# Cosmos: a Spacetime Odyssey



## hairyblue (Feb 25, 2002)

I'm excited. I loved the original Cosmos. Neil deGrasse Tyson is great--he's a Pluto killer, and great! I look forward to seeing this.


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

I look forward to it as well. :up:


----------



## LoREvanescence (Jun 19, 2007)

wow thanks for sharing! Didn't hear about this show yet! 

Really looking forward to watching it and surprised that it's going to be on FOX! I wouldn't expect or look for shows like this on FOX.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

I'll be watching, but something about Neil deGrasse Tyson just rubs me the wrong way. Hopefully I'll get past it.

Though, could have been worse if they had picked Michio Kaku, the media whore of science TV


----------



## LoREvanescence (Jun 19, 2007)

^Is he the old guy with the long white hair?

That guy always rubs me the wrong way. 

I can Deal with Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Didn't he due a series called Nova Science Now recently on PBS?


----------



## StevesWeb (Dec 26, 2008)

I think Neil DeGrasse Tyson is the best science presenter since Carl Sagan, his mentor. I admire him immensely, he spoke at a convention I attended and got a raucous standing ovation.



> Michio Kaku, the media whore of science TV


Perfect description.


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

LoREvanescence said:


> ^Is he the old guy with the long white hair?
> 
> That guy always rubs me the wrong way.
> 
> I can Deal with Neil DeGrasse Tyson. *Didn't he due a series called Nova Science Now recently on PBS?*


Yep, that was him.


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

Interesting too that this is a Seth Macfarlane production. Hopefully it's not too crazy.


----------



## LoREvanescence (Jun 19, 2007)

Anyone know when this show will actually air?


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

This ought to be good. Digital production was hardly a gleam in anyone's eye when Cosmos first premiered. The visuals on this show should be . . . stellar. 

I am surprised that it's on FOX and not PBS.


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

LoREvanescence said:


> Anyone know when this show will actually air?


Looks like March 9th.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

This is going to be on Fox?

I like NDT. I hope he says "Billions and billions" in the first episode. I just hope this show doesn't continue the new trend with documentaries to have a loud, annoying sound effect every 15 seconds. I got very annoyed at the Big History series because of the constant obnoxious sound effects.


----------



## rhuntington3 (May 1, 2001)

Yeah, really, on FOX? Hopefully they won't air it out of order.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

rhuntington3 said:


> Yeah, really, on FOX? Hopefully they won't air it out of order.


Bang The Big?


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

cheesesteak said:


> This is going to be on Fox?
> 
> I like NDT. I hope he says "Billions and billions" in the first episode. I just hope this show doesn't continue the new trend with documentaries to have a loud, annoying sound effect every 15 seconds. I got very annoyed at the Big History series because of the constant obnoxious sound effects.


Amen brother. I'm a huge history buff and was really looking forward to Big History. It seemed like it was going to be a great modern take on one of the best science documentary series ever made - "Connections" with James Burke. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_(TV_series) However, the sound effects and, even worse, the constant explosions of CGI graphics made my head hurt. I didn't even finish the first episode. It was more like the Beatle's Yellow Submarine on acid.

BTW, if anyone is interested, many of the full episodes of Connections are available on YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/user/JamesBurkeConnection


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Bob Coxner said:


> Amen brother. I'm a huge history buff and was really looking forward to Big History. It seemed like it was going to be a great modern take on one of the best science documentary series ever made - "Connections" with James Burke. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_(TV_series) However, the sound effects and, even worse, the constant explosions of CGI graphics made my head hurt. I didn't even finish the first episode. It was more like the Beatle's Yellow Submarine on acid.
> 
> BTW, if anyone is interested, many of the full episodes of Connections are available on YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/user/JamesBurkeConnection


Connections was great. I thought Big History would be a modern Connections too.

I finally forced myself to finish the final 2 hour Big History episode. It took me three weeks of off and on watching. The constant swishing and swooshing sound effects and moving graphics was very annoying. Who the heck ok'd that?


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

I see Big History on the History channel. Is that what you both are talking about? Definitely seems interesting, but I get the feeling you are saying it is not worth the time.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

waynomo said:


> I see Big History on the History channel. Is that what you both are talking about? Definitely seems interesting, but I get the feeling you are saying it is not worth the time.


The information is good. The presentation of that information is annoying.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

markp99 said:


> I'll be watching, but something about Neil deGrasse Tyson just rubs me the wrong way. Hopefully I'll get past it.
> 
> Though, could have been worse if they had picked Michio Kaku, the media whore of science TV


Yeah, Tyson bugs me too but I'm not a fan of Kaku. I don't like David Pogue or Brian Greene either.

I'll probably skip this series because of Tyson. They should just have a headless narrator like Liev Schreiber.

Or resurrect Sagan via CGI. "Zombie Sagan", that would make for an interesting presentation.


----------



## Mabes (Jan 12, 2001)

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/case...-degrass-tysons-cosmos-has-a-new-trailer.html

A trailer


----------



## Davelnlr_ (Jan 13, 2011)

rhuntington3 said:


> Yeah, really, on FOX? Hopefully they won't air it out of order.


It is also going to be on NatGeo, which is what I am recording it from, since its 1080i vs Fox at 720p.

Starting on 3/8 at 11am Central time, NatGeo is also showing the entire 13 episode original series Cosmos with Carl Sagen.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

Davelnlr_ said:


> It is also going to be on NatGeo, which is what I am recording it from, since its 1080i vs Fox at 720p.
> 
> Starting on 3/8 at 11am Central time, NatGeo is also showing the entire 13 episode original series Cosmos with Carl Sagen.


Thank you for that. I was going to do fox, but will change. (Also probably record the original one.)


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Davelnlr_ said:


> It is also going to be on NatGeo, which is what I am recording it from, since its 1080i vs Fox at 720p.


NatGeo is a 720p channel on my system (Fios). Are you sure about yours?


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

The impressive thing about the first episode is that it will be simulcast on most FOX networks here in the states and internationally.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

Well, that explains why Fox is airing it in place of American Dad and Family Guy.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Is this Fox's answer to Through The Wormhole?


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Worf said:


> Well, that explains why Fox is airing it in place of American Dad and Family Guy.


What does, and how does it explain that?

Note that FG and AD aren't going on hiatus - the Fox Sunday schedule is now:
7:00 - Bob's Burgers
7:30 - American Dad
8:00 - The Simpsons
8:30 - Family Guy
9:00 - Cosmos


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

Tyson >>> Kaiku, a complete wackjob

I'll be watching.

But I too would prefer a CGI resurrected Sagan bot as host. Epic! Ann possibly would not.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Yeah, Kaku is embarrassing. I remember that science fiction science show he did...that was awful. It's like he doesn't even know what's possible...he'd have something very unlikely as his starting point, and then just zoom off into the Twilight Zone from there.

Tyson seems to think very highly of himself. But at least he's earned it. And I do like his enthusiasm...he might be the perfect host for this kind of show. Not for the geeks, but for the regular folks; enthusiastic but not a nut-job (I've gotten SO tired of the Discovery Channel type shows with all their breathless commentary that so often leaves science behind, often with Kaku as one of the commentators).

So a good, solid overview of our understanding of the universe that does for today's generation what Cosmos TOS did for, er, my generation would be very welcome. Let's hope Tyson pulls it off.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

I met Dr. Sagan once when he was in our studios at TBS for a taping of a CNN special. He was quite interesting to talk to, but I never got up the nerve to ask him to say "Billions and Billions" for me.


----------



## Ozzie72 (Aug 9, 2008)

LoREvanescence said:


> ^Is he the old guy with the long white hair?
> 
> That guy always rubs me the wrong way.


No happy ending for you then, huh?


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Carl Sagan was a very popular professor when I was at Cornell but he didn't like engineers taking his large lecture course so I had be content with sneaking in once or twice.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Yeah, Kaku is embarrassing. I remember that science fiction science show he did...that was awful. It's like he doesn't even know what's possible...he'd have something very unlikely as his starting point, and then just zoom off into the Twilight Zone from there.
> 
> Tyson seems to think very highly of himself. But at least he's earned it. And I do like his enthusiasm...he might be the perfect host for this kind of show. Not for the geeks, but for the regular folks; enthusiastic but not a nut-job (I've gotten SO tired of the Discovery Channel type shows with all their breathless commentary that so often leaves science behind, often with Kaku as one of the commentators).
> 
> So a good, solid overview of our understanding of the universe that does for today's generation what Cosmos TOS did for, er, my generation would be very welcome. Let's hope Tyson pulls it off.


Having Tyson host Cosmos is brilliant because of the outreach to others outside the geek science community that the former heavyweight boxing champ brings.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

philw1776 said:


> Having Tyson host Cosmos is brilliant because of the outreach to others outside the geek science community that the former heavyweight boxing champ brings.


With the added bonus that in the ratings, he'll beat the CRAP out of the timeslot!


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

Maybe we can get him to fight Ken Ham.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

I was showing my kids the trailer this morning, and telling them about how we were going to watch this as a family, no questions asked, and had an epiphany.

