• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Dark Matter.

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟200,004.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
I was referring to you forever harping on about "affirming the consequent fallacy". It is only a fallacy in formal logic.

If somebody's finger prints are found on a murder weapon, should the jury reject that as evidence that the person on trial is the murderer, because, after all, it doesn't directly imply that the defendant is the murderer?


But you haven't found any fingerprints. Or a weapon, just the body.

You have a force at work that the cosmological community fails to understand that they attribute to exotic particles. Yet every test for those claimed exotic particles has come up empty handed, and all the while they give no consideration to what makes up 99% of the universe, and in the laboratory produces those same gamma rays they are attributing to a particle that has failed every single laboratory test.

They continue to ignore the results of their own experiments, continue to ignore the botched mass estimates, and continue to ignore plasma, 99% of the universe. Even though that same plasma has produced those very gamma rays in laboratory experiments.

If you actually had evidence it might be another thing, but the only evidence you have points to plasma as the guilty suspect. Every other experiment you have performed has exonerated dark matter as a suspect.
 
Upvote 0

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,654
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟127,077.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
You have a force at work that the cosmological community fails to understand

Oh sure. They doubtless slept through all the relevant lectures when they were physics undergraduates.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟343,148.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Oh sure. They doubtless slept through all the relevant lectures when they were physics undergraduates.

I gotta tell ya......

After my whole discussion at JREF over "magnetic reconnection in a vacuum", I'm really starting to wonder how many of them actually have a clue about plasma physics. Over a period of *months* not one of their resident hot shots pointed out or noticed that "magnetic reconnection" requires plasma and plasma particle acceleration. Honestly, it was a completely surreal conversation. If they do understand anything at all about plasma physics, it's mostly related to what Alfven called 'pseudoscience' and none of them understand the term at the level of actual *physics*. I'm pretty sure that sol 'got it', but he didn't help any either. Everyone else that posts there was *clueless* about plasma physics as far as I can tell.

It seems to me that astronomers understand *GR* theory, and *only* GR theory, and therefor they naively and stubbornly try to use it like a sledgehammer to attempt to explain every behavior in plasma with GR. As a result they need 95 percent supernatural gap filler to explain even 'naturally occurring' gamma rays in ordinary electrical discharges. :doh:

From my travels around the internet, I see little or no evidence that most of them even understand MHD theory very well from the B or 'magnetic/field' orientation. I'm certain that most of them know *absolutely nothing* about the E or particle side of plasma physics. They certainly couldn't put them together at the point of "reconnection'. Sorry, I've been around the block and your 'experts' are not experts on plasma or plasma particle behaviors. What little they do know about "physics" seems to be strictly related to a completely kludged up, supernatural brand of "blunder' theory. :(
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟200,004.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Oh sure. They doubtless slept through all the relevant lectures when they were physics undergraduates.

And how many of those astronomers do you think actually took a plasma physics course, since it is not even required in astronomy. Which is quite odd since 99% of the universe is plasma.

Of course, magnetic reconnection theory is pseudoscience to begin with. We only have 200 + years of experimental evidence with magnetic fields, that astronomers have of course ignored.

Magnetic Field Characteristics
"They never cross one another."

Magnetic Field Lines Crossing
"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Magnetic field lines indicate the direction of the magnetic field, which is always tangent to a field line. If the lines crossed, the magnetic field would be pointing in two directions at the point of crossing. Apart from being logically unpleasant, it would mean that the magnetic force on a charged particle passing through that point, which must be perpendicular to the magnetic field, would be in two different directions at the same time.

The same arguments work for electric field lines. It's easier to see there, since the electric force on a charged particle is in the direction of the electric field.

Best, Dick Plano, Professor of Physics emeritus, Rutgers University "
[/FONT]

Q & A: Magnetic field lines | Department of Physics | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
"The magnetic field in the center of that thing will be zero, but magnetic field lines will point in towards the center from the left and right, and field lines will point away from the center up and down. So even here they don't actually cross."

electromagnetism - Can the magnetic lines of force of two or more magnets intersect each other? - Physics Stack Exchange

Only in astronomy, and in no other science are magnetic field lines real and able to cross one another.

