It's so embarrassing it took me so long. But I finally realized a lesson from 2D world. We go through life taking depth for granted. We take our 3 dimensions for granted. But as we developed from childhood, we actually had to get used to measuring the parallax with our eyes. Although we can tell distance, and experience 3D, it is only due to our brains processing of this parallax.

Recognizing this, I suppose an intriguing lesson from it all would be that you and I learned how to interpret a dimension higher than what is actually visually experiencial to us. Since we can interpret our interactions with reality as rooted in 3 spacial dimensions, it doesn't necessarily mean that you must close off your problem solving skills to attempt to scientifically deduce higher numbers of spacial dimensions.

Flatland was such an extraordinary lesson for human perception and scientific reasoning. I can't believe it took me so long!

Edit: I'm curious what your take on this thought experiment is.

What is the "Japanese/Irinese tower" in series 4, Cosmos: Possible Words?
Time mark: 00:04:22. Its described as old housing with the oldest ledder in the world.
Smth like 5000 years before Egipt Piramids.

Many thanks for all replyings!

I’ve been reading Neil Degrasse Tysons book “Astrophysics for People in a Hurry” now I know I’m probably wrong. But dark matter be a sort of scaffolding on the universe? Ever expanding but at the same time keeps everything in place/ in orbit around the next biggest object?

First off I would like to Preface that I watched Carl Sagan's Cosmos: A Personal Voyage several times while from around 2011 to 2013. I was a music industry student studying commercial songwriting at the time and the spiritual aspect of the show connected with me and influenced me to pursue STEM as my path of study instead. I'm one of the many people who considers the sciences as a career option because of the original Cosmos.

I was taking an astronomy class at a local community college when Space-time Odyssey made its premiere. I was naturally very enthusiastic. I was a fan of Dr. Tyson (I still am - I listen in awe to the StarTalk podcast for hours upon hours on roadtrips), and I thought Ann Druyan teaming with Seth MacFarlane for the production was an interesting move (I was aware of both creators' achievements at the time). So needless to say I was one of the 3-5 million someodd viewers who tuned in each week.

Recently (within the past couple weeks) I've learned about the legal allegations Dr. Tyson faced, which affected the future of Cosmos at that time. Obviously I was disappointed and a bit disheartened to learn of them. But even more disappointing was the fact that the endeavor that is Cosmos - a key player in keeping the enterprises of science and mathematics relevant to current times - seemed to suffer the most from these allegations.

I had to take several days to let my personal feelings cool down enough to reflect rationally. And I have come to the realization that perhaps Dr. Tyson was not a good choice to be the key communicator of Cosmos.

Now I do not consider this notion lightly. As I've stated, I'm a fan of Dr. Tyson. As an astrophysicist he is a brilliant representation of the discipline. He clearly has a plethora of technical understanding and he is consistently able to communicate that understanding in lay-terms for the everyday person. And his cadences while he communicates are soothing. It makes it easy to maintain attention while he delves into difficult detail. And, of course, he is a more equitable choice than many of the colleagues in his field, who would also do the series justice. So with Dr Tyson we have an excellent blend of experience, charisma, and equity. Again he seems like an excellent choice. He certainly is not a bad one, by no means do I think that, as he checks a lot of boxes. But is he the best choice?

I think one of the things that made Carl Sagan an excellent person to helm the original Cosmos project was that he was a cosmologist. As a scientist in his time, he faced a lot of struggles, in part because professionally he was a sort of "jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none." But this unique aspect of Carl Sagan made him the perfect candidate to helm a project like Cosmos for the time. Which really is one of the first, if not the first, major scientific multimedia works in cosmology. And this is where Neil DeGrasse Tyson couldn't be anymore different from Carl Sagan; he is very clearly a master of astrophysics, not a cosmologist.

In fact probably the only recognizable cosmologist, at the time of Space-time Odyssey, that had enough media visibility to bring in viewership the series needed was none other than Stephen Hawking. But he is not as equitable a choice as Dr. Tyson.

In truth I do not know who would've been the best choice at the time, but I think a better choice would've been someone with a similar "jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none" quality that Carl Sagan had, that also understood the material enough to communicate it to a mass audience. Seeing as Ann Druyan herself authored Possible Worlds recently, perhaps Ms. Druyan would have been the better choice; she certainly is capable of communicating the material as charismatically as Carl Sagan. And perhaps she would be a better choice to helm the series going forward.

What are your thoughts on the recent Cosmos endeavors, and possible future seasons of Cosmos?

I have some ATOM staked on Kelpr wallet for some time but have been too busy to monitor the COSMOS ecosystem

Do you have to manually claim each drop or are some automatically dropped into your wallet?

I have the 2013 edition by Ballantine but I heard that the original edition (or the hardcover edition from before) has 250 illustrations. Can someone tell me if this is the case because I would love to get the original editions! The 2013 edition has some illustrations but certainly not 250.

If you have 3 billion galaxys and every galaxy has 1 billion planets,you'r chance of you being the only living organisam is equal to that of you living as much as earth existed but every second you win the lottery. We are not alone,I calculated this. My head hurts. We are not alone.