I had just turned 11 years old when the original Cosmos premiered on PBS, and *vividly* remember watching it. I can firmly state that it helped me become who I am today. I can remember being EXCITED about science in the 6th grade, and until now, I really hadn't analyzed it to the point to realize that it was probably fueled by Cosmos.

My son is in the 6th grade, and just turned 12 last month. This thing is generational. I'm REALLY looking forward to it, I just hope that Mike Tyson can live up to Carl Sagan.

Greg


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

Very inspirational. You should tweet that to Tyson. @neiltyson. He's pretty active on Twitter.

(Except the Mike part.)


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

waynomo said:


> Maybe we can get him to fight Ken Ham.


I'd pay to see that! :up:


----------



## wombat94 (Nov 18, 2007)

gchance,

I could have written your post practically word for word.

I was 11 when the original COSMOS premiered. I loved that series and the inspiration that it provided for me carries on to this day.

I am SO looking forward to watching the new series with my daughters (12 and 9).

Ted


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

wombat94 said:


> gchance,
> 
> I could have written your post practically word for word.
> 
> ...


Seriously! I almost got teary-eyed, watching the trailer with them this morning. It's funny the things we can get emotional about.

My kids are 12, 9, and 8.

Greg


----------



## teknikel (Jan 27, 2002)

gchance said:


> I was showing my kids the trailer this morning, and telling them about how we were going to watch this as a family, no questions asked, and had an epiphany.Greg


Were you forced to watch it or did you discover it on your own?


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

It is really going to air on the 8 or so networks they show at the end of all the teasers?

-smak-


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

smak said:


> It is really going to air on the 8 or so networks they show at the end of all the teasers?


I think just the first episode, then one or two networks after that.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Davelnlr_ said:


> ...
> 
> Starting on 3/8 at 11am Central time, NatGeo is also showing the entire 13 episode original series Cosmos with Carl Sagen.


Thank you so much for that.

Now watch TWC pull NGC from the analog tier before Saturday. 

Or just fail entirely. 

Or some other excuse for the universe to keep me from recording it.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

Sky & Telescope says Cosmos will have fresh material. Reasonable since Dark Energy with cosmological acceleration was unknown in the 80s. No exoplanets had been discovered. No Neptune encounter or asteroid encounters. Pluto was still a planet and had no retinue of moons.
The Ship of the Imagination will return with an updated look. The Library of Alexandria will again be covered. 
SPOILER: It got burned down


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Davelnlr_ said:


> Starting on 3/8 at 11am Central time, NatGeo is also showing the entire 13 episode original series Cosmos with Carl Sagen.


Since it was originally on PBS (imdb says "60 minutes" for the length, but I suspect it was a few minutes shorter than that), and is now on a commercial network, I highly suspect those are edited episodes.



philw1776 said:


> The Library of Alexandria will again be covered.


Though I don't have a real good citation, apparently "The Library of Alexandria had a copy of all knowledge in the known civilization at the time" (my paraphrase) is a big myth.. I saw at least a couple of references to it being a myth on quora.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

philw1776 said:


> The Library of Alexandria will again be covered.
> SPOILER: It got burned down


Well, that's what happened in the original. But for the remake, they might shake things up.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, that's what happened in the original. But for the remake, they might shake things up.


Hard to imagine Tyson being as blunt about it as Sagan was, alas.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

teknikel said:


> Were you forced to watch it or did you discover it on your own?


A little bit of both. I would have watched it on my own, but without a doubt, I wouldn't have even known about it, had it not been for being required to watch as part of my class. By that age, our PBS viewing had turned into nothing (my father always called it "the educational channel" and refused to watch, even when it was program outside the educational block).

Greg


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

The Original Series will be airing this weekend in a marathon. My DVR is set!


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

MacThor said:


> The Original Series will be airing this weekend in a marathon. My DVR is set!


PBS?


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

gchance said:


> PBS?


Not that I see in Zap2it.


----------



## Shaunnick (Jul 2, 2005)

Davelnlr_ said:


> It is also going to be on NatGeo, which is what I am recording it from, since its 1080i vs Fox at 720p.
> 
> Starting on 3/8 at 11am Central time, NatGeo is also showing the entire 13 episode original series Cosmos with Carl Sagen.


[media]http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md8a00jqoX1qbh26io4_500.gif[/media]


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

gchance said:


> PBS?


NatGeo.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

gchance said:


> PBS?


National Geographic, starting at noon on Saturday.


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

I've never seen the original. Getting it now.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I can remember Johnny Carson doing Sagan's "billions and billions" in jokes on the Tonight Show. That was a long times ago but doesn't feel like it.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

What's funny is he never really says "billions and billions". He says millions, billions, and trillions a lot though.






Greg


----------



## super dave (Oct 1, 2002)

The original series is on Youtube....https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBA8DC67D52968201


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

super dave said:


> The original series is on Youtube....https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBA8DC67D52968201


Most of it blocked for copyright violation.


----------



## wtherrell (Dec 23, 2004)

I learned the term "googleplex" from Carl Sagan. Also that we are made of "star-stuff" 


Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

[pedantic]googolplex.[/pedantic]


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

wtherrell said:


> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


We don't care.


----------



## super dave (Oct 1, 2002)

DUDE_NJX said:


> Most of it blocked for copyright violation.


Well that sucks..


----------



## wtherrell (Dec 23, 2004)

pdhenry said:


> [pedantic]googolplex.[/pedantic]


Well, I only heard him say it. Didn't read it. Besides, it's a Google Play on words. 
Are you sure this is star stuff?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## argicida (Feb 17, 2009)

It would be nice if Fox became synonymous with edgy stuff again instead of bad reality and politics based news.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Maybe Cosmos will do Brane Theory. That's pretty edgy.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

wtherrell said:


> I learned the term "googleplex" from Carl Sagan. Also that we are made of "star-stuff"





pdhenry said:


> [pedantic]googolplex.[/pedantic]





> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk





scooterboy said:


> We don't care.


Brutal.

Greg


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

wtherrell said:


> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


 Your tapatalk app is adding text to your posts.


----------



## wtherrell (Dec 23, 2004)

All better now?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

wtherrell said:


> All better now?


The universe is in balance again. 



argicida said:


> It would be nice if Fox became synonymous with edgy stuff again instead of bad reality and politics based news.


That's the funniest thing I have read on the board all year!


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

eddyj said:


> That's the funniest thing I have read on the board all year!


Or saddest.


----------



## Fl_Gulfer (May 27, 2005)

MacThor said:


> National Geographic, starting at noon on Saturday.


The first 6 shows are Sat. 12:00 est and the Final 7 are Sun. at 12:00 est


----------



## argicida (Feb 17, 2009)

eddyj said:


> The universe is in balance again.
> 
> That's the funniest thing I have read on the board all year!


The Simpsons, Married With children, X-Files, Grounded for Life, Ally McBeal, King of the Hill - Fox was once a place for interesting edgy shows.


----------



## wtherrell (Dec 23, 2004)

argicida said:


> The Simpsons, Married With children, X-Files, Grounded for Life, Ally McBeal, King of the Hill - Fox was once a place for interesting edgy shows.


You are correct


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

Arrested Development. Family Guy.
24. Prison Break (First couple of seasons of each anyway)


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

LoREvanescence said:


> Anyone know when this show will actually air?


It will be ten (I think) cable networks National Geo and FX and Science and I think History. Do a TiVo search. Also I suggest that everyone pad the ending by two minutes. If you have trouble padding it, pick another air time/date.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

wtherrell said:


> I learned the term "googleplex" from Carl Sagan. Also that we are made of "star-stuff"
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


I believe the words Sagan use were "From star-stuff we were all created to star-stuff we will all one day return."


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

All the hydrogen in the universe and most of the helium was created in the Big Bang. Then nothing else until the expanding universe bubble cooled down enough for atoms to form. Gravity attracted the hydrogen and helium into clumps that became stars, clumps so massive that the pressure and temperatures at the core ignited atomic fusion, which powers the stars. As the original massive stars age they burn up most of their hydrogen and fusing more neutrons and protons together explode, creating the higher elements like oxygen, carbon, calcium, silicon, iron, whatever. (Somewhat simplified) This stuff later again clumps together to make later generation stars and eventually planets. Every atom in our body that is not hydrogen was made in dying stars. (Somewhat simplified)


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

Johncv said:


> I believe the words Sagan use were "From star-stuff we were all created to star-stuff we will all one day return."


I prefer Joni Mitchell and her song Woodstock:

"We are stardust, we are golden, we are billion year old carbon,
And we got to get ourselves back to the garden."

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aOGnVKWbwc[/media]

If you prefer it a bit more R&R then go with CSNY:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sH0uR2u7Hs[/media]


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

argicida said:


> The Simpsons, Married With children, X-Files, Grounded for Life, Ally McBeal, King of the Hill - Fox was once a place for interesting edgy shows.


I know. I watched some and loved others. Can't believe you left Fringe out! 

I was making a joke about their "news" coverage.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

eddyj said:


> I was making a joke about their "news" coverage.