Field line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"A field line is a locus that is defined by a vector field and a starting location within the field. Field lines are useful for visualizing vector fields, which are otherwise hard to depict. Note that, like longitude and latitude lines on a globe, or topographic lines on a topographic map, these lines are not physical lines that are actually present at certain locations; they are merely visualization tools."

Magnetic Fields and Magnetic Field Lines
"Extensive exploration of magnetic fields has revealed a number of hard-and-fast rules. We use magnetic field lines to represent the field (the lines are a pictorial tool, not a physical entity in and of themselves). The properties of magnetic field lines can be summarized by these rules:

The direction of the magnetic field is tangent to the field line at any point in space. A small compass will point in the direction of the field line.
The strength of the field is proportional to the closeness of the lines. It is exactly proportional to the number of lines per unit area perpendicular to the lines (called the areal density).
Magnetic field lines can never cross, meaning that the field is unique at any point in space.
Magnetic field lines are continuous, forming closed loops without beginning or end. They go from the north pole to the south pole."


But astronomers have a poor grasp on actual physics beyond their Fairie Dust theories. Apparently they did indeed sleep through any physics classes they did take, since they apply supernatural processes to magnetic fields, even considering mere visualization tools such as force lines drawn on paper as actual entities. Processes that contradict over 200 + years of actual experimentation. But laboratory evidence has never stopped them, after all, they ignore their own laboratory experiments that has falsified dark matter, their own studies that showed they underestimated the mass by a factor of at least 20, and continue on as if all is well in wonderland.


They are as good at ignoring actual physics in favor of Fairie Dust as you are. Just as I expect you to continue to ignore 200 + years of laboratory research....
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟200,004.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
No there is no evidence at all in your observations with telescopes. You're playing another "affirming the consequent fallacy with your invisible friend* game. It's no better than claiming that dark god did it.

Electrical discharges occur around *every* large body in this solar system with a thick atmosphere. They *naturally* produce gamma rays, x-rays and emit positrons, including right here in the Earth's atmosphere.

They could just take the "natural" solution, but *noooooooooo*! They simply point at the very same observations related to discharges in our own atmosphere and claim "dark god did it"! That's just pathetic IMO.

That CDM paper from 2006 was falsified 7 times in following 8 years.


Well we all know nature doesn't do things naturally, or it seems the easiest way as it does here on earth.

And lets not forget all the new mass just discovered in their incorrect galaxy cluster computations. 43%, that's quite a bit when you also add in all that mass from stars and (hate to use the word) gas they got incorrect as well.

Monster 'El Gordo' galaxy cluster is bigger than thought -- ScienceDaily

But funny how I haven't seen one revision in Dark matter estimates come out since all this newly discovered mass came about along with all the rest since 2006.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟200,004.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
I want evidence that 99.999% of the universe is plasma. Did you create a universe in a lab?

Think about it. The sun contains 99.86% of all the mass of our solar system.

Sun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So .24% of our solar system is non-plasma. Every galaxy contains billions of stars. Almost all of the gas in space is ionized, it's how we detect it.

Plasma (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Plasmas are by far the most common phase of ordinary matter in the universe, both by mass and by volume.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)#cite_note-16 Our Sun, and all stars, are made of plasma, much of interstellar space is filled with a plasma, albeit a very sparse one, and intergalactic space too. In our solar system, interplanetary space is filled with the plasma of the Solar Wind that extends from the Sun out to the heliopause."


