Cosmos

[bluecoconuts]

So did anyone catch Cosmos? I was pretty excited when I heard that they were relaunching the program, and I thought that Neil deGrasse Tyson was an excellent choice to host. I'm hoping that the program can bring science back into the light and inspire others to learn and expand their horizon.





If you didn't catch it, I'd recommend checking out a replay and catching future episodes!

 

[RamzFanz]

I watched. Too dumbed down for me. I really expected them to press the envelope and not just rehash the known science.

...AND they spend way to much time on setup and fascination over science.

My 12 year old loved it though because it was covering things she had just learned.

 

[Tron]

Haven't watched it yet but will this week. Love Tyson, have read a book of his a few years back and loved it. Will definitely check this out.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I watched. Too dumbed down for me. I really expected them to press the envelope and not just rehash the known science.

...AND they spend way to much time on setup and fascination over science.

My 12 year old loved it though because it was covering things she had just learned.

I expected that because its for a national audience, so it didn't bother me as much. I saw it with my younger brother and his friends and they were asking me to expand more on what he was saying, which was nice to see them get more interested. I would expect them to go deeper and discuss more complex ideas later on, but it likely remains watered down so most of the people understand what he's talking about.

 

[BonifayRam]

So did anyone catch Cosmos? I was pretty excited when I heard that they were relaunching the program, and I thought that Neil deGrasse Tyson was an excellent choice to host. I'm hoping that the program can bring science back into the light and inspire others to learn and expand their horizon.

yes loved it before loved Sunday nights program too

 

[RamzFanz]

I expected that because its for a national audience, so it didn't bother me as much. I saw it with my younger brother and his friends and they were asking me to expand more on what he was saying, which was nice to see them get more interested. I would expect them to go deeper and discuss more complex ideas later on, but it likely remains watered down so most of the people understand what he's talking about.

Yeah, that's exactly what it intends and it's perfect for that. I should have realised that because that's what the original cosmos was made to do.

I was just hoping for a cutting edge science show.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Yeah I would like that too, but most people wouldn't understand it. If they made it like a college lecture people would turn it off. I heard they're going to expand on new ideas that came about after the first Cosmos ended (Higgs boson for example).. My brother and my girlfriend asked me to expand on certain things (for example why Jupiter has the storm and what the atmosphere is made from, etc) but I think in a way they want that. Give people questions and a desire to seek answers. We certainly need more scientists, that's for sure.

 

[Angry Ram]

That was pretty cool. The whole cosmic calender was really interesting and I hoped it gave people some idea how much we've actually been around.

The address thing Blew. My. Mind. I'm def. gonna keep watching.

 

[brokeu91]

I recorded it, and plan to watch it but haven't yet. I understand what you're saying about it being dumbed down, I have two bachelor's degrees in science and I would like something talking a bit more about modern science/concepts. But, I think it is meant for a broader audience. And after listening to interviews with Neil deGrasse Tyson, it appears that he's targeting children/adolescents the way Carl Sagan did in order to get them interested in science.

 

[Yamahopper]

I like it but, to me it's presented in at a junior high school level. Maybe it will get more in to the details. And throw in some math.

 

[bluecoconuts]

That was pretty cool. The whole cosmic calender was really interesting and I hoped it gave people some idea how much we've actually been around.

The address thing Blew. My. Mind. I'm def. gonna keep watching.

If that type of thing was cool to you, check out the Powers of Ten videos.

The original was made in 1977, they did another a few years ago that's more updated. I don't like it was much as the 77 version to be honest, but it's cool to see how much more we learned in just 30 years. We know even more now.

The Hubble Telescope is due to come down in a few years, NASA wanted to launch two more like it and put them on opposite ends of the Earth in orbit, which through computers would allow them to essentially have a telescope the size of earth, meaning crazy high detailed photographs, but it was put on hold due to the government cuts and economy. Hopefully soon we can do something like that, the discovery would be pretty amazing. Especially with all the new planets that the Kepler Telescope is discovering.



Here's the original Powers of Ten video:


And the newer version:

 

[RhodyRams]

Did anyone catch the premier of this show last week with astro-physicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson?


I just watched it tonight and was blown away. Catch it if you can... on Fox and National Geographic Channel tomorrow night.

 

[RhodyRams]

sorry didnt realize there was already a thread for this

 

[Ramhusker]

Rehashing a lot of old theory in the first half of the first one, does it get any better? I lost interest kinda early because of at least three contradictions the narrator seemingly unknowingly presented. I'll have to revisit it later when I have some down time. I trust it gets better because you guys seemed to be enjoying it.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Rehashing a lot of old theory in the first half of the first one, does it get any better? I lost interest kinda early because of at least three contradictions the narrator seemingly unknowingly presented. I'll have to revisit it later when I have some down time. I trust it gets better because you guys seemed to be enjoying it.