Fox News. The truth is out there.

And we're in here.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

MacThor said:


> The Original Series will be airing this weekend in a marathon. My DVR is set!


I keep forgetting how much broadcast technology has changed over the years, even though I was working in TV at the time Cosmos first came on.

Watched some of the first ep as it was recording today. Broadcast resolution really was crappy, back in the day. By comparison, the new series should look amazing.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

Is this the thread to talk about shows or does there have to be a separate thread for a show?


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

I have to say I was a little disappointed. It had an Epcot type of feel to it, with Neil in the spaceship and all. And they spend too much time on a guy who's main claim to fame was a lucky guess and persecution by the church. I'm an atheist, and agree with Neil on the harm that organized religion has done throughout history, but this seemed to push that agenda when it could have been explaining how Copernicus and others used the scientific method to prove how the earth orbits the sun.


----------



## TheSlyBear (Dec 26, 2002)

To each; I liked that sequence because it's not someone I knew anything about. Enjoyed the show as a whole. I'll keep watching.


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

That's funny the first thing I thought was that it felt like I was a ride at Epcot. The second thing I thought was that Neil Tyson's spaceship looked like Boba Fett's spaceship. 

But overall I liked the show.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

Neat show. But man do the credits roll on and on at the beginning. (And Brannon Braga? That doesn't sound good.)

Of course, it has a bit of a dumbed down nature to it, but I suppose it's to be expected. It's on Fox, after all, and not Discovery (well, we have it on NatGeo, but still, Fox is putting it on Animation Domination Sundays), nor PBS.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Worf said:


> Of course, it has a bit of a dumbed down nature to it, but I suppose it's to be expected. It's on Fox, after all, and not Discovery (well, we have it on NatGeo, but still, Fox is putting it on Animation Domination Sundays), nor PBS.


And more to the point, its purpose is to introduce people to the wonders of science, not further explain science to the already-interested. So I suspect most of us are not at the center of its target demographic, and in an age of not just scientific illiteracy but scientific idiocy, I'd say that's a very good thing.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

I thought Tyson did a fine job as host. Liked hearing the details on his Sagan relationship directly from him. Agree that the Bruno section was overly long. The point about free scientific inquiry was made, why belabor it? I'm not really a fan of animation vs the use of actors in the 1st series.

Tyson has criticized others for stuff like showing the asteroids all close together Star Wars style, so why did he do it? I think the answer is that the folks making this series are gonna be getting overly carried away with gee-whiz CGI. To Neil's credit he did mention later that Oort cloud object were many AU apart from each other.

The target audience is for those with a casual interest looking for entertaining information and I think they've developed a show that hits that target. We'll see.

Thanks to Fox & Nat Geo for your sponsorship.


----------



## WestTx (Dec 5, 2005)

I liked the first episode. Mostly because I expected to be really disappointed.

I thought the original series was unique because of Sagan, and the way the series seemed almost dream-like with his narration style and the music they used. Because Tyson can be so brash (ever listened to his StarTalk podcast?) I kinda expected him to try to make Cosmos more about Tyson than Cosmos. But, he was subdued - that was a good thing.

The new show, just as the original, is not deep in cosmology and physics but is entertaining and I plan to continue to watch.
For deep in cosmology and physics, try Alex Filippenko's Understanding the Universe from The Teaching Company. Excellent.


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

Anyone know if this will be available on any streaming sources (including Hulu+)? Having it on 7 different channels doesn't help when I get none of them.

Edit: It's all over Hulu's main page. Might try to watch it tonight.


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

I really have no knowledge of Tyson. I've never seen him other than in the promos for this show. But I've watched the Sagan Cosmos many times over the years. I watched it when it first aired. I just recorded and rewatched the broadcasts this weekend. And I've watched it at least two other times. Needless to say, I'm a huge fan. 

This first episode left me lukewarm. The visuals were an obvious improvement. But so far Tyson has left me cold. Whereas Sagan was obviously passionate about the subject, Tyson seems more like a narrator. And the music was perfect in the original. Here, it just didn't do it for me. 

But I'll give it more time. The things I really enjoyed about the original was the thought process, the scientific methods, that were involved in the discoveries. That was obviously missing in this episode. But hopefully we'll see more.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

I was a bit concerned about it being overly Tyson-centric. I'm not a big fan, but his ego seemed toned-down just a bit in ep01.

Overall I liked it. I paused at several points to mention some of the missing details for my wife's benefit that Sagan had noted in se01 (which I just finished again this weekend). I am guessing this was more of a series INTRO, with more of the detailed info coming later.


----------



## JMikeD (Jun 10, 2002)

I thought the first episode a OK for an intro to the series. I remember watching the Sagan series when it was initially broadcast and it made quite an impression on me. I don't expect the new show to have the same effect on me because there are so many shows and books that are around now that just weren't available when the Sagan series was first on. I've always been a science geek and watch those kind of shows regularly.

If it gets more people interested in science, then it will be great.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I liked it. I could probably find out if I did some research but I wonder when NdT started using deGrasse in his name. Sagan referred to him as Neil Tyson when he autographed his book.

I agree that the Bruno segment was a bit too long. At least they didn't show him being roasted alive.

I would have liked the premiere episode to have limited commercials. Every time I got comfortable I had to reach for the remote's ffwd button.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

doom1701 said:


> Anyone know if this will be available on any streaming sources (including Hulu+)? Having it on 7 different channels doesn't help when I get none of them.
> 
> Edit: It's all over Hulu's main page. Might try to watch it tonight.


Also at http://www.fox.com/watch/183733315515


----------



## Shaunnick (Jul 2, 2005)

scooterboy said:


> We don't care.


I don't care that you don't care.

Peeve alert.

Can people please stop griping about the phone sigs? I see the posts for the gripe more often than I see the phone sig.

In fact, I rarely pay attention to or see the phone sig.

So can we stop with the passive aggressive "We don't care"'s and the "Your phone sig is showing"'s?


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

I would want to know, so I let others know. If they want to continue to have their forum app spam the forum with each post, that's their choice.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Shaunnick said:


> Can people please stop griping about the phone sigs? I see the posts for the gripe more often than I see the phone sig.


That's because people are made aware and turn them off. If not for that, half the posts on teh board would have the silly things.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

eddyj said:


> That's because people are made aware and turn them off. If not for that, half the posts on teh board would have the silly things.


Really! I'm on a couple of other forums where people aren't as vigilant about that as they are here. It makes TCF a pleasure to read.

So actually at least some do care that we don't care.


----------



## hairyblue (Feb 25, 2002)

I enjoyed it quite well. It was an into to the series and they may get more detailed with later episodes. What I got out of this episode was: How man's understanding of our relationship to the universe changed. It went from, we are the center to we are a very tiny speck. It also explained what a small amount of time we've been here compared to the age of the universe. And how smart our country's founders were in having the separation of church and state when building our great country. 

I sort of wished they'd used the old Cosmos music tho. Vangelis did the music for Cosmos. They were also famous for Chariots of Fire theme and Bladerunner music.

I look forward to episode 2.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Have we heard from anyone in the thread who wasn't already familiar with the Sagan version? Seems that most of the posts are reminiscing about that version or comparing this version to that version. I'm wondering whether this edition found any new audience...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

hairyblue said:


> Vangelis...They


He!


hairyblue said:


> Bladerunner


Blade Runner!


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

pdhenry said:


> Have we heard from anyone in the thread who wasn't already familiar with the Sagan version? Seems that most of the posts are reminiscing about that version or comparing this version to that version. I'm wondering whether this edition found any new audience...


I hadn't seen the original other than about 10 minutes I was able to catch earlier in the day on NatGeo (before the cable went out). I like and plan to watch all of both versions.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> He!
> 
> Blade Runner!


Old timer.


----------



## pteronaut (Dec 26, 2009)

lambertman said:


> I hadn't seen the original other than about 10 minutes I was able to catch earlier in the day on NatGeo (*before the cable went out*). I like and plan to watch all of both versions.


Let me guess, Brighthouse?


----------



## alansh (Jan 3, 2003)

gchance said:


> What's funny is he never really says "billions and billions". He says millions, billions, and trillions a lot though.
> 
> Greg


Sagan later said that "billions and billions" probably came from Johnny Carson's impression of him, rather than anything he actually said.

I liked the first episode of the new series. You get the nickel tour of the universe, and an introduction to the cosmic calendar. I'm also taking this opportunity to rewatch the classic series (I have the DVD set.). I watched the original PBS broadcasts while I was in high school and loved it. Sometimes I had to take our portable B&W TV outside to watch it because my brother was watching a basketball game on the main color set. 

The effects are actually pretty good for 1980. It's obvious that it was mastered on SD video, unfortunately. If it had been on 35mm film, the transfer would be a lot better.

I do miss Vangellis' music -- the main title was an excerpt from "Heaven and Hell, part I", and "Alpha" was also frequently heard.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> And more to the point, its purpose is to introduce people to the wonders of science, not further explain science to the already-interested. So I suspect most of us are not at the center of its target demographic, and in an age of not just scientific illiteracy but scientific idiocy, I'd say that's a very good thing.


