BS: Cosmos

Subject: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 02:25 PM

The first episode of the reboot of Cosmos. Aired on Fox Sunday night.

Anyone remember the first. Did it influence you? Any Sagan fans out there? Any Tyson fans? Is it being shown in the UK?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/11/neil-degrasse-tyson-bible_n_4940980.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013&ir=Politics

I agree with this, though I am not sure that is what the show is doing.

Rather than painting science and religion as diametrically opposed to each other, Tyson said that there are plenty of scientists who believe in God. "The issue there is not religion versus non-religion or religion versus science, the issue there is ideas that are different versus dogma," he observed.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 03:40 PM

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/433645/march-10-2014/neil-degrasse-tyson-pt--2?xrs=synd_facebook_031114_cn_52

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: J-boy
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 12:09 AM

I was only nine years old when Sagan's Cosmos first aired but even so it wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that show fundamentally changed the way I view the world. I am enjoying the "new" Cosmos but nothing will ever replace the original in my heart.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: EBarnacle
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 12:35 AM

I felt the first half of the show was overproduced but the second half grabbed me at a gut level. I was actually choking up during the close.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 01:29 AM

I was glued to the TV during the original Cosmos, watched re-runs whenever they were offered, and bought the book. Then read other books by Carl Sagan, including his fiction--and saw the movie, "Contact," based on his novel starring Jody Foster.

Tough shoes to fill, but I've watch Neil Degrasse Tyson whenever he's on, like him a lot, and I think he seems a worthy heir to Sagan.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Musket
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 05:40 AM

I've always been interested in the reasonable logical approach Sagan gave to complex issues. I used to read a lot of Arthur C Clarke and I reckon I first found him through that, as a teenager.

Incidentally, I use a quote from him occasionally. I have a presentation I use when teaching, giving an introduction in how to improve healthcare. Many students want to rush in and redesign the wheel, so after my into talk, I forward to the next slide whilst we debate how to improve services.

The slide says;

"If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe."
Carl Sagan

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 05:41 AM

No nothing of the new one (other than remakes ALWAYS disappoint) but I got the old one on DVD box set a few months back although it shames me to say that for whatever reason I haven't made it very far as yet. Sagan is truly amazing, but the special FX are well creaky & rather quite delightful as a result. His wisdom is a timeless inspiration.

Here it is in the context of my other viewing (I think Auf Wiedersehen won out rather...)

Dalek Derek's Xmas viewing selection 2013

*

So, all reports of Jack the Flamer's untimely demise have been greatly exaggerated, huh? Nice that this present thread concerns one of the great atheist / humanist landmarks of our time though but - an inspiration to militant cause indeed, and a timely call for prevailing common sense that has sadly gone unheeded.

What sayest thou, JtS? Or do you fear Stilly the Slasher has her beady eye on this as well?

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Stu
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 08:23 AM

It's not on here in the UK, but I look forward to seeing it. Neil Degrasse Tyson is a superb communicator of science.

Also, it's pissed the creationists off so it must be good.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 10:23 AM

Who is flaming now Jack B.? Maybe you want to be Jack Flamediver?

Dr. Tyson is doing a wonderful job promoting the series both on TV and social media. He's been on Colbert and some other shows. I see that he is making lots of semi-controversial comments to keep the "buzz" going. I get quotes from him several times a day on my Facebook feed. He is also getting lots of chances to talk about the importance of science.

In the first episode he talks about the influence Sagan had on him when Tyson was 17. Tyson seems to be paying that forward very well.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Lighter
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 12:58 PM

Sagan's "Cosmos" was splendid, but his passion for the subject, plus the worshipful camera work, often made him seem like a somewhat complacent ham in a one-man show.

The style of Tyson's show is entirely different: special effects, cartoons, the works. Tyson even flies around the universe in a specially designed saucer-thing.

Episode I kept me glued to the set, as they used to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 01:51 PM

I've seen trailers of it on cable, stu.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 01:58 PM

Sorry, JtS - just wondering what line of literary research you're up to this time that's all...

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 02:06 PM

Tyson even flies around the universe in a specially designed saucer-thing.

