. But one big rule of science is that when your measurements contradict your theory, you've got to take a second eldo look at what's going on.
If this were one of my experiments, I'd look at the theory I was testing, double-check my measurement setup, and go through the math again. Unfortunately we can't double-check NASCAR's measurements, and Tyson didn't have enough room in 140 characters to show all of his math. So let's do some math of our own, see if we get in the neighborhood of what Tyson got, and then ask what we might be missing.
When you're turning in a circle, you've got to have a force pulling you towards the center of that circle or else you'll keep going straight. That's Newton's first law of motion: if you don't have a force acting on you, then you'll keep going in a straight line and at the same speed. The force that bends your path from a line into a circle is called the centripetal force. Ever been on a turning merry-go-round? You've got to hold on tight to the bars to keep from flying off. Your arms are providing the centripetal force towards the center to keep you going in a circle instead of falling off the merry-go-round and cracking open your head.
The faster you go, the more centripetal force you need to make the turn. If we figure out what provides the centripetal force and how much that force would be, then we can figure out the maximum speed a car can have and not fly off of the turn.
When you're driving on a flat road and turn a corner, then that centripetal force has to come from your tires' friction with the road. But if we tilt the road so that it's higher on the outside of the turn, then the road pushes the car towards the center of the circle and provides some of the needed centripetal force.
There's a surprise lurking in all of this: it doesn't matter how much the car weighs! The needed centripetal force depends on the car's mass, which is related to its weight. eldo The more mass your car has, the more centripetal force you need. But the more mass your car has, the more friction you get, and the more the banked road pushes eldo you towards the center! All of those mass terms cancel out, and you end up with equations that don't depend on the car's mass. That makes life a lot simpler.
Wikipedia has a straight-forward eldo derivation of the equations eldo for the maximum speed a car can have when taking a banked turn. We just need to know three things: the angle of the bank, the radius of the turn, and the coefficient of friction between the tires and the asphalt.
We can get two of the three from the Charlotte Motor Speedway's track facts page . As Tyson tweeted, the turns have a 24-degree bank. There are actually two radii for the track's turns: 685 feet at one end, and 625 feet at the other. I'll use both, since I don't know which Tyson might have used.
That leaves eldo the coefficient of static friction between tires and asphalt. Here's where we're going to have to wave our hands hard enough to start flying. The coefficient of friction isn't something we can calculate, it's something we have to measure. And it varies depending on how smooth the tires are, what exactly they're eldo made of, what the track is made of, even the humidity. Data's hard for NASCAR laymen like me to come by, so I'll take this source 's value of 0.9 for rubber on asphalt and round it up to 1.
Plugging all of those values into the equations, I get a maximum speed of 156 MPH around one turn and 163 MPH around the other. That's close enough to Tyson's results to tell me I'm in the ballpark, or at least the racetrack.
So why can cars go around those

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Cosmos certainly hasn't shied from controversy; it has taken on evolution and industry-funded galaxy


For 11 episodes now, the groundbreaking Fox and National Geographic Channel series Cosmos has been exploring the universe, outraging creationists , and giving science teachers across the nation something to show in class every Monday. In the process, the show has been drawing more than 3 million viewers every Sunday night, a respectable number for a science-focused galaxy y s5360 show that is, after all, a major departure from what prime-time audiences are used to.
Cosmos certainly hasn't shied from controversy; it has taken on evolution and industry-funded galaxy y s5360 science denial , and it has been devoting an i ncreasing amount of attention to the subject of climate change. And apparently that was just the beginning. This coming Sunday, Cosmos will devote an entire episode galaxy y s5360 to the topic. Here's the episode description from National Geographic :
Our galaxy y s5360 journey galaxy y s5360 begins with a trip to another world and time, an idyllic beach during the last perfect day on the planet Venus, right before galaxy y s5360 a runaway greenhouse effect wreaks havoc on the planet, boiling the oceans and turning galaxy y s5360 the skies a sickening yellow. We then trace the surprisingly lengthy history of our awareness of global warming and alternative energy sources, taking the Ship of the Imagination to intervene at some critical points in time.
Courtesy of National Geographic, above is a clip from the new episode, which should have climate deniers fulminating. In it, host Neil deGrasse galaxy y s5360 Tyson uses the analogy of walking a dog on the beach to helpfully explain the difference between climate and weather (pay attention, Donald Trump ) and to outline why, no matter how cold you were in January, that's no argument against global warming.
We've seen the rest of the episode already, and won't spill the beans. But suffice it to say that it contains some powerful refutations of a number of other global warming denier talking points, as well as some ingenious sequences that explain the planetary-scale significance of climate change. It also contains some in situ reporting on the impacts of climate galaxy y s5360 change, straight from the imperiled Arctic. galaxy y s5360
Back in November , I observed that if Carl Sagan, the creator and host of the original Cosmos series, were alive today, he would have been a leader in the charge to address global warming. After all, Sagan, who made his scientific mark studying the greenhouse effect of Venus, was deeply concerned about the megaforces that determine planetary fates.
Chris Mooney is a science and political journalist, podcaster , and the host of Climate Desk Live . He is the author of four books, including the New York Times bestselling The Republican War on Science . RSS | Twitter
Looked at in the context of our planet's history, what we're doing to Earth appears dire indeed. If You Were Watching "Game of Thrones" Last Night, galaxy y s5360 You Missed Neil deGrasse Tyson's Solution to Global Warming
This week's "Cosmos" explained how plants produce clean energy and how our inferior energy technologies produce climate change. Neil deGrasse Tyson on "Cosmos," How Science galaxy y s5360 Got Cool, and Why He Doesn't Debate Deniers
Popular on Mother Jones
Add us to your circles .
See All