No, scientific idiocy implies ignorance. These days, it's scientific denialism - the ignorant and the idiots can be taught. The denialists will never accept any evidence, having made up their mind and formed their world view around it. Usually for religious reasons.

Perhaps that's why the Bruno segment was especially long - to just give example after example after example of religious dogma interfering with science.

(Personally, I have no problem with religious people provided they don't try to force others on their beliefs, and that they remain open-minded enough that perhaps religion is wrong in some parts. I don't even mind religious scientists, as long as they're professional enough to keep their research and religion separate when they start to conflict. After all, religion can answer "why" (Why are we here? The great philosophical question), while science answers "how" (How are we here? What's the biological processes that make up life?))

Still, I think I'll keep watching. Seems interesting enough, and heck, fun anecdotes are always fun to share in social groups. Never seen the original other than bits and pieces on YouTube. Wonder if Hulu or Netflix carries it.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

I did like the shout-out to the original series' dandelion.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

Philosofy said:


> I have to say I was a little disappointed. It had an Epcot type of feel to it, with Neil in the spaceship and all. And they spend too much time on a guy who's main claim to fame was a lucky guess and persecution by the church. I'm an atheist, and agree with Neil on the harm that organized religion has done throughout history, but this seemed to push that agenda when it could have been explaining how Copernicus and others used the scientific method to prove how the earth orbits the sun.


I was distracted by the animated Bruno character. He looked like the twin of Dr. Orpheus on The Venture Brothers.

I liked it but was underwhelmed. Maybe it was the press buildup, which no show could ever match, or the fact that it seemed dumbed down a bit more than necessary. Still good and still recommended.


----------



## wombat94 (Nov 18, 2007)

I very much enjoyed the first episode.

I like the fact that they appear to be staying pretty close to the overall arc of the original, and I liked both the opening with Carl Sagan and Tyson's story about meeting Dr. Sagan when he was a high school student.

The student showing respect to the great teacher.

The best part is that when the episode was over, both of my daughters were disappointed that there wasn't more to watch right now. They were pretty well hooked by the first show and the promise of wonders to be told... can't ask for more.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

pteronaut said:


> Let me guess, Brighthouse?


Comcast. And just as an aside: how many people can say their washing machine caused their cable to go out? (All better now.)


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

BrettStah said:


> I would want to know, so I let others know. If they want to continue to have their forum app spam the forum with each post, that's their choice.


There's a way to let people know without being douchie about it. How about instead of "We don't care" say something like "I'm not sure if you realize it, but you have this signature at the bottom of your message". Maybe the user is unaware it's even there.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

I don't post the "We don't care" replies. Mine are more along the lines of your alternative.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

pdhenry said:


> Have we heard from anyone in the thread who wasn't already familiar with the Sagan version? Seems that most of the posts are reminiscing about that version or comparing this version to that version. I'm wondering whether this edition found any new audience...


Raises hand. I was aware of the Sagan version, but never watched it.

I thought this was ok. I agree with those who said it felt like an Epcot ride, or an Imax movie, or a planetarium presentation (for those who don't know Tyson is the director of the Hayden Planetarium in NYC). I also felt he was talking to me as if I was a 3rd grader. Which I guess is ok, if that is the audience you're after. I thought the story about Bruno went on a little too long and I think, rather than a cartoon, it would have been better to do with live actors (again, it gave me that, grade school feel).

I'm in for the rest of the series, most probably, but I have to say, I'm a bit disappointed. Was that how Sagan did it?


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

Too much useless spaceship screen time, IMO. Other than that it was OK for kids.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

BrettStah said:


> I don't post the "We don't care" replies. Mine are more along the lines of your alternative.


Sorry, I guess that wasn't meant for you. I guess that's what rubbed me the wrong way about it.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I preferred the animation. I've always disliked the use of actors in recreations, which to my mind lends an exaggerated sense of accuracy (creating the illusion that This Is Exactly What Happened), whereas the animation is artificial enough to suggest that this is just a general recreation. Animation more fits the spirit of what they're doing than live actors.

Plus the actors tend not to be very good, but that's another issue.


----------



## DaveMN (Nov 14, 2001)

My personal barometer for the series is my kids, 11 and 13. During and after the first episode, they were actually paying attention, discussing, and asking questions. For that alone, I think the series is a success.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Thank the tv gods that the sound effects weren't obnoxiously loud.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I preferred the animation. I've always disliked the use of actors in recreations, which to my mind lends an exaggerated sense of accuracy (creating the illusion that This Is Exactly What Happened), whereas the animation is artificial enough to suggest that this is just a general recreation. Animation more fits the spirit of what they're doing than live actors.
> 
> Plus the actors tend not to be very good, but that's another issue.


In this case, the animation was really horrible.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DaveMN said:


> My personal barometer for the series is my kids, 11 and 13. During and after the first episode, they were actually paying attention, discussing, and asking questions. For that alone, I think the series is a success.


Does anyone know if they were targeting this show for kids? It sure felt like it. And if so, I have to question why Fox would not show this at 8PM EDT/PDT instead of 9 EDT/PDT.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

BrettStah said:


> I don't post the "We don't care" replies. Mine are more along the lines of your alternative.





Steveknj said:


> Sorry, I guess that wasn't meant for you. I guess that's what rubbed me the wrong way about it.


It was meant for me. And I don't care. As long as people are going to allow that annoying blurb ad at the end of every post, I will reply that I don't care.

I would prefer not to see either one. I'm more than happy to do my part for getting rid of them if others do theirs.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

scooterboy said:


> It was meant for me. And I don't care. As long as people are going to allow that annoying blurb ad at the end of every post, I will reply that I don't care.
> 
> I would prefer not to see either one. I'm more than happy to do my part for getting rid of them if others do theirs.


I guess the point was you could be a little less snarky. Personally I've gotten the same or similar messages several times after fresh installs and appreciated each one. I was not offended, but I could see how others might be.

I appreciate your efforts in reducing the signatures. Do you want to upset people over that? Generally it's a pretty innocent miscue.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

waynomo said:


> I guess the point was you could be a little less snarky. Personally I've gotten the same or similar messages several times after fresh installs and appreciated each one. I was not offended, but I could see how others might be.
> 
> I appreciate your efforts in reducing the signatures. Do you want to upset people over that? Generally it's a pretty innocent miscue.


Yes, this. I'm sure a good amount of folks who post with Taptalk don't even realize that it's there. A friendly reminder is warranted. A snarky comment, not so much.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Is this what the cosmos has been reduced to? Mobile phone ads?


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Yes, this. I'm sure a good amount of folks who post with Taptalk don't even realize that it's there. A friendly reminder is warranted. A snarky comment, not so much.


How can you not know it's there? I read every one of my posts once it's posted to check for grammar errors, punctuation errors and all around stupidity. The only reason a Tapatalk tag would show up would be because I couldn't figure out how to disable it from showing up.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

wombat94 said:


> The best part is that when the episode was over, both of my daughters were disappointed that there wasn't more to watch right now. They were pretty well hooked by the first show and the promise of wonders to be told... can't ask for more.





DaveMN said:


> My personal barometer for the series is my kids, 11 and 13. During and after the first episode, they were actually paying attention, discussing, and asking questions. For that alone, I think the series is a success.





Steveknj said:


> Does anyone know if they were targeting this show for kids? It sure felt like it. And if so, I have to question why Fox would not show this at 8PM EDT/PDT instead of 9 EDT/PDT.


This sort of series isn't designed for, say, an extremely intelligent adult who might not have been a science major but likes learning about it. There are shows designed for that, which as Tyson put it in an interview I read (I don't have a link) can be found by channel surfing some of the hundreds of cable channels we have.

It's EXTREMELY unfortunate FOX put it at 9pm, and Discovery has it at 10! That's just mind boggling to me, my kids LOVED it, and it's a rarity of a show that we can all watch together and actually discuss afterwards. The timeslot means we have to watch it the following day, because it comes on after their bedtime. My kids go to bed at 8:30, and I'd be willing to let them stay up until 9 if it were on at 8. But to start at 9? There's no way in the world I'm letting the 8- and 9-year-olds stay up until 10. It's hard enough getting them up in the morning without adding to the strain.

But like I said, the kids LOVED it, a lot more than me. I thought it was really good, but it didn't blow me away like the original did. That said, I was 11 years old when I watched the original, and there was NOTHING ELSE LIKE IT.

One thing I found really funny was how the younger kids had never heard of the Big Bang, and got excited about it because of the Big Bang Theory sitcom. 

I love it when my kids are excited. I can't wait for the next episode.

Greg


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Yes, this. I'm sure a good amount of folks who post with Taptalk don't even realize that it's there. A friendly reminder is warranted. A snarky comment, not so much.


I agree.

