Cosmology & Astrophysics

The universe at the scales physics gets weird.

Black holes, dark matter, inflation, exoplanets. Explained by working scientists, not aggregator channels rehashing press releases.

Curation rubric (what the LLM is told to look for)

Reward: discussion of methodology and uncertainty, explanation of how we know what we know, primary-source citations. Penalize: 'scientists STUNNED' thumbnails, woo, vague awe-bait without information density.

Seed channels

@pbsspacetime
@DrBecky
@CoolWorldsLab
@ScienceClicEN

Top picks · 3

93·Top pickPlaceholder

How we measure the universe's expansion (3 independent methods)

@pbsspacetime · 15:00

Why this is here

Scored 93/100 on substance — among the top 5% indexed for Cosmology & Astrophysics. Heavy use of primary sources and explicit reasoning chains.

Key takeaways

Key claim is supported with on-screen evidence (data, citations, or worked examples)
Avoids the most common shallow framing of the topic
Specifically covers: how we measure the universe's expansion (3 independent methods)

90·Top pickPlaceholder

JWST's first deep field — what it actually showed

@DrBecky · 19:00

Why this is here

Scored 90/100 on substance — among the top 5% indexed for Cosmology & Astrophysics. Heavy use of primary sources and explicit reasoning chains.

Key takeaways

Key claim is supported with on-screen evidence (data, citations, or worked examples)
Avoids the most common shallow framing of the topic
Specifically covers: jwst's first deep field — what it actually showed

87·Top pickPlaceholder

Black hole information paradox without the hand-waving

@CoolWorldsLab · 23:00

Why this is here

Scored 87/100. Strong technical depth on a narrow question — recommended once you're past the introductory material.

Key takeaways

Key claim is supported with on-screen evidence (data, citations, or worked examples)
Avoids the most common shallow framing of the topic
Specifically covers: black hole information paradox without the hand-waving

Also strong · 1

84·StrongPlaceholder

Dark matter: the evidence we trust and the evidence we don't

@ScienceClicEN · 27:00

Why this is here

Scored 84/100. Strong technical depth on a narrow question — recommended once you're past the introductory material.

Key takeaways

Key claim is supported with on-screen evidence (data, citations, or worked examples)
Avoids the most common shallow framing of the topic
Specifically covers: dark matter: the evidence we trust and the evidence we don't