BS: Cosmos

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Stu
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 08:52 AM

Saw the new version, a bit glossy and glitzy (with the usual repetition) but worth it just for Tyson's story of his day out with Sagan, which was inspirational.

Although I'm doing my PhD in vertebrate palaeontology there's no doubt programmes such as Cosmos were a massive influence on me as a boy (I am a mature student, age-wise at least), and Sagan was superb at communicating the wonder, awe and pure joy that science helps us to experience as the process of discovery continues.

Tyson (who is an equally capable communicator) mentioned the power of the scientific method several times and the need to communicate it clearly to everyone, and the importance of this was itself communicated very well by the programme.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 10:22 PM

Saying that "we" know things that wise people before did not know is patently obvious in many fields of knowledge, and is not in any way a claim that this makes us "wiser", which would be completely absurd.

Wisdom isn't about having more information, and isn't bound up with the date we were born. I would suggest that Socrates was a great deal wiser than any of us, regardless of the fact that we know far more about all kinds of things than he did, and many of the things he would have "known" are not true.

Sagan was a great communicator, Cosmos was a great series. Quite a lot of the stuff that scientists are preoccupied with today were not known at the time he presented it, some of the things that were believed to be the case at that time are no longer held to be true. That's how science goes. And of course it's still worth watching, and it's not too likely that the new series will match it, let alone eclipse it.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 10:05 PM

OK, so there's just the one Origin.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 10:02 PM

Actually, I must say (and I have no connection with Jack Blandiver save that I admire all his postings here) that his comment early in the thread, concerning Carl Sagan,, his wisdom is a timeless inspiration, is an urgent corrective to those glib (and, to my mind, shallow and thoughtless) expressions here that suggest that we've "moved on" and that we are somehow the wiser because "we know a lot of things now that Sagan didn't know" (wouldn't it be just great if the people who adhere to that actually showed any wisdom at all!). Timeless is just that. Darwin's revelations are timeless. He didn't know what "we" know (he knew nothing of modern genetics or biochemistry), but there is not a single idea in Origin that is, in its essence, "dated" in any way. It's the opposite, in fact: it's astonishingly advanced, and could teach many a modern scientist how he should diligently apply himself to his trade. There is nothing whatsoever to be superseded. Carl Sagan, to me, was up there with Darwin: a great communicator ((I mean, how many bloody times have I told pete to read Origins, in which he would find the most clear and elegant - and simple - explanation of, well, something timeless...) whose thinking was as advanced and as modern as anyone else's today. And so clear-minded. You might as well tell me that Tom Finney wouldn't have made it today because football has become so advanced. Bollocks! Do not try to tell me that Cosmos needs "updating". Small-minded people here may concentrate on the clunky effects and the staid presentation. Well I don't need super-duper instant gratification, thanks, even if you do. If you give a shit about that you really don't get science at all. I've got Cosmos on DVD, I love it, and the only dated thing about it is that it don't go right to the edges of my 16:9 telly. Grow up, fer chrissake!

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 08:46 PM

Fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 08:42 PM

""We know a lot of things now that Sagan didn't know" is patently obvious, and is the justification for redoing the series. Or rather doing a completely new series, and using the name of the older one as a way of drawing attention and viewers, and giving people a good indication of what it's setting out to do. (Which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.)

And it's not a shallow and facile thing to remark, otherwise the bloke presenting the show wouldn't have said pretty well the same thing, and he's a pretty sharp bloke.

"Pretty tiresome" - I think frogprince got it about right.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 07:23 PM

"We know a lot of things now that Sagan didn't know" is a typical shallow and facile pseudo-sage Jack-remark from a shallow, posturing idiot. Easy enough for you to tug this stuff away from its bigger context. I wouldn't have typed that dismal line in a million years and neither would you. Jack has abundantly demonstrated in dozens of posts that he does not belong in that "we". His form of words there is puffed up and pompous. If you can't see it I can't help it.

"What in Christ's name are you on about now?" is simply a riposte to yet another thread-start coming from a man who seemed to have been going through a phase of spending about twenty obsessive hours a day hovering over his keyboard wondering what he can start a thread about as he hasn't started one for at least an hour or two. Free country, of course. The mods have allegedly told him to fight his own fights. Do allow him to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: frogprince
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 07:07 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."

""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"

Jack's statement neither demeaned Sagan nor constituted a personal brag; the use of "we" was just a normal part of the simple fact he was noting.

"You are NOT entitled to your opinion" The thread title was just a key line from the article Jack linked. The article was interesting, nothing inflammatory. Your reply: "What in Christ's name are you on about now, Wackers?" indicated, or at least appeared to indicate, that
you had spouted off without paying the least attention to what he was or wasn't "on about".