Sent from my iPhone 5S with AT&T LTE using Tapatalk and edited with my iPhone 5S with AT&T LTE using Forumrunner.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> Yes, this. I'm sure a good amount of folks who post with Taptalk don't even realize that it's there. A friendly reminder is warranted. A snarky comment, not so much.





cheesesteak said:


> How can you not know it's there? I read every one of my posts once it's posted to check for grammar errors, punctuation errors and all around stupidity. The only reason a Tapatalk tag would show up would be because I couldn't figure out how to disable it from showing up.


Exactly. They _should_ realize it's there. My level of snarkiness matches the annoyance level of the ad that's being pushed in front of everyone, post after post.

As I said before, I'd be extremely happy to never post "We don't care" ever again. As soon as some people pay attention to what they're posting and stop letting their mobile app spam us.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

The whining about app spam is really has spammed this thread. I was patient post after post but there is one page of self righteous whining about this.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

scooterboy said:


> Exactly. They _should_ realize it's there. My level of snarkiness matches the annoyance level of the ad that's being pushed in front of everyone, post after post.
> 
> As I said before, I'd be extremely happy to never post "We don't care" ever again. As soon as some people pay attention to what they're posting and stop letting their mobile app spam us.


Maybe you should edit yourself. Again I personally didn't find it offensive, but can see how others might.

There is already tons of rudeness in the world. I see no reason adding to it when a slightly less rude post will accomplish the same. Especially when there was no malice intended.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> How can you not know it's there? I* read every one of my posts once it's posted to check for grammar errors, punctuation errors and all around stupidity.* The only reason a Tapatalk tag would show up would be because I couldn't figure out how to disable it from showing up.


Because not everyone does that. Whether they should or not is a whole different discussion.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

gchance said:


> This sort of series isn't designed for, say, an extremely intelligent adult who might not have been a science major but likes learning about it. There are shows designed for that, which as Tyson put it in an interview I read (I don't have a link) can be found by channel surfing some of the hundreds of cable channels we have.
> 
> It's EXTREMELY unfortunate FOX put it at 9pm, and Discovery has it at 10! That's just mind boggling to me, my kids LOVED it, and it's a rarity of a show that we can all watch together and actually discuss afterwards. The timeslot means we have to watch it the following day, because it comes on after their bedtime. My kids go to bed at 8:30, and I'd be willing to let them stay up until 9 if it were on at 8. But to start at 9? There's no way in the world I'm letting the 8- and 9-year-olds stay up until 10. It's hard enough getting them up in the morning without adding to the strain.
> 
> ...


Exactly. To me this is a really good series to introduce your kids to astronomy. And it's presented in a very kid friendly way. Why Fox put this on so late is mind boggling. And yeah yeah, we all have Tivos so what difference does it make?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

philw1776 said:


> *The whining about app spam is really has spammed this thread. * I was patient post after post but there is one page of self righteous whining about this.


Oh, and your grammar sucks too 

I'm kidding, and you're right.


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

I loved the original and have seen it many times and own the DVD set. That said, overall I liked this reboot/continuation. I think Tyson is a great alternate for Sagan and he has the ability to connect with a non scientific audience.

The music was ok, but I prefer the wider variety and musical types on the original. 
What grated on me (at least in the beginning) was the animation. I pulled me out of the moment. I'll see how it goes as the series goes on. But I can live with it.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

I'm not thrilled with the animation so far either, but I'm willing to see if they get more creative and entertaining with it. What really counts is how the younger non science focused target audience reacts to it. If it's a hit with the new target demo, I'm good with that.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

waynomo said:


> Maybe you should edit yourself. Again I personally didn't find it offensive, but can see how others might.
> 
> There is already tons of rudeness in the world. I see no reason adding to it when a slightly less rude post will accomplish the same. Especially when there was no malice intended.


Would a response such as "Please stop that" be better?


----------



## ehusen (Jan 7, 2002)

Maybe I'm easier to please but I liked it. Just having a presentation of the awe and grandeur of the world/solar system/galaxy/universe we live in entertains me. There's a certain spiritual calmness to contemplating the vastness of it all.

I thought the reference to how he met Sagan at an early age was really nice. We can all hope for inspiration like that.

So maybe the science was a bit light but that's okay for me. Perhaps the next episodes will go more in depth. You cannot get too heavy into it on these kinds of shows or you will lose your audience.

Oh, And my kids really liked it too.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

scooterboy said:


> Would a response such as "Please stop that" be better?


Yes. And I think more effective.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

waynomo said:


> Yes. And I think more effective.


Ok, I'll give that a shot.

I'm nothing if not flexible.


----------



## wtherrell (Dec 23, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I preferred the animation. I've always disliked the use of actors in recreations, which to my mind lends an exaggerated sense of accuracy (creating the illusion that This Is Exactly What Happened), whereas the animation is artificial enough to suggest that this is just a general recreation. Animation more fits the spirit of what they're doing than live actors.
> 
> Plus the actors tend not to be very good, but that's another issue.


Brings to mind the animation that was used when Wernher Von Braun explained how he was going to get humans to the moon.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

Question for those that recorded or watched TOS marathon: Was it massively chopped to squeeze in commercials? If so, I may not bother watching them from the DVR but will find a way to stream/get the DVD's.

I'd like to re-experience the original but "edited to fit in time allotted" is a peeve.


----------



## wtherrell (Dec 23, 2004)

Geez, guys. There has been more OT useless stuff posted (including this) about my sig that I forgot was there than the sig would have caused in hundreds of posts. Thanks for pointing it out. I corrected it and I apologize. 
Good, let's all agree to be more civil to each other and just drop it, shall we?


----------



## wtherrell (Dec 23, 2004)

MacThor said:


> Question for those that recorded or watched TOS marathon: Was it massively chopped to squeeze in commercials? If so, I may not bother watching them from the DVR but will find a way to stream/get the DVD's.
> 
> I'd like to re-experience the original but "edited to fit in time allotted" is a peeve.


Yeah, they chopped it up pretty bad so they can get in 5? more minutes of commercials.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

wtherrell said:


> Geez, guys. There has been more OT useless stuff posted (including this) about my sig that I forgot was there than the sig would have caused in hundreds of posts. Thanks for pointing it out. I corrected it and I apologize.
> Good, let's all agree to be more civil to each other and just drop it, shall we?


We don't care.

I'M KIDDING!!! 

Seriously, thank you for turning that off and I will be less snarky in the future.


----------



## Shaunnick (Jul 2, 2005)

scooterboy said:


> Would a response such as "Please stop that" be better?


The tone is what aggravated me. And I apologize for my snark in return. I realize we all share this space and that just as I found your post offensive (even though it was not directed at me) I have seen that post (here and other places, not just by you) and yours was just the straw that broke me. In the end it does not really matter. So again I apologize for my own snark.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

It's all good. It was pointed out that even though I find the "Sent from" ads totally annoying, the posters likely have no idea it's happening. I wasn't taking that into account when making my reply just as annoying as the ad.

I will try to be nicer.


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

cheesesteak said:


> Thank the tv gods that the sound effects weren't obnoxiously loud.


The sound design was pleasant, but I thought the LFE was a bit fatiguing. WOOOSH.. WOOOSH...


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

The reviews from the far right are in.

The Fundamentalist Christian Reaction To Last Nights Cosmos Debut Is About What Youd Expect

If you want a good chuckle you should read some of the tweets. If only these were from The Onion.


----------



## wtherrell (Dec 23, 2004)

Yeah. Sometimes I think these fundamentalists do as much or more harm to Christianity than the Inquisitors of Bruno's Era. To my mind they miss seeing the whole forest because they wrangle over individual trees.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

Imaginary trees.


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

One thing I found interesting after doing a little research was the mention of the plaque on Pioneer and the Voyager Golden Record. While the original series spent a lot of time on the subject and the first episode at least mentioned it, there was no acknowledgement that it was actually Sagan that was responsible for assembling both of them. 

As far as the original being chopped when it was shown, it must have been. There was one piece I vaguely remember that wasn't on the rebroadcast. I remember an animated bit that started with a picnic, I believe in Grant Park in Chicago, that started to zoom out, all the way to the edge of the universe. Then reverted and zoomed in all the way down to the nucleus of an atom. 

Maybe it was from something else, but I'm pretty sure it was in the original series.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

I liked it. It felt like a recap of the original. I'm guessing that the public at large wasn't really that knowledgeable about the concepts that Dr. Sagan was teaching at the time. Also, the original music and his manner of speaking made it seem much more epic and awe inspiring. I was already an adult with young kids by then, and I loved that type of show. 

Now, 34 years later, we have access to information that we could only dream about in 1980. Kids are exposed to technology at a much younger age. 

The production values are so much better than what was available back then. So it should be great eye candy. And, hopefully, we'll learn something new.


----------



## nataylor (Apr 26, 2000)

midas said:


> As far as the original being chopped when it was shown, it must have been. There was one piece I vaguely remember that wasn't on the rebroadcast. I remember an animated bit that started with a picnic, I believe in Grant Park in Chicago, that started to zoom out, all the way to the edge of the universe. Then reverted and zoomed in all the way down to the nucleus of an atom.
> 
> Maybe it was from something else, but I'm pretty sure it was in the original series.


That's Powers of Ten, a film from 1968.