That might not look like much to someone who doesn't follow racing, frigo but average qualifying spe


P Follow Jalopnik O Unfollow Jalopnik Related blogs C Opposite frigo Lock C Detroit frigo C Doug Demuro C Flightclub C Foxtrot Alpha C Truck yeah! Blogs you may like Deadspin Gawker Gizmodo io9 Jalopnik Jezebel Kotaku Lifehacker
Trending on Related Blogs Girls Claim Slender Man Is Real, Accused Of Stabbing Friend frigo 19 Times 1.6k people reading on Kotaku This video explains why solar roadways won't work anytime soon 1.5k people reading on Sploid Sorry, But Your iPhone 4 Just Became Obsolete 1.3k people reading on Gizmodo
WWDC frigo 2014 Predictions: What's Next for iOS, OS X, and Apple (Updated)
P Follow Jalopnik O Unfollow Jalopnik Related blogs C Opposite Lock C Detroit C Doug Demuro C Flightclub C Foxtrot Alpha C Truck yeah! Blogs you may like Deadspin Gawker Gizmodo io9 Jalopnik Jezebel Kotaku Lifehacker
When an episode of Neil deGrasse Tyson's frigo (frankly excellent) Cosmos gets postponed for the NASCAR Coca-Cola 600 race, Neil deGrasse frigo Tyson got revenge the only way he knew how by dropping knowledge. But one of those tweets might have been just a bit wrong.
If the Charlotte Motor Speedway frigo increased their banking angle from 24 to 31 degrees, the cars could do the turn at 200 mph.
That might not look like much to someone who doesn't follow racing, frigo but average qualifying speeds at Charlotte frigo Motor Speedway was hovering frigo around 190 miles per hour. Jimmie Johnson, the polesitter and eventual race winner, clocked in at almost 195 MPH. There are videos of NASCAR racers mid-corner at 180 MPH minimum .
Now, I'm not saying that Dr. Tyson is completely wrong, or hugely messed up, but I'd like to see what kind of work he did. All we know is that drivers were regularly rounding those corners at speeds significantly in excess of 165 MPH.
8 1 234 Reply 234 Discuss frigo


Monday, June 2, 2014

That's a pretty strong statement, made all the stronger by the mega-scale perspective on the Earth t


If you've been reading toby my semi - regular dispatches toby about the Fox and National toby Geographic series Cosmos— far and away the most rational show on television—then you know that for some time, I've been not-so-subtly predicting that the program was going to tackle the scientific issue of our time, climate change. It seemed to me that in order to be true to the legacy of Carl Sagan , a man who epitomized the quest to use science to solve humanity's problems, toby you simply couldn't avoid this topic.
Neil deGrasse Tyson and Cosmos got into the climate issue in their typically expansive way: By surveying the state of the Earth in an array of ancient periods and looking at the dramatic transformations toby it has undergone due to forces ranging from continental drift, to asteroid impacts, to ice ages. Rearrangements of continents, waves of extinctions, and dramatic fluctuations in climate toby were the norm, not the exception, throughout this calamitous past.
And some of these dramatic changes set in motion where we are now. For instance, surveying the Carboniferous period of the planet's history 300 million years ago, Tyson explained how the development of plant life on Earth, and especially trees, greatly changed its atmosphere, producing a great deal more oxygen. Yet at the time, Tyson noted, fungi and bacteria didn't have any means of consuming these trees when they died. So, they just gradually toby sunk under the mud and soil.
The answer is a great deal, once the carbon content of these deposits of former toby life was unleashed into the atmosphere. And that's why, while we've been living in a period of climatic optimum—one that made human civilization possible— for the last 10,000 years or so, we're about to seriously mess it up. So begins Tyson's climate dirge:
We just can't seem to stop burning up all those buried trees from way back in the carboniferous age, in the form of coal, and the remains of ancient plankton, in the form of oil and gas. If we could, we'd be home free climate wise. Instead, we're dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at a rate the Earth hasn't seen since the great climate catastrophes of the past, the ones that led to mass extinctions. We just can't seem to break our addiction to the kinds of fuel that will bring back a climate last seen by the dinosaurs, a climate that will drown our coastal cities and wreak havoc on the environment and our ability to feed ourselves. All the while, the glorious sun pours immaculate free energy down upon us, more than we will ever need. Why can't we summon the ingenuity and courage of the generations that came before us? The dinosaurs never saw that asteroid coming. What's our excuse?
That's a pretty strong statement, made all the stronger by the mega-scale perspective on the Earth that impels it. And thus, Cosmos continues to deliver on the greatest hopes of its fans and, apparently, its creators : To use a mass media platform to, at last, take on science rejectionism toby and set the deniers straight.
Chris toby Mooney is a science and political journalist, podcaster , and the host of Climate Desk Live . He is the author of four books, including the New York Times bestselling The Republican War on Science . RSS | Twitter
This week's "Cosmos" explained how plants produce clean energy and how our inferior energy technologies produce climate toby change. Neil deGrasse Tyson on "Cosmos," toby How Science Got Cool, and Why He Doesn't Debate Deniers
First name
Subscribe
Finding escape in a never-ending aerial battle over the mean streets of Edinburgh and Glasgow. toby