So did Carl! I'm moved to down tools early & watch an episode of it now...

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Stu
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 02:15 PM

"I've seen trailers of it on cable, stu."

I don't know if it will be on over here, but I'll keep my eye out.

Carl Sagan has been a massive influence on me over the years, even more so since I started doing actual research. That ability to communicate complex matters in a way dolts like me can understand is so valuable in an age where reason is beset by a return to superstition and the dominance of unregulated capitalism.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 08:23 PM

Am loving it but wishing he had Morgan Freeman's voice... or Ed McCurdy's. When he sang.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Lighter
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 08:56 PM

Speaking of Morgan Freeman, take a look at Freeman's excellent similar series, "Through the Wormhole," on the Discovery Science Channel.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 10:57 PM

I imagine we'll get it here in time. But lifting the name and applying it to a new series seems wrong to me. And it won't have Carl Sagan talking about us 'yumans', so I might not get to watch it.

I got a bit of a shock when the opening post seemed to suggest Mike Tyson was presenting it. Now that I definitely think I'd have tuned in for, at least briefly.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 12:14 AM

Mike Tyson does not have Morgan Freeman's voice.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Mike in Brunswick
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 12:19 AM

Even though I had seen the ads for the show, I assumed it would be on PBS. By the time I realized my mistake, Tyson was whizzing past Uranus on his way to the asteroid belt and beyond. The content was fine, at least to me with my liberal arts education, if a little too whiz bangy. (Nova on PBS has succumbed to that too.) The tribute to Sagan at the end was nicely done.

But those commercials! I only watch Fox at World Series time, so my delicate sensibilities weren't prepared for all those dopey sitcom promos. One of Ronald Reagan's lesser sins was allowing the networks to cram as many commercials as they wanted into each half hour. I guess the idea was that if they pushed their new freedom too far we would all turn off our sets and go back to reading Proust. That hasn't happened yet. I counted six commercial breaks during the first hour of Cosmos, each one four minutes long. If Tyson's going to do justice to all those billions of galaxies, each with its billions of stars, he's going to need more than 36 minutes per episode.

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 04:38 AM

Watched episode three of the original series last night - a dignified demolition of astrology, a lament on religious oppression and a celebration of eventual triumphs of Kepler with some amazing ancient solar alignments thrown in along the way. Mesmerising! I doubt TV will ever be that good again.

Maybe some Folky should write a song about it?

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 09:11 AM

"if they pushed their new freedom too far we would all turn off our sets and go back to reading Proust"

Not going to happen. There are no commercials for Proust.


Why was Cosmos great?
The ideas they tried to deflate?
Why was Cosmos fun?
The beliefs they tried to piss-on?

No Nay No na na na nay no.

Cosmos was great
because Sagan was a mate
Whose love for science was so spot on
We shared it while the show was on

We loved it while the show was on.
We loved it while the show was on.
We loved it while the show was on.
Now its up to Neil to carry on
Now its up to Neil to carry on
Now its up to Neil to carry on

I happen to think it is a awesome thing that they have rebooted the show and are tying to kindle youth interest is basic science is a positive way.

Mike in Brunswick The Show is also on all of the National Geographic Networks. If you have Cable or Satellite TV. There is a good chance you can see what you missed.

Its also on HULU.COM
http://www.hulu.com/watch/604551

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 10:52 AM

Why was Cosmos great?
The ideas they tried to deflate?
Why was Cosmos fun?
The beliefs they tried to piss-on?

The singular universal wonder of reality concerns us all, bar none. Cosmos is about the spiritual wonder of our diverse uniqueness that transcends religion and 'belief'. No one pisses on beliefs - it's the beliefs that do the pissing, pissing on truth in a propagating lies & superstition in lieu of learning and the quest for an understanding that will, given time, unite us all.

I'm still waiting for the aliens to show up. They are humanity's last best hope for peace and unity. If they are wise, they will enlighten us. If they are a bunch of colonising bastards, we will stand shoulder to shoulder in our fight against them. If they are WISE colonising bastards however, they're already here and we'll never know it.

TV Perfection!