----------



## GoPackGo (Dec 29, 2012)

Never watched the original. All I know about Sagan comes from Contact. 

Loved this. I found it interesting all the way through, and especially touching when Tyson spoke about meeting Sagan for the first time.


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

nataylor said:


> That's Powers of Ten, a film from 1968.


Ah yes, that's it. I would have sworn it was in the original series. But I've been wrong before.


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

It's been a few years since I watched the original, but it doesn't seem that Tyson has quite the screen presence that I remember Sagan having. He seems to fidget a lot, and often feels like he's reading copy. Sagan seemed so connected to the material that watching Cosmos was like sitting in his living room with him (with the exception of the, at the time, incredible special effects).

The amount of time spent on Bruno did seem excessive to me. I'm hoping that the first episode did so to focus on how humanity has a history of being close minded to new ideas, and to encourage the viewer to watch with an open mind. If we spend 20 minutes every week on the "Christian scientific martyr of the week", then I'll start to wonder about their intent.

The ship bugged me a little, for much the same reason that the similar ship did in "Phantom Menace"...who's making these spaceships so friggen' shiny? I realize that a starship of imagination probably shouldn't look like it was bolted together from scrap, but the shininess was often distracting.


----------



## secondclaw (Oct 3, 2004)

The camera looked to be set lower so Neil would look down a bit when talking to camera as if he's talking to children. Not a bad idea of its aimed at kids. 
I didn't like Bruno segment either, it was too long and animation kinda sucked. The rest was very good. Neil became more eloquent and passionate toward the end, though a bit more wooden in first segments (the way I was concerned he would be entire series).


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

wtherrell said:


> Yeah. Sometimes I think these fundamentalists do as much or more harm to Christianity than the Inquisitors of Bruno's Era. To my mind they miss seeing the whole forest because they wrangle over individual trees.


I try and ignore them because, like most religious zealots they tend to take an extreme position, usually from literally reading human accounts of what they perceive as God's story. The one difference between today's religious Christian zealots and those during the Inquisition is that they are not in enough of a position of power to order the deaths of non believers (which is different than say Muslim zealots who ARE in a position of power in much of the Muslim world. And we are also better armed to call them on their zeal than we were in Bruno's time.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

RGM1138 said:


> I liked it. It felt like a recap of the original. I'm guessing that the public at large wasn't really that knowledgeable about the concepts that Dr. Sagan was teaching at the time. Also, the original music and his manner of speaking made it seem much more epic and awe inspiring. I was already an adult with young kids by then, and I loved that type of show.
> 
> Now, 34 years later, we have access to information that we could only dream about in 1980. Kids are exposed to technology at a much younger age.
> 
> The production values are so much better than what was available back then. So it should be great eye candy. And, hopefully, we'll learn something new.


During Sagan's time, it was so awe inspiring because there was nothing else like it, unless you had access to a planetarium that you could visit. Today, we take for granted so much that involves science that it's become ho-hum. There's CHANNELS on TV dedicated to science. NASA has their own channel!!

Still I found this fascinating and fun, but I was interested going in.

For those of you interested in this, and didn't watch 60 Minutes this past Sunday, see if you can watch the story on the "telescope" they are building 16,000 feet in the mountains of Chile. With that telescope, they will able to see things in space that we never could before with a telescope such as the Hubble.


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)




----------



## wtherrell (Dec 23, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> I try and ignore them because, like most religious zealots they tend to take an extreme position, usually from literally reading human accounts of what they perceive as God's story. The one difference between today's religious Christian zealots and those during the Inquisition is that they are not in enough of a position of power to order the deaths of non believers (which is different than say Muslim zealots who ARE in a position of power in much of the Muslim world. And we are also better armed to call them on their zeal than we were in Bruno's time.


(insert thumbs up symbol here)


----------



## LoREvanescence (Jun 19, 2007)

So, I was on a cruise when the first show aired, is it available on Hulu?


----------



## DavidJL (Feb 21, 2006)

LoREvanescence said:


> So, I was on a cruise when the first show aired, is it available on Hulu?


Yes it is, the first episode at least for now.

I was expecting better, really disappointing. I much prefer the NOVA specials and there is a ton of stuff on Netflix that's better. But I'll give it a chance.

I'm glad Fox gave it a try and like others I've been upset with Fox with their cancellations but at least they give a lot of shows a chance even if it is a short leash. I know they cancelled Firefly after running it out of order but thank God they ran it at all or I'd never have seen my favorite show of all time, all 14 episodes of it. (although I believe Fox didn't show all 14)


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

Can you give some examples of the better Netflix shows?


----------



## DavidJL (Feb 21, 2006)

DUDE_NJX said:


> Can you give some examples of the better Netflix shows?


I think I started with a Mike Rowe narrated show called something like How the Universe Works and really liked a lot of the related suggested shows. I don't have access right now, I used up my chromecast free months.


----------



## Fl_Gulfer (May 27, 2005)

If you don't have something nice to say throw away your keyboard.... HAPPY BIRTHDAY WWW


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

LoREvanescence said:


> So, I was on a cruise when the first show aired, is it available on Hulu?


It's also being replayed on The National Geographic channel a few more times and on Fox on Saturday night.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DavidJL said:


> Yes it is, the first episode at least for now.
> 
> I was expecting better, really disappointing. I much prefer the NOVA specials and there is a ton of stuff on Netflix that's better. But I'll give it a chance.
> 
> I'm glad Fox gave it a try and like others I've been upset with Fox with their cancellations but at least they give a lot of shows a chance even if it is a short leash. I know they cancelled Firefly after running it out of order but thank God they ran it at all or I'd never have seen my favorite show of all time, all 14 episodes of it. (although I believe Fox didn't show all 14)


I watch Nova occasionally and it's aimed at a much higher level of understanding than Cosmos. Cosmos is aimed at a 3rd grader who knows little or nothing on the topic of astronomy, Nova is aimed more at a High School science level. At least that's the impression I got from E1 of Cosmos.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> I watch Nova occasionally and it's aimed at a much higher level of understanding than Cosmos. Cosmos is aimed at a 3rd grader who knows little or nothing on the topic of astronomy, Nova is aimed more at a High School science level. At least that's the impression I got from E1 of Cosmos.


Yeah, Nova's aimed at people who are already (at least to some extent) science geeks. Cosmos is an entry-level show.

I wouldn't say "3rd-grader," though. In this country, there is an amazing percentage of people who know absolutely nothing about science, and I think Cosmos is aimed at all of them (or at least those who are not religiously banned from knowing anything about science).


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Yeah, Nova's aimed at people who are already (at least to some extent) science geeks. Cosmos is an entry-level show.
> 
> I wouldn't say "3rd-grader," though. In this country, there is an amazing percentage of people who know absolutely nothing about science, and I think Cosmos is aimed at all of them (or at least those who are not religiously banned from knowing anything about science).


That's very true, but I think it's probably around 3rd grade where you start to learn about the planets and such. My son watched the first episode (he's in his 20s) and he got the same impression. The narration, plus the interspersed cartoon made it feel like it was aimed toward children. His thought was maybe they did it this way to sell it as a learning tool at various schools.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> That's very true, but I think it's probably around 3rd grade where you start to learn about the planets and such.


If you go to a Satanist school.

Because planets are the Devil's work, being billions of years old and stuff.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> That's very true, but I think it's probably around 3rd grade where you start to learn about the planets and such. My son watched the first episode (he's in his 20s) and he got the same impression. The narration, plus the interspersed cartoon made it feel like it was aimed toward children. His thought was maybe they did it this way to sell it as a learning tool at various schools.


Or maybe younger.

http://time.com/18784/this-2-year-old-girl-is-really-really-excited-to-watch-the-new-cosmos/


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

Yeah, my 3 yr old watched it with interest. She understood how the moon was formed, etc. 
She couldn't justify in her mind the burning of Bruno if "they just didn't like his ideas".
"That's not very nice!" LOL


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

Hopefully she won't be acting out Bruno's burning when playing with her dolls.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> If you go to a Satanist school.
> 
> Because planets are the Devil's work, being billions of years old and stuff.


Youngest granddaughter went to Parochial school thru 1st grade. She was well informed about evolution, etc. First Grade.

Back to Cosmos


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

philw1776 said:


> Youngest granddaughter went to Parochial school thru 1st grade. She was well informed about evolution, etc. First Grade.


Catholics, despite their reputation, seem to be pretty good about science. It's the American fundamentalist outfits that can get a little, well, nuts about it.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Catholics, despite their reputation, seem to be pretty good about science. It's the American fundamentalist outfits that can get a little, well, nuts about it.


I like your choice of American vs Christian. I was shocked to find that there are Jews who are fundamentalists also. (I'm Jewish BTW.) Does anybody know if there are fundamentalist Muslims? What about other religions?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

waynomo said:


> I like your choice of American vs Christian. I was shocked to find that there are Jews who are fundamentalists also. (I'm Jewish BTW.) Does anybody know if there are fundamentalist Muslims? What about other religions?


By fundamentalist do you mean take the religious texts verbatim or regarding to science?