Second one gets into evolution mostly. I've always looked up, not back, so my biology isnt as strong. Still most was stuff I already knew simply because I've been to biology classes and it wasn't too complex. Again, dumbed down for the masses, still interesting. The second one took some pretty hefty shots towards creationists though, so I'm sure some people were not happy with that. Especially after the complaints over the Bruno story.

Out of curiosity, how did he contradict himself in the first one? I must have missed it, but I doubt Neil deGrasse didn't know what he was talking about though.

It will probably go into knew discoveries later on though. Shame they filmed it already, with the new confirmation of the gravitational waves from the inflation after the big bang, it would have been important to put in there.

 

[Ramhusker]

Second one gets into evolution mostly. I've always looked up, not back, so my biology isnt as strong. Still most was stuff I already knew simply because I've been to biology classes and it wasn't too complex. Again, dumbed down for the masses, still interesting. The second one took some pretty hefty shots towards creationists though, so I'm sure some people were not happy with that. Especially after the complaints over the Bruno story.

Out of curiosity, how did he contradict himself in the first one? I must have missed it, but I doubt Neil deGrasse didn't know what he was talking about though.

It will probably go into knew discoveries later on though. Shame they filmed it already, with the new confirmation of the gravitational waves from the inflation after the big bang, it would have been important to put in there.

Yeah, a shame they couldn't just make a special about the "cosmos" instead of trying to drive an evolution/global warming agenda. I really get blown away about the universe.

One example of he contradicting himself was he first says most people don't realize we are still in the middle of an ice age just getting a little break then speaks of global warming like we are melting. I know that gets political real fast so just mentioning the irony.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Yeah, a shame they couldn't just make a special about the "cosmos" instead of trying to drive an evolution/global warming agenda. I really get blown away about the universe.

One example of he contradicting himself was he first says most people don't realize we are still in the middle of an ice age just getting a little break then speaks of global warming like we are melting. I know that gets political real fast so just mentioning the irony.

Cosmos is more than just space though, its the story of us, so that's why he goes into evolution. I wouldn't say that's an "agenda", it's just science. Same with the Earth's temperature. If you look at the total history of our planet, we are in a cooler state, we are warming up though. He didn't contradict himself, he's speaking strictly from the scientific vantage point rather than any political things. The political aspect comes from others who refuse to accept the science or don't read it correctly, but its there.

 

[Ramhusker]

Cosmos is more than just space though, its the story of us, so that's why he goes into evolution. I wouldn't say that's an "agenda", it's just science. Same with the Earth's temperature. If you look at the total history of our planet, we are in a cooler state, we are warming up though. He didn't contradict himself, he's speaking strictly from the scientific vantage point rather than any political things. The political aspect comes from others who refuse to accept the science or don't read it correctly, but its there.

Yeah, reading the science is the tricky part especially when so many educated guesses are inserted into the fray. Theories are theories, not facts although some theories hang around so long that they become accepted as fact and I understand that tendency. Odd as it might seem, Darwin was seeking a creator in the end.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Yeah, reading the science is the tricky part especially when so many educated guesses are inserted into the fray. Theories are theories, not facts although some theories hang around so long that they become accepted as fact and I understand that tendency. Odd as it might seem, Darwin was seeking a creator in the end.

In science a theory is essentially a fact, they just never say anything is a fact because there can always be new information that change things. Gravity is considered a theory as well, but it's been tested so many times, and the results continue to confirm the theory, so it's essentially a fact, just without the title. A lot of time the science is there, but the argument comes from what some wish to do with it. Some religious people can accept evolution, others cannot. Some people believe that we need to make changes due to climate changes, others do not. The science says what the science says though, there's little debate in the findings. The story of Darwin looking for religion on his deathbed was dismissed as false though. He wasn't an atheist though, he did reject Christianity and organized religion, but he, similar to many other scientists, was always open to a God if the evidence was there to support it. It did take him until his 40's to do so.

 

[Ramhusker]

In science a theory is essentially a fact, they just never say anything is a fact because there can always be new information that change things. Gravity is considered a theory as well, but it's been tested so many times, and the results continue to confirm the theory, so it's essentially a fact, just without the title. A lot of time the science is there, but the argument comes from what some wish to do with it. Some religious people can accept evolution, others cannot. Some people believe that we need to make changes due to climate changes, others do not. The science says what the science says though, there's little debate in the findings. The story of Darwin looking for religion on his deathbed was dismissed as false though. He wasn't an atheist though, he did reject Christianity and organized religion, but he, similar to many other scientists, was always open to a God if the evidence was there to support it. It did take him until his 40's to do so.

That's right. That's why both of those subjects will always be open for debate as long as we are living. Both theories have some seemingly sound evidence and some seemingly wide gaps from proof. You'll always have experts on both sides of the fence that can present compelling evidence. Many, however, confuse Natural Selection with Evolution and natural Climate Change with "manmade" Global Warming. I think we'll always find the truth somewhere in between.