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 05:59 PM

But you've blasted off rants any number of times in response to entirely reasonable posts

Really? Well if you're not Wacko's uncle you must be his dad. I rather thought that I've blasted off rather reasonable responses (with the odd well-deserved piss-take here and there) to any number of rants. Mainly from your nephew/son. I'd love you to demonstrate a "rant" from me that was a response to an "entirely reasonable post", just one would do, not even any number, but I'd rather not put you in the embarrassing position of your not being able to reply.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 03:53 PM

Half of this thread is trashed with bickering. Too bad.

If any of you decides to contact a moderator about sanctioning others in the thread, it is really helpful if you haven't been in there calling names and throwing punches yourself.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 12:30 PM

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/03/science-deniers-cosmos-neil-tyson

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: frogprince
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 11:17 AM

I'm not Jack's uncle, but it's been genetically proven that we're eighteen-billionth cousins. And I could give a rip if you happen to holler "Wacko" sometime. But you've blasted off rants any number of times in response to entirely reasonable posts, to the point that it's long since grown tiresome.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 10:18 AM

This is a big f'n deal I kid you not.

It is. Pity us poor mere biologists trying to get our heads round it...

:-(

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 10:17 AM

But no-one's listening, Kevin. Honest!

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 06:40 AM

Insofar as I can understand this at all, it means they now have indications that something completely remarkably peculiar happened, without an inkling of an explanation for how or why it happened, and that's why everything exists.

There was nothing and then there was something and something got much bigger very quickly and then kept getting bigger more slowly...

It's basically metaphysics.
..............
"A low quality of debate" is hardly improved by making it even lower and by gleefully prodding others into doing the same. And carrying on arguments from one thread to another makes a nonsense of any kind of debate for anyone who hasn't been obsessively reading all the previous threads through which the squabblers have been romping.

Starting each thread afresh is far more enjoyable for everyone, I suggest.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 05:07 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26605974

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 05:05 AM

So that's what was going on in the first trillionth, of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 11:27 PM

Today it was announced for the very first time that our Antarctic lab has detected not only gravity wave but primordial gravity waves.

If it is true that two orbiting black hole gravity wave time distortion waves have also been discovered, this is really big news that will tell us more about gravity than ever before.


Search for it anywhere

This is a big f'n deal I kid you not.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 08:34 PM

After all, I'm a Liverpool fan. Ad we just slaughtered Man U fer chrissake. To the tune of Amazing Grace:

Three Nil
Three-e-e Nil
Three Nil
Three-e Nil
Three Nil
Three-e-e-nil
Three-e-nil...

Three nil
Three-e-e-nil
Three-e-nil
Three nil
Three nil
Three-e-e-nil
Three-nil [susp]...hil

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 08:25 PM

Very self revelatory post.

"I'm a troll, trollywoll - and I'll eat you for supper". Watch out for billy goats gruff.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: frogprince
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 07:34 PM

It's too bad that it wasn't jts who posted the "Freedom From Religion con" Thread. It would have given Steve Shaw another good opportunity to snort "Now what idiocy are you spouting, Whacko" without looking to see what the thread was actually about.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 07:12 PM

Takes two to tango.

The real pain is the practice of carrying over feuds from thread to thread. For one thing that makes it hard to make sense of what the squirmish is all about, but that's the least of the damage. It serves to encourage the participants in building up a level of antagonism that gets quite over the top. And it can be catching.

Squabbles, which we are always going to get, should start in a thread, and die away as the thread sinks out of sight.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 02:58 PM

As you can see McGrath pshaw started the fight on this thread here.

>>>"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. <<<

As the rules are not being enforced and as I have been instructed to "fight my own battles" and as Steve is an irritating trolling asshole trying to get this thread shut down because I started it and as Steve is too stupid lazy to come up with any argument any better than "you are wrong 'whacko'"!

The best I can do is point out his ignorant trollishness and hope that it gets removed. Of course, I am happy to see my posts pointing out his flaws removed. if his trolling is removed. Otherwise I hope he gets drowned out with reasonable discussion. or the thread gets closed and I can open another so that reasonable discussion can occur until he comes back and rubs his feces over the next thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 02:47 PM

Cosmos the series will biology and evolution by natural selection.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 02:43 PM

Frequently "evolution" is used as if it was co-terminous with "natural selection". When the word is applied in a cosmological context, that's not true. Stars don't compete with each other in the same way as living things.

That's pedantic point, not an declaration of war with anybody.

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!

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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: Musket
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 06:06 AM

Deuce.

New balls.

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: 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: 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: 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: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 05:50 AM

Sky 1 UK today.

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: 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: 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: 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 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: 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
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: 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: 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: 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: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 12:58 AM

Cause Mows on this side of the pond.

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"