I would equate the Ultra-Orthodox movement in Israel as "fundamentalist" Jews. Google about the debate they are currently having in Israel about their exemption from military service because they are required to study the Torah. Many don't work because they consider their job as studying the Torah.

And obviously, there are MANY Muslim fundamentalist COUNTRIES in the Arab world. Saudi Arabia is the most common example. Osama Bin Laden was considered a religious zealot and claimed religion was the driving force behind his hatred of the West.

I'm sure there are fundamentalists in ALL regions.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

Steveknj said:


> By fundamentalist do you mean take the religious texts verbatim or regarding to science?
> 
> I would equate the Ultra-Orthodox movement in Israel as "fundamentalist" Jews. Google about the debate they are currently having in Israel about their exemption from military service because they are required to study the Torah. Many don't work because they consider their job as studying the Torah.
> 
> ...


And even fundamentalist atheists. :up:


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

daveak said:


> And even fundamentalist atheists. :up:


It's a little different I think. I wouldn't call them Fundamentalists per se, but certainly zealots.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

I was talking about people who think the world is 6000 years old and that Adam and Eve were real people.
Again, I was shocked to find there are Jews that believe this. Since Muslims also believe in the old testament or that it is least a predecessor to the Koran, I was wondering if any bridge the world is 6000 years old also.


----------



## DavidJL (Feb 21, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> I watch Nova occasionally and it's aimed at a much higher level of understanding than Cosmos. Cosmos is aimed at a 3rd grader who knows little or nothing on the topic of astronomy, Nova is aimed more at a High School science level. At least that's the impression I got from E1 of Cosmos.


For those who have seen both the original and the new Cosmos, was the original aimed at a higher education level?

And I know, Sagan is known for saying Billions and Billions, Millions..., and Trillions...; was there one phrasing that was much more common than others. I imagine it was Billions and Billions and it was in reference to stars (maybe galaxies), but I didn't see the show. Thanks


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DavidJL said:


> And I know, Sagan is known for saying Billions and Billions...


He never actually said that.

I believe it was Johnny Carson, doing an impression of him.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

DavidJL said:


> For those who have seen both the original and the new Cosmos, was the original aimed at a higher education level?


It seems that way but it is way too soon to conclude.
No problem if it's aimed "lower" because we now have other science shows that aren't, e.g. NOVA.
If Cos 2.0 succeeds as an into to astronomy/science for the public, that will be great!


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

Some interesting things took place on an airing in OK...

Evolution cut from the show. Though they claim it was an accident, others, not so much


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Worf said:


> Some interesting things took place on an airing in OK...
> 
> Evolution cut from the show. Though they claim it was an accident, others, not so much


I kind of wondered how this would play in the Bible Belt? Could it be that the station itself never wanted this to happen, but the "human error" was caused by the person at the switch not believing in the theory of evolution?


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I kind of wondered how this would play in the Bible Belt? Could it be that the station itself never wanted this to happen, but the "human error" was caused by the person at the switch not believing in the theory of evolution?


Would the local station have a transcript of the Cosmos episode so they could conveniently skip that part?


----------



## StevesWeb (Dec 26, 2008)

Worf said:


> Some interesting things took place on an airing in OK...
> 
> Evolution cut from the show. Though they claim it was an accident, others, not so much


Preserving the Sanctity of Ignorance?


----------



## nataylor (Apr 26, 2000)

I don't believe for a second that was on purpose. What's the point? Most of the next episode is going to deal with evolution. What are they going to do, run news promos through the whole thing?


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

I find that trying to explain science visually, as a story, like this to be very boring. Like watching that stupid show about seeking treasure on Oak Island. I've read many descriptions of our solar system, its makeup and its enormous size, and the pretty pictures in this series fell flat.

Kids will like it, I guess.


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

What do you propose as an alternative? Nude chicks? Sure, that would be less boring visually, but not certain how much more effective in explaining the concepts.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Worf said:


> Some interesting things took place on an airing in OK...
> 
> Evolution cut from the show. Though they claim it was an accident, others, not so much


Believe me, from working 20 years in television, screw ups like that happen all the time.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

DUDE_NJX said:


> What do you propose as an alternative? Nude chicks? Sure, that would be less boring visually, but not certain how much more effective in explaining the concepts.


 Wow, that's a leap.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

RGM1138 said:


> Believe me, from working 20 years in television, screw ups like that happen all the time.


It just seems odd that it was at what seems to be the prefect moment. Unless you meant that as wink, wink, nudge, nudge, these things happen all the time. 

Yeah, probably just a coincidence, but still makes you think.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

efilippi said:


> Wow, that's a leap.


A Quantum Leap


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Of course, quantum effects only occur on a sub-atomic scale, so that makes it not much of a leap at all!


----------



## wtherrell (Dec 23, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Of course, quantum effects only occur on a sub-atomic scale, so that makes it not much of a leap at all!


Exactly! Finally, someone gets it!


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

nataylor said:


> I don't believe for a second that was on purpose. What's the point? Most of the next episode is going to deal with evolution. What are they going to do, run news promos through the whole thing?


:up: Conspiracy theories are much more fun, though.


----------



## alansh (Jan 3, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> He never actually said that.
> 
> I believe it was Johnny Carson, doing an impression of him.


Sagan always said "billions" with a strong emphasis on the "b". He said he did it so it was clear he wasn't saying "millions", but it sounded a bit funny. Carson did take it and ran with it -- he frequently did sketches playing Sagan. He also had Sagan as a guest frequently, so it was just a friendly joke.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

Well, I guess there goes Cosmos. You can just hear the angry phone calls about it promoting evolution going out to senators and representatives to pressure Fox into cancelling the series for creating "controversy" and failing to acknowledge the "one true theory of intelligent design"

Was good while it lasted, I suppose.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

alansh said:


> Sagan always said "billions" with a strong emphasis on the "b". He said he did it so it was clear he wasn't saying "millions", but it sounded a bit funny. Carson did take it and ran with it -- he frequently did sketches playing Sagan. He also had Sagan as a guest frequently, so it was just a friendly joke.


35 seconds of this video






and this is also why I quit watching the new Cosmos 
Neil deGrasse Tyson just doesn't do this show justice

I usually like his stuff 
for example, I LOVE this video 





but he just doesn't have the "presence", the "poetry" for Cosmos

Sagan's voice and style made science and astronomy interesting to the average viewer, it made the the universe wondrous

watching the above video of Sagan causes you feel the grandeur and beauty of the universe

Tyson just doesn't do that 
Tyson gives facts, he makes it somewhat interesting, but there's nothing that makes me want to go out and by a "companion" book or even tune in next week


----------



## hairyblue (Feb 25, 2002)

I find it very entertaining and educational. Tyson does a great job. 

I don't think there would be too much religious outrage over this episode of evolution and natural selection. Don't we live in a country where if you don't like something on TV you change the channel? If enough people do that, then rating drop and it gets cancelled.


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

hairyblue said:


> I find it very entertaining and educational. Tyson does a great job.
> 
> I don't think there would be too much religious outrage over this episode of evolution and natural selection. Don't we live in a country where if you don't like something on TV you change the channel? If enough people do that, then rating drop and it gets cancelled.


I agree with your first statement.

I'm having difficulty with your second one though. I think there will be a lot of outrage from some quarters, we'll have to wait and see how much pull those people have.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

jamesl said:


> 35 seconds of this video


That 3 minute video got me more excited about the topic than an hour of Tyson, no disrespect for Tyson.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I haven't seen it yet, but I'm sure they (Fox) are anticipating the outrage. At least they should be. But, there's lot and lots on TV about the subject, and like someone said, if it outrages you, go watch something else. I don't like TV talent contests, and it "outrages" me that so much TV time is wasted showing that garbage...but I choose not to watch


----------



## ScubaCat (Jun 26, 2003)

There is a Cosmos App for iPhone and iPad (free) which contains a lot of the content of the shows. Beware the occasional (loud) advertisement that pops up unannounced.


----------



## TheSlyBear (Dec 26, 2002)

Is it just Time Warner, or is everyone seeing it letterboxed on National Geographic HD?


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> I haven't seen it yet, but I'm sure they (Fox) are anticipating the outrage. At least they should be. But, there's lot and lots on TV about the subject, and like someone said, if it outrages you, go watch something else. I don't like TV talent contests, and it "outrages" me that so much TV time is wasted showing that garbage...but I choose not to watch


Evolution isn't a tricky or controversial topic. It's the religious nuts that make it so. Mostly by demanding that "Intelligent Design" (really, an evolution of Creationism) be given equal airtime because the creator did it and it's "science". Of course, the episode inflames the issue by basically giving those people the smack down. And yes, lawmakers have passed the "Teach the controversy" laws that say evolution and creationism, err, Intelligent Design, be taught as competing "theories" in science class when they're presented. Some going so far as to make it an excusable topic in class (where the student may excuse themselves from learning evolution). None I believe actually ban the teaching of evolution, but some come close. And textbooks have reduced their evolution sections down because certain influential states (i.e., Texas) choose their books based on criteria like how well they cover Creationism/Intelligent Design.