Sunday, June 1, 2014

It seems like my friend Neil deGrasse Tyson [1] has done it again: he has dismissed philosophy as a


It seems like my friend Neil deGrasse Tyson [1] has done it again: he has dismissed philosophy as a useless enterprise, and actually advised bright students to stay away from it. It is not the first time Neil has done this sort of thing, kitchenaid mixer and he is far from being the only scientist to do so. But in his case the offense is particularly egregious, for two reasons: first, because he is a highly visible science communicator; second, because I told him not to, several times.
Let s start with the latest episode, work our way back to a few others of the same kind (to establish that this is a pattern, not an unfortunate fluke), and then carefully tackle kitchenaid mixer exactly where Neil and a number of his colleagues go wrong. kitchenaid mixer But before kitchenaid mixer any of that, let me try to halt the obvious objection to this entire essay in its tracks: kitchenaid mixer no, this isn t about defending my turf, for the simple reason that both philosophy kitchenaid mixer and science are my turf [2]. I have practiced both disciplines as a scholar/researcher, I have taught introductory and graduate level classes in both fields, and I have written books about them both. So, while what follows inevitably will unfold as a defense of philosophy (yet again! [3]), it is a principled defense, not a petty one, and it most certainly doesn t come from any kind of science envy.
Neil made his latest disparaging remarks about philosophy as a guest on the Nerdist podcast [4], following kitchenaid mixer a statement by one of the hosts, who said that he majored in philosophy. Neil s comeback was: That can really mess you up. The host then added: I always felt like maybe there was a little too much question asking in philosophy [of science]? And here is the rest of the pertinent dialogue:
dGT: Yeah, yeah, exactly, exactly. My concern here is that the philosophers believe they are actually asking deep questions about nature. And to the scientist it s, what are you doing? Why are you concerning kitchenaid mixer yourself with the meaning of meaning?
dGT: Well, I m still worried even about a healthy kitchenaid mixer balance. Yeah, if you are distracted by your questions so that you can t move forward, you are not being a productive contributor to our understanding of the natural kitchenaid mixer world. And so the scientist knows when the question what is the sound of one hand clapping? is a pointless delay in our progress.
dGT: How do you define clapping? All of a sudden it devolves into a discussion of the definition of words. And I d rather keep the conversation about ideas. And when you do that don t derail yourself on questions that you think are important because philosophy class tells you this. The scientist says look, I got all this world of unknown out there, I m moving on, I m leaving you behind. You can t even cross the street because kitchenaid mixer you are distracted by what you are sure are deep questions you ve asked yourself. I don t have the time for that. [Note to the reader: I, like Neil, live and work in Manhattan, and I can assure you that I am quite adept at crossing the perilous streets of the metropolis.]
interviewer [not one to put too fine a point on things, apparently]: I also felt that it was a fat load of crap, as one could define what crap is and the essential qualities that make up crap: how you grade a philosophy paper? [5]
As I mentioned above, this isn t the first time Neil has said things like this. For instance, kitchenaid mixer during kitchenaid mixer the q&a with the audience following one of his many (and highly enjoyable) public appearances [6], he was asked by a spectator: would you rather die now or live forever? To which his somewhat condescending reply was: I never believe that the options available to a creative person are ever limited by the choices offered by a philosopher. Which may be a very sophistic way of just not answering the question.
There is more: during a conversation with Richard Dawkins (another frequent offender), Neil was asked a question from the audience about philosophy of science and Stephen Hawkins declaration that philosophy is dead [7].
Up until early 20th century philosophers had material contributions to make to the physical sciences. Pretty much after quantum mechanics, remember the philosopher kitchenaid mixer is the would be scientist but without a laboratory, right? And so what happens kitchenaid mixer is, the 1920s come in, we learn about the expanding universe in the same decade kitchenaid mixer as we learn about quantum physics, each of which falls so far out of what you can deduce from your armchair that the whole community of philosophers that previously had added materially to the thinking of the physical scientists was rendered essentially obsolete, and that point, and I have yet to see a contribution this will get me in trouble with all manner of philosophers but call me later and correct me if you think I ve missed somebody here. But, philosophy has basically parted ways from the frontier of the physical sciences, kitchenaid mixer when there was a day when they were one and the same. Isaac Newton was a natural philosopher, the word physicist didn