"It is often stated that more than 99% of the material in the visible universe is plasma. See, for example, Gurnett, D. A. and Bhattacharjee, A. (2005). Introduction to Plasma Physics: With Space and Laboratory Applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-521-36483-6. and Scherer, K; Fichtner, H and Heber, B (2005). Space Weather: The Physics Behind a Slogan. Berlin: Springer. p. 138. ISBN 978-3-540-22907-0.. Essentially, all of the visible light from space comes from stars, which are plasmas with a temperature such that they radiate strongly at visible wavelengths. Most of the ordinary (or baryonic) matter in the universe, however, is found in the intergalactic medium, which is also a plasma, but much hotter, so that it radiates primarily as X-rays."


But if you don't understand that plasma is 99% of the universe, you are just fooling yourself.
 
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟39,975.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Think about it. The sun contains 99.86% of all the mass of our solar system.

Sun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So .24% of our solar system is non-plasma. Every galaxy contains billions of stars. Almost all of the gas in space is ionized, it's how we detect it.
Still 99.9999% of our solar system is empty space. Where is the plasma?

Plasma (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Plasmas are by far the most common phase of ordinary matter in the universe, both by mass and by volume.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)#cite_note-16 Our Sun, and all stars, are made of plasma, much of interstellar space is filled with a plasma, albeit a very sparse one, and intergalactic space too. In our solar system, interplanetary space is filled with the plasma of the Solar Wind that extends from the Sun out to the heliopause."


"It is often stated that more than 99% of the material in the visible universe is plasma. See, for example, Gurnett, D. A. and Bhattacharjee, A. (2005). Introduction to Plasma Physics: With Space and Laboratory Applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-521-36483-6. and Scherer, K; Fichtner, H and Heber, B (2005). Space Weather: The Physics Behind a Slogan. Berlin: Springer. p. 138. ISBN 978-3-540-22907-0.. Essentially, all of the visible light from space comes from stars, which are plasmas with a temperature such that they radiate strongly at visible wavelengths. Most of the ordinary (or baryonic) matter in the universe, however, is found in the intergalactic medium, which is also a plasma, but much hotter, so that it radiates primarily as X-rays."


But if you don't understand that plasma is 99% of the universe, you are just fooling yourself.
On the contrary; it is you who is mistaken. 99.9999% of the universe is empty space. You have no evidence that this empty space is comprised of plasma. You are the pot calling the kettle black when you accuse the mainstream of not having evidence.

Now where is the evidence of your claim?
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟200,004.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
The sad thing is that astronomers go against their own theory, believing that plasma is formed from ordinary matter, when in reality ordinary matter is formed from plasma. This is confirmed in their own theory of the Big Bang.

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10−37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#cite_note-guth-27 After inflation stopped, the universe consisted of a quark–gluon plasma, as well as all other elementary particles.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#cite_note-28 Temperatures were so high that the random motions of particles were at relativistic speeds, and particle–antiparticle pairs of all kinds were being continuously created and destroyed in collisions. At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and antileptons—of the order of one part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present universe. The universe continued to decrease in density and fall in temperature, hence the typical energy of each particle was decreasing. Symmetry breaking phase transitions put the fundamental forces of physics and the parameters of elementary particles into their present form.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#cite_note-kolb_c7-31 After about 10−11 seconds, the picture becomes less speculative, since particle energies drop to values that can be attained in particle physics experiments. At about 10−6 seconds, quarks and gluons combined to form baryons such as protons and neutrons."

So plasma was actually the first state of matter, and as it cools it condenses into ordinary matter, protons, neutrons, solids, liquids and gasses. And after supposedly 14 billion years 99% of it is still in the plasma state. Still cooling and forming new galaxies, stars and planets. So everything you see in the universe was originally formed from plasma.

So just why is it again astronomers give such little regard to plasma and how it behaves? Perhaps to continue to promote their Fairie Dust theories? There isn't one thing in existence that wasn't formed from plasma.

Sort of like being an oceanographer and ignoring water in all of your theories about how the ocean behaves. One would end up needing 96% supernatural gap-fillers to explain it since they ignored 99% of what makes it up.

It's no different with astronomy. They ignore plasma and how it behaves and then require 96% gap-fillers to make up for what they ignore. Even when they themselves admit it was the first form of matter and that 99% of the universe is composed of it. Then they turn right around and treat it as nothing but a gas in their math, and are continuously surprised when the math fails and they need to stack the deck with ad-hoc gap-fillers to make it fit a semblance of reality.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟200,004.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
The sad thing is that astronomers go against their own theory, believing that plasma is formed from ordinary matter, when in reality ordinary matter is formed from plasma. This is confirmed in their own theory of the Big Bang.

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10−37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially. After inflation stopped, the universe consisted of a quark–gluon plasma, as well as all other elementary particles. Temperatures were so high that the random motions of particles were at relativistic speeds, and particle–antiparticle pairs of all kinds were being continuously created and destroyed in collisions. At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and antileptons—of the order of one part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present universe. The universe continued to decrease in density and fall in temperature, hence the typical energy of each particle was decreasing. Symmetry breaking phase transitions put the fundamental forces of physics and the parameters of elementary particles into their present form. After about 10−11 seconds, the picture becomes less speculative, since particle energies drop to values that can be attained in particle physics experiments. At about 10−6 seconds, quarks and gluons combined to form baryons such as protons and neutrons."

So plasma was actually the first state of matter, and as it cools it condenses into ordinary matter, protons, neutrons, solids, liquids and gasses. And after supposedly 14 billion years 99% of it is still in the plasma state. Still cooling and forming new galaxies, stars and planets. So everything you see in the universe was originally formed from plasma.

So just why is it again astronomers give such little regard to plasma and how it behaves? Perhaps to continue to promote their Fairie Dust theories? There isn't one thing in existence that wasn't formed from plasma.

Sort of like being an oceanographer and ignoring water in all of your theories about how the ocean behaves. One would end up needing 96% supernatural gap-fillers to explain it since they ignored 99% of what makes it up.

It's no different with astronomy. They ignore plasma and how it behaves and then require 96% gap-fillers to make up for what they ignore. Even when they themselves admit it was the first form of matter and that 99% of the universe is composed of it. Then they turn right around and treat it as nothing but a gas in their math, and are continuously surprised when the math fails and they need to stack the deck with ad-hoc gap-fillers to make it fit a semblance of reality.

Astronomy today is a voyage through the fertile imaginations of the mind, divorced from any connection to the lab.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟39,975.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The sad thing is that astronomers go against their own theory, believing that plasma is formed from ordinary matter, when in reality ordinary matter is formed from plasma. This is confirmed in their own theory of the Big Bang.
in the present universe. The universe continued to decrease in density and fall in temperature, hence the typical energy of each particle was decreasing. into their present form. After about 10−11 seconds, the picture becomes less speculative, since particle energies drop to values that can be attained in such as protons and neutrons."

So plasma was actually the first state of matter, and as it cools it condenses into ordinary matter, protons, neutrons, solids, liquids and gasses. And after supposedly 14 billion years 99% of it is still in the plasma state. Still cooling and forming new galaxies, stars and planets. So everything you see in the universe was originally formed from plasma.

So just why is it again astronomers give such little regard to plasma and how it behaves? Perhaps to continue to promote their Fairie Dust theories? There isn't one thing in existence that wasn't formed from plasma.

Sort of like being an oceanographer and ignoring water in all of your theories about how the ocean behaves. One would end up needing 96% supernatural gap-fillers to explain it since they ignored 99% of what makes it up.

It's no different with astronomy. They ignore plasma and how it behaves and then require 96% gap-fillers to make up for what they ignore. Even when they themselves admit it was the first form of matter and that 99% of the universe is composed of it. Then they turn right around and treat it as nothing but a gas in their math, and are continuously surprised when the math fails and they need to stack the deck with ad-hoc gap-fillers to make it fit a semblance of reality.

Astronomy today is a voyage through the fertile imaginations of the mind, divorced from any connection to the lab.
You have yet to give evidence of how EU theory explains the formation of galaxies. What is it with the Wikipedia links? Don't you have any peer reviewed papers?
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟200,004.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
You have yet to give evidence of how EU theory explains the formation of galaxies. What is it with the Wikipedia links? Don't you have any peer reviewed papers?


Why? You will just not read it and ask for the same thing as if it wasn't given like you did the last 3 times in another thread.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7812628-10/#post65301441

http://www.christianforums.com/t7812628-11/#post65308009



But here, once again for the 4th time.



Galaxy formation - (The Plasma Universe Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia)

http://www.plasmauniverse.info/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-II.pdf

Experimental Study of Plasmoids

On the evolution of interacting, magnetized, galactic plasmas

Rotation Velocity and Neutral Hydrogen Distribution Dependency on Magnetic Field



Having no peer reviewed papers didn't stop you from accepting Relativity. Einstein has only 1 peer reviewed paper out of the 100 he submitted. And the paper he submitted on gravitational waves was rejected.
 
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟39,975.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Why? You will just not read it and ask for the same thing as if it wasn't given like you did the last 3 times in another thread.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7812628-10/#post65301441

http://www.christianforums.com/t7812628-11/#post65308009



But here, once again for the 4th time.



Galaxy formation - (The Plasma Universe Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia)

http://www.plasmauniverse.info/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-II.pdf

Experimental Study of Plasmoids

On the evolution of interacting, magnetized, galactic plasmas

Rotation Velocity and Neutral Hydrogen Distribution Dependency on Magnetic Field



Having no peer reviewed papers didn't stop you from accepting Relativity. Einstein has only 1 peer reviewed paper out of the 100 he submitted. And the paper he submitted on gravitational waves was rejected.
Einstein? You do realise that GR, SR, QM, and physics have progressed exponentially since Einstein?
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Einstein? You do realise that GR, SR, QM, and physics have progressed exponentially since Einstein?

What justa keeps ignoring is that Einstein's work was mostly done before the era of peer review.

And what is even more important that the paper of his that was rejected was rejected for a very good reason.

He was wrong in that instance.

justa has a typical creationist all or nothing mentality.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟343,148.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Still 99.9999% of our solar system is empty space. Where is the plasma?

No, *none* of it is really "empty" space. It all has plasma *and* neutrinos *and* photons traveling through each amount of "space" in the solar system. It's *never* empty.

On the contrary; it is you who is mistaken. 99.9999% of the universe is empty space. You have no evidence that this empty space is comprised of plasma. You are the pot calling the kettle black when you accuse the mainstream of not having evidence.

Again however, it's *not* empty. It's simply "area" that has mass/energy passing through it in each moment of every single day.

Now where is the evidence of your claim?

Based on neutrino counts alone, what is your evidence that any "space" in this solar system is truly ever "empty" as you claim?
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟343,148.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Michael, you never told me what you thought of the video about Nothing. Any comments? Even if you disagree with the contents at the least what do you think of Jim Al Khalili as a presenter compared to Tyson? :wave:

I haven't been through the whole thing yet but I plan to finish it up tonight. I like his style, and it's refreshing not to be offended by irrelevant, and unrelated religious content. :thumbsup: I must say, I like his style quite a bit, even if I don't buy into the mainstream dogma coming from his mouth anymore than coming from Tyson's lips. :)

I must admit I see your point about style and in terms of the "improvement" in terms of sticking to the topic. Very professionally done so far. Double thumbs up. :thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟39,975.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I haven't been through the whole thing yet but I plan to finish it up tonight. I like his style, and it's refreshing not to be offended by irrelevant, and unrelated religious content. :thumbsup: I must say, I like his style quite a bit, even if I don't buy into the mainstream dogma coming from his mouth anymore than coming from Tyson's lips. :)

I must admit I see your point about style and in terms of the "improvement" in terms of sticking to the topic. Very professionally done so far. Double thumbs up. :thumbsup::thumbsup:
I am happy you like it. Also the first part is called Everything. I can find the link if you want. Another great documentary of his is about mathematics. This person is so interesting to hear. :wave:
 
Upvote 0