And wasn't it somewhere that a stupidly large percentage (30-505) of the American population believed Creationism was what really happened?

The outrage comes from (ignorant) parents seeing their little Johnny getting corrupted by what is ostensibly supposed to be an educational program.

And while Fox and the FCC will probably get some complaints that won't do a thing (because there was nothing wrong to begin with), it's the parents calling their senators and representatives to pressure Fox into "equal time" or cancelling the show. That's the scary part, not Fox/FCC getting complaints - but government putting pressure on Fox to censor the "controversial" content.


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

I'm a huge nerd and I was excited at the idea of a major network providing an hour of prime time to science programming... Sadly, the writing is so sparse and elementary, as if it's serving the animations instead of the other way around. I think I want to spend my 42.5 minutes watching something else.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

DavidJL said:


> For those who have seen both the original and the new Cosmos, was the original aimed at a higher education level?


I was ten when I first saw Sagan's Cosmos, and I didn't feel that it went over my head. But I can watch it again now, and still enjoy it.

New Cosmos is OK, original Cosmos is easily one of the greatest shows ever on television.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

TiVo has been a screwing up my recordings from the SP. It didn't record Sunday night and wasn't going to record next Sunday. Upcoming episodes when viewed from the original recording only showed upcoming show on Fox. It didn't show the rebroadcasts on NatGeo.

I created another season pass and it looks okay right now, but I'm going to have to keep an eye on this.

(Unless you all think this is a sign from god that evolution isn't real and I should stop watching. Poll to follow.  )


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

more like a sign from God that Tyson sucks and Sagan rules


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

TheSlyBear said:


> Is it just Time Warner, or is everyone seeing it letterboxed on National Geographic HD?


Not letterboxed on FIOS in NJ.


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

I don't get the hatred of Neil deGrasse Tyson as the host. I think he does a fine job. He is not Carl Sagan, but nobody is.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

waynomo said:


> TiVo has been a screwing up my recordings from the SP. It didn't record Sunday night and wasn't going to record next Sunday. Upcoming episodes when viewed from the original recording only showed upcoming show on Fox. It didn't show the rebroadcasts on NatGeo.
> 
> I created another season pass and it looks okay right now, but I'm going to have to keep an eye on this.
> 
> (Unless you all think this is a sign from god that evolution isn't real and I should stop watching. Poll to follow.  )


I had the same issue on DirecTV. Luckily, I noticed it wasn't recording early enough to go in and record another showing. My SP looks ok now, but I'll have to watch it


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

loubob57 said:


> I don't get the hatred of Neil deGrasse Tyson as the host. I think he does a fine job. He is not Carl Sagan, but nobody is.


That's my feeling, but, I never saw much of the original. It's a different era and I think a lot of us are also conditioned to think that the original is usually better, and we look at things from a different perspective more than 30 years later.

If the core audience of Cosmos is those not normally interested in science then I think he does a good job of explaining it on that level. I'm sort of interested in science, but not to the level of some folks here, so I feel he's talking a little beneath my knowledge level, but not where I feel insulted by it. That's a fine line to draw.

I liked learning about Titan, the Saturn moon, that has liquid, rivers and seas and stuff, and he brought out the point that I always thought of. Who's to say that "life" has to survive on what life is like on earth? Why couldn't "life" on Titan breath methane and so forth?


----------



## wtherrell (Dec 23, 2004)

waynomo said:


> TiVo has been a screwing up my recordings from the SP. It didn't record Sunday night and wasn't going to record next Sunday. Upcoming episodes when viewed from the original recording only showed upcoming show on Fox. It didn't show the rebroadcasts on NatGeo.
> 
> I created another season pass and it looks okay right now, but I'm going to have to keep an eye on this.
> 
> (Unless you all think this is a sign from god that evolution isn't real and I should stop watching. Poll to follow.  )


How do you think God adjusts things? Makes changes? Makes it self adjusting. Evolution - - pure genius! 
Yeah, I think this new one is dumbed down a little & relies too much on the animation. Tyson doesn't exude anything like the passion Sagan did about his subject.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

wtherrell said:


> How do you think God adjusts things? Makes changes? Makes it self adjusting. Evolution - - pure genius!
> Yeah, I think this new one is dumbed down a little & relies too much on the animation. Tyson doesn't exude anything like the passion Sagan did about his subject.


You've never heard of the hand of God? Sheesh. Really?


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

wtherrell said:


> Tyson doesn't exude anything like the passion Sagan did about his subject.


I think he's probably just as passionate, but he hasn't got Sagan's poetry. Certainly better than Michio Kaku, though.

Not that anyone can replace Sagan, but I probably would've picked Brian Cox.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

wmcbrine said:


> I think he's probably just as passionate, but he hasn't got Sagan's poetry. Certainly better than Michio Kaku, though.
> 
> Not that anyone can replace Sagan, but I probably would've picked Brian Cox.


I saw a Brian Cox program this week. I agree with that selection over Tyson. Seems to be less ego involved and more comfortable to watch. I've always liked him.


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

Kaku is a joke. I can't take him seriously.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

wmcbrine said:


> Not that anyone can replace Sagan, but I probably would've picked Brian Cox.


I had to google to see who this is. I've seen several programs with him too and enjoyed him. I agree that he would've been a good choice. He has that same sort of geeky manor that Sagan had.

Do you think it makes a difference that Tyson is an astrophysicist and Cox is particle physicist?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

waynomo said:


> Do you think it makes a difference that Tyson is an astrophysicist and Cox is particle physicist?


Nah, I think the difference is that Tyson is more homey and Cox more academic in their personalities. And I think that more accessible, having-a-beer (or lemonade, as the case may be) -with-the-guy air is exactly what they were looking for.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

Tyson > Cox (for this show) >>>>Kaku
Best to have an astronomer/astrophysicist for Cosmos than a pure physicist. Keep it from drifting too far into speculative pseudoscience, which can be fun but the public needs to know what we "know", i.e. have multiple non-conflicting different observational data for like the BB itself, nucleosynthethis of higher elements in stars, transiting exoplanets vs speculative stuff like multiverses that are not falsifyable. That's my biggest problem with String theory which has consumed theoretical physics for over a generation and fortunately seems to be on the wane as far as new PhDs go. No falsifyable experiments = not science (at least yet).

Interesting that just within the last few weeks we learned that actual observations may well confirm the theorized Inflation period which fit cosmological observations well but until recently had no even indirect evidence. Now such indirect evidence exists, confirmed to a 5 sigma level. Later this year completely independent Plank observations and data will have a shot at confirming or falsifying this.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Tyson is just quiet and calm. We expect our scientists to be quirky like Sagan.


----------



## DavidJL (Feb 21, 2006)

DUDE_NJX said:


> Kaku is a joke. I can't take him seriously.


Previous to the new Cosmos I had only seen Tyson and Kaku in 5 minute clips here and there, certainly not enough to make a judgement on either. When Cosmos was advertised I was looking forward to it but what I've seen has been a real letdown. I'll give it a little more time, but maybe I can only take Tyson in small doses or if the subject matter is more interesting.

With Kaku I felt the same but have yet to see him in larger doses so I've probably not yet seen what he's criticized for, what makes him a "joke".


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DavidJL said:


> With Kaku I felt the same but have yet to see him in larger doses so I've probably not yet seen what he's criticized for, what makes him a "joke".


Kaku's problem is that he comes across as very breathless and gullible...he seems to have no clue as to what's possible and what's not. He loves to build houses of cards...he'll start from a premise that even he admits is highly unlikely, and then just start building from there.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Kaku's problem is that he comes across as very breathless and gullible...he seems to have no clue as to what's possible and what's not. He loves to build houses of cards...he'll start from a premise that even he admits is highly unlikely, and then just start building from there.





DavidJL said:


> Previous to the new Cosmos I had only seen Tyson and Kaku in 5 minute clips here and there, certainly not enough to make a judgement on either. When Cosmos was advertised I was looking forward to it but what I've seen has been a real letdown. I'll give it a little more time, but maybe I can only take Tyson in small doses or if the subject matter is more interesting.
> 
> With Kaku I felt the same but have yet to see him in larger doses so I've probably not yet seen what he's criticized for, what makes him a "joke".


It's fun watching science geeks argue science narrators


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> It's fun watching science geeks argue science narrators


Awww, he called me a science geek!

I'm so honored!


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Awww, he called me a science geek!
> 
> I'm so honored!


You should be


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> Tyson is just quiet and calm. We expect our scientists to be quirky like Sagan.


I can see where you're coming from but I would have said this the opposite way. Tyson seems a bit more playful and prone to goof around than Sagan was. I was glad to see him go with it, for instance, just before the asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs in the first episode, that smirking crouch and putting his fingers in his ears, you would never have seen Sagan do something like that.

I'm disinclined to put much stock into the question "is Tyson doing better or worse than Sagan" because no one's in a position to tell. Will a 13-year-old with a keen mind tuned to science right now react to this version the way I did to Sagan's? That's the closest thing we can get to a real