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST,Donuel Webster
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 10:54 AM

I still have and watch Sagan's Cosmos and play it for elementary school kids. The soundtrack uses many of J.S. Bach's finest works. As you know Bach was capable of teaching, writing and performing music that held 2,3,4 and even more similar and contrary musical ideas in the mind simultaneously which is helpful in understanding theoretical Astro-physic concepts.

The new Cosmos will likely prove to be more glitzy but intellectually inferior compared to the great work done in Beyond the Wormhole. Based on advance scripts, the new Cosmos by Rupert Murdoch National Geographic Channels may inspire a younger audience but from an authoritative stance that will not challenge the conventional wisdom nearly as much as they could or should. Still its good for the kids to be reminded what the questions for them to solve in their lifetime might be about.

If you have not seen one of the 33 Beyond the Wormhole episodes, you have not seen the greatest theoretical physics expose's of today that go right to the source of each person and each person's discovery, questions and ideas whether they are alive or dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Lighter
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 01:00 PM

And if you're into psychology, don't miss "Brain Games."

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 01:18 PM

To be quite honest, I could never get past Sagan's pronunciation of the word "Cosmos". He pronounced it, something like, 'Koze-mose' whereas any normal person pronounces it 'Koz-moss'. He should have taken lessons from a normal, British person like me!

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Bettynh
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 03:55 PM

I find my brain won't go as far as "Cosmos" demands - images processed and reprocessed, mindgames about ultimate origins that depend on technology I barely understand.

My favorite shows about physics over the years have been much more hands-on and interesting while still maintaining the scientific view. Phillip Morrison's Ring of Truth" is still a favorite. How can animations of the universe compete with Julia Child cooking a diamond to cinders? He also wrote the text for "Powers of Ten".


Next would have to be Richard Feynman's story "Quest for Tannu Tuva"

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 12:58 AM

Cause Mows on this side of the pond.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 03:40 AM

Yes, Jack, I'm sorry - I was overtaken by a fit of facetiousness!

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: sciencegeek
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 10:09 AM

won't see it any time soon... not until we get a working TV again... but I do remember the original.

Sorry, but I'm glad I never had Sagan for a lecture... his voice would have me snoring in minutes. But since I went to Alfred U and not Cornell, I just had to survive a Finley lecture. A student once wrote on the blackboard "Dr. Finley gives a lecture only his mother could love." He was great in a small class... but that dark lecture hall was deadly.

I enjoy Degrasse Tyson, and he can be the character... lol. I even forgive him for demoting Pluto from planet status.... :D

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 10:17 AM

I enjoy Degrasse Tyson, and he can be the character... lol. I even forgive him for demoting Pluto from planet status.... :D

You can forgive him. But Sheldon Cooper cannot!

big bang

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 02:03 AM

I came across one (again) recently:

"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology."
-- Carl Sagan, American astronomer

You couldn't avoid believing he was trying to fix that.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 01:26 PM

The first episode of Cosmos omitted/censored the 15 seconds that was taped regarding EVOULTION.

Demographics and Murdoch executives have their hand on the switch of this show.

Tyson is a TV media hound as is certainly affable.

Yes evolution will be discussed , just not as originally presented in the script.

In NYC Tyson's Observatory, Planetarium, museum is all about the quality of their gift shop that sells Mugs made in China that has pictures of the planets that rub off in a week. tHE PLACE COULD BE SO MUCH MORE.


I hope the series is better than I predict but there is no real harm making the subject of Cosmology popular TO KIDS AND FANS ALIKE. I continue to think about and study Cosmology at least 4 hours a day and have developed some good tools and perspectives to the subject of inflation in particular.




dAMN TO hELL MY cAS LOCK bUTTOnP

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos in a clesar-minded way.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 05:31 PM

Cosmos is wonderful and Carl Sagan was brilliant in putting the case for reason based on evidence in a devastatingly clear-minded way. It doesn't matter a jot about the alleged dated look of the show (if that's what you think: I don't see it myself). I have the original series on DVD. He was also a brilliant writer. Try "The Demon-Haunted World: Science As A Candle In The Dark".

Rather than painting science and religion as diametrically opposed to each other, Tyson said that there are plenty of scientists who believe in God. "The issue there is not religion versus non-religion or religion versus science, the issue there is ideas that are different versus dogma," he observed.

This is straw-mannism. Religion is scared of science because reason based on evidence, such a powerful mental tool, opposes religion at every juncture and is constantly closing in. Science, on the other hand, cannot concern itself with religion, as religion deliberately puts itself beyond reason. That is territory that science doesn't need to address, except to point to it for what it is. It's perfectly fine for someone to both be a scientist yet "believe in God" and I've never met anyone who says it isn't. Most people of religion are perfectly adept at compartmentalising their religion (let's call them "Sunday Christians", who might be right-wing politicians or bankers or rabid homophobes or misogynists or tax-evaders the rest of the week). Scientists of God-bothering persuasion need be no different.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 05:33 PM

Something funny went on there. I didn't mean to try to alter the thread title.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 06:01 PM

evilushun, evolution, where is that dyslexia dictionary...
But seriously I am very grateful to Max or Joe or whomever is responsible for including a spell check feature, now if I could only improve my vision enough to read the screen.

Bettynh, If you like mysteries of any sort don't be intimidated by Technology, just know what the tools are and what different telescopes can do.

Start with the most basic relationships and characters in E= MC2 and remember energy is mass and that more mass effects time by slowing time down. If your understanding gets to the point that you can clearly see that the past present and future each occupy a place in our universe simultaneously- know then that you are off to the races of wondrous new discoveries in Cosmology.

Impossibly large numbers like 400 trillion billion million are replaced with 10 to the power 34 (10 followed by 34 zeros. Miles are replaced by light years (the distance light travels in a year)
Big is big and small is really small down at what is called the Plank length. So what its big and small, Cosmology waits for you.

Pick a mystery below but realize even one new insight by someone, even you, can and will change the answer.
Enjoy unpeeling the mysterious orange of where we really are.
I guarantee you will be surprised.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html


*My security program blocks using blue ("clicky")

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 07:28 PM

One reason for rebooting the series now not related to CGI and Hi Def TV is forty years of scientific progress. We know a lot of things now that Sagan didn't know.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 08:49 PM

"We", Wacko? The implicit inclusion of yourself in that statement duly noted. In fact, Wackers, Carl Sagan knew a hell of a lot more than you will ever know. That was as true 40 years ago as it is now. You are thoroughly out of your depth.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 05:50 AM

Sky 1 UK today.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Bettynh
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 02:36 PM

Donuel, I don't think I'm particularly intimidated by technology. I don't capitalize the word, though, and when the layers of filter between my senses and the arguments are too many I tend to think of it as just storytelling and my attention wanders. As Feynman says, I'm ok not knowing.

My dad was a draftsman (now a profession completely replaced by CAD). He took ideas from (better-paid) engineers and drew them out. He kept his top-secret status even within the family, but occasional comments such as "You just can't put a fuel line through a wing support," still resonate.

My favorite biology professor made a career of visualizing neurons, mostly via electron microscopy. Dissected cells, in a vacuum, coated with gold vapor. The images were interesting at the time, and he published regularly. However, I became aware that most of the cells were from Homarus americanus. His friends and family had a steady supply of dissected and delicious lobster and he maintained his tenure.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 10:49 PM

As and when we get it in England the chances are it would be on a BBC channel, so no problem with adverts. But we've had a fair among of programmes in that genre, mostly by pin-up boy Brian Cox - Wonders of the Universe and so forth.

They do seem to go in for over- egging the production sometimes. The presenter is always standing on mountain peaks or travelling to some marginally relevant exotic location, or briefly interviewing picturesque scientists. And there's so much reverential talk with portentous music the actual information teds to get drowned out.

I like speaking heads myself. Sit there in a studio and explain things clearly so I can understand them.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 12:39 AM

"The presenter is always standing on mountain peaks or travelling to some marginally relevant exotic location"

I think that may have started with Sagan's Cosmos :-) The sound on Tyson's is digital and superb.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 12:47 AM

""We", Wacko?"

I didn't mean to include you pshaw.

I know that there is a black hole at the center of our galaxy. Sagan didn't when that show was aired. I know that quantum theory is used to design billions and billions of circuits on microchips. Sagan didn't. I know that Steve pshaw is capable of saying an infinite number of infinitely stupid things as he has done on this thread.

I know how the wifi connection works on my personal computer. How about you pshaw?

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Musket
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 06:06 AM

Deuce.

New balls.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 08:38 AM

Ach, that bloody switch. Never even knew it existed. Lurking right next to my SD card slot it is. Could have accessed all this garbage on me iPad, iPhone, Hudl or netbook, of course (let alone my new Windoze 8 laptop which I'm scared of), but I like to keep all the sweary nonsense in the one place. I'm like all those Sunday Christians and religious scientists: I compartmentalise.

As for you, Wackers shitferbrains, you know there's a black hole there, huh? Is your black hole true then? Can you show it to me?

(Oops, sorry, thought I was Snail there for a sec...)

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 09:00 AM

I have brains for brains

phaw can't even google for himself.

He is cooperative though. I call him stupid and he demonstrates his stupidity, again.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 10:43 AM

"Any time you have a doctrine where that is the truth that you assert, and that what you call the truth is unassailable, you've got doctrine, you've got dogma on your hands. And so 'Cosmos' is…an offering of science, and a reminder that dogma does not advance science; it actually regresses it."

Yeah! What Dr. Tyson said!

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 11:32 AM

Er, don't shilly-shally around here, Wacko. If you think that evolution is not true, in other words does not occur, say so. I contend that it is neither doctrine nor dogma to state that the bleedin' obvious is true. That's my way of using that lovely English word "true" and I'm stickin' to it. My head is atop my shoulders, joined to them via a neck, and that, dear boy, is true (this may also be true for you, but you'll need to remove it from up your botty first so that we can check). But there is no doctrine or dogma involved. You misrepresent Mr Tyson by misusing his remark (which, in the correct context, stripped away here by you, I wholeheartedly agree with). I told you that you were out of your depth. You struggle even to interpret popular science articles, it seems, so thanks for confirming my suspicions.

As I feel that I'm in whimsical mode this afternoon, I just had a thought about those people who are perennially scared of saying that something is true. They sometimes seem to feel that truth is, somehow, too extreme a notion for them to embrace. It's a bit like the history teacher we had at school who never gave any piece of work by even the best kids in the class more than eight out of ten. The top end of the ten-point scale was far too scary territory for him. You could say that the ten-point scale was useless for him, but, had we had, say, an eight-point scale instead he probably wouldn't have ever scored anything more than six. I sometimes used to give ten-on-ten for work that was less than perfect yet had represented perfect effort and resourcefulness. So I say that evolution is true even though there are aspects of it still to be ground out by science (which I've said all along). So, no dogma, no doctrine. And the truth don't scare me! Weeeeee!

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 12:23 PM

Shaw dogma from pshaw!

"You misrepresent Mr Tyson by misusing his remark (which, in the correct context, stripped away here by you, I wholeheartedly agree with)."

I actually cut and pasted the whole quote from a
Its a long quote pshaw. The context is pretty clear, though I doubt you have the mental acuity to realize that.

"Any time you have a doctrine where that is the truth that you assert, "

Exactly what is it that you don't understand about the words "Any Time?" Is "truth" the word you misunderstand? "Assert" maybe?

Steve Shaw. You are asserting the "truth" of evolution. You are treating your assertion as if it were unassailable. You are expressing dogma. Why don't you write a little note to Dr. Tyson and ask him how he feels about people who express their dogma with bullying and name calling?

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 01:11 PM

Diverting threads about basically non-contentious stuff such as TV programmes into bad tempered disputes is an odd pastime. A bit like using dinnertime as an occasion for a foodd fight, but without the good natured quality that food fights generally have.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 01:19 PM

Cutting and pasting is just that. Cutting. That's what scripture-quoters do all the time. Just because you've quoted something verbatim does not mean you can't have misused it. You used his quote in an incorrect context in this thread. You actually don't understand his context (nor this one). I've been trying to tell you that you are out of your depth.

Now then. Is evolution true or not? Answer by applying your black-and-white characterisation of "truth" from the Darwin thread!