Anyone else find the concept of the big bang laughable?
The more I think about it the more utterly comical it becomes. I've tried so hard to believe in it and to give it a fair shot but I picture it in my mind and then think about the beautiful earth we live on and just can't, it's too absurd. Really, the huge bodies of water came from an egg-sized ball of matter? I'm trying to envision how the earth or the universe could possible form from a random blast. I got nothing, guess I don't have that sort of faith.
Did you watch the original Cosmos series?
Yes. When they showed it in the UK I found it rather bitty and shapeless, and I thought the use of music and graphics was unhelpful and messy. The unappealing, excessive, ill-considered decoration got in the way of the material that was being presented, which was frustratingly general.I’d have preferred to just see and hear Carl Sagan talking at greater lengh and in more depth, with a few telescope images and basic graphics and clips of astronomers at work. Sagan’s words (more of them, with more detail) presented in the appealing but restrained style of the BBC’s Horizon strand at that time would have been great.Just the facts, ma’am - they don’t need a lot of badly-judged dressing up. There’s nothing inspiring about a pretend-spaceship set and clouds of dry ice.
Can someone PLEASE explain " the cosmic background radiation during first million yrs"?
In cosmology, the cosmic microwave background radiation (most often abbreviated CMB but occasionally CMBR, CBR or MBR, also referred as relic radiation) is a form of electromagnetic radiation discovered in 1965 that fills the entire universe. It has a thermal 2.725 kelvin black body spectrum which peaks in the microwave range at a frequency of 160.2 GHz, corresponding to a wavelength of 1.9 mm. Most cosmologists consider this radiation to be the best evidence for the big bang model of the universe. If you tune your TV set between channels, a few percent of the "snow" that you see on your screen is noise caused by the background of microwaves. We believe that the very early Universe was very hot and dense. At an early enough time it was so hot, ie there was so much energy around, that pairs of particles and anti-particles were continually being created and annihilated again. This annihilation makes pure energy, which means particles of light - photons. As the Universe expanded and the temperature fell the particles and anti-particles (quarks and the like) annihilated each other for the last time, and the energies were low enough that they couldn't be recreated again. For some reason (that still isn't well understood) the early Universe had about one part in a billion more particles than anti-particles. So when all the anti-particles had annihilated all the particles, that left about a billion photons for every particle of matter. And that's the way the Universe is today! So the photons that we observe in the cosmic microwave background were created in the first minute or so of the history of the Universe. Subsequently they cooled along with the expansion of the Universe, and eventually they can be observed today with a temperature of about 2.73 Kelvin.
Why was there no season 2 of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, with Neil deGrasse Tyson?
Well, now there will be. In spring of 2019! Yayyy :DTweet by astrophysicist NdGT regarding the same.Fox and National have announced that the series will return in the spring of 2019. Astrophysicist and science communicator Neil deGrasse Tyson will return as the series' host.A book "Cosmos: Possible Worlds" will accompany the second season of the TV series "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey."Image source: National geographic channelA brief up of the series."Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey" is a follow-on to the 1980 TV series "Cosmos: A Personal Voyage," which was co-created and hosted by the late astronomer and science popularizer Carl Sagan. Sagan's widow and frequent collaborator, Ann Druyan, was a writer on the original series and created the new iteration of "Cosmos." She will also return for the second season as an executive producer and writer.So you guys better get ready, it’s gonna be awesome show, yet again!“In the vastness of space and the immensity of time, the number of worlds to explore and stories to tell are virtually infinite.” ♡^_^
Macro Cosmos vs. Madolche Chateau Ruling?
Here is what I am wondering, say that I had set Macro Cosmos down for the turn my opponent went through with their turn ect. Then I drew Madolche Chateau and played both cards when I already had a Madolche monster. I finish out my turn and my opponent attack my monster that is face up, my question is would Chateau take precedence over Cosmos due to both the monster and the field spell effects. Here are what both cards read: Macro Cosmos: When this card resolves: You can Special Summon 1 "Helios - The Primordial Sun" from your hand or Deck. While this card is face-up on the field, any card sent to the Graveyard is banished instead. Madolche Chateau: When this card is activated: Shuffle all "Madolche" monsters in your Graveyard into the Deck. All "Madolche" monsters on the field gain 500 ATK and DEF. If a monster(s) in your Graveyard would be returned to the Deck by the effect of a "Madolche" monster, you can add it to your hand instead. If I could get an answer to this it would be awesome thanks~!