Q1/ Can he help me get my head around the expansion of space and time after the big bang apparently happening faster than the speed of light ? Is the faster-than-light thing real, or is it some consequence of everything moving at the speed of light after the instantiation of the universe causing some weird time dilatation thing that makes it appear that the universe expanded at a rate faster than light speed ? Did time effectively slow down as we now observe it because of all of the relativistic light speed energy streaming out in all directions ?

Q2/ Dark matter - Call me crazy, but could "dark matter" actually be light photons and other electromagnetic radiations filling the universe ? There is apparently a huge amount of unaccounted for "mass" within the known universe that affects things. But we know that light, x-rays, gamma rays, ultraviolet light and microwaves, etc, impart energy on objects they encounter. Energy and mass are interchangeable aren't they ? Is it possible that the stuff we don't "see" and call dark matter is actually all of the radiated electromagnetic radiation filling the universe ? If not, then what is the likely nature of "dark matter"

Q3/ As a science educator, does Dr Tyson view the fact that nearly half of his countrymen and women believe the literal interpretation of the Biblical genesis over the science of evolution as something to despair over or does it increase his resolve to keep trying to educate the ignorant masses ?

1) Dr. Tyson, what is your opinion on string-theory, is it really deserving of being called a "theory" rather than a "hypothesis?"

2) Secondly, is there any possible conceivable way of how Physicists can answer the question of what came before the Big Bang, and more importantly, if there is any merit in the Multi-Verse/Parallel Universe theories?

Is pop-culture starting to get it 'right' when it comes to science? Last year we had Avatar which didn't seem to have much scientific basis, but we also had 'Moon'. Did you see that film?

What do you do to unwind?

Can you say, "Billions and billions" and make yourself sound like Carl Sagan?

Seriously....

Is human extinction a profound likelihood, especially now that progress toward possible colonisation of the moon and Mars has stalled (with funding for Constellation Program excluded from 2011 US federal budget)?

Are you still down on RD as too militant, or have you come to see the benefit of a few "in your face" atheists as catalysts to raise consciousness?

Heh, heh, loaded question, but I am sort of curious.

1) Is it possible that complex life evolved in the oceans of Europa? Could we find it out with an unmanned mission, e.g. a robot who digs a hole there and goes "ice-fishing"?

2) Are there plans to get some samples from the orange organic rain on Titan back to earth?

3) 4 billion years ago Mars was a wet and warm planet and 4 billion years ago is also the time when life arose on Earth, coincidence? Or is it possible that life arose on Mars first and was carried to Earth, e.g. via meteorites?

4) Apart from the infamous "Wow! signal" from 1977, are you aware of other promising "beacon" signals that were detected since then? Were none of those detections repeatable?

5) Will spectroscopy be able to detect advanced civilizations via biological and technological footprints on other planets over the next 5-10 years?

6) Are there plans to try and terraform Mars in the future?

7) I've seen the LightSail program of the Planetary Society of which you are a member of the advisory board. Could you please tell us about this exciting project?

8) And for those who do not know about the Planetary Society, could you say a few words about the benefits of joining?

Have you any plans to create a deGrasse Tyson Foundation to promote science and rationality, and if so do you want some help setting up a discussion forum?

Just bookmarking this thread.

I've got a few questions in mind, but I'll have to read though and see what other people have put first.

"Carl Sagan: Great man or greatest man?"

I have often heard the term "mathematically beautiful" or "simple and elegant" describing some theory in physics or cosmology/astronomy.
It is also often heard that physicists will prefer a more simple/elegant/beautiful mathematical description from another one, what is actually meant by this?

Do we have examples where mathematical models which were simpler/more elegant/more beautiful replaced "lesser" ones. Is there some kind of reasoning behind this which validates this preference?

Anybody seen this?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0e6_1261066121
What a cool guy

akigr8 wrote::lol: Anybody seen this?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0e6_1261066121
What a cool guy

Mega nerd.... but I love it!

akigr8 wrote::lol: Anybody seen this?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0e6_1261066121
What a cool guy

Ain't he cute.

"What is your take on the multiverse theory and how would it impact on our view of the universe if shown to be true?"

Not a science question, but maybe relevant for us: Could you expand on your views about education as mentioned to Prof. Dawkins here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik
I'm not asking if this was offensive or anything, Dawkins' response was only meant in fun I think, and recieved as such, but I'd like to hear more of Mr. Tyson's views on the subject.

shh wrote:I'd like to hear more of Mr. Tyson's views on the subject.

same here

akigr8 wrote::lol: Anybody seen this?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0e6_1261066121
What a cool guy

Wow! I want one of those.

A shame about all the silly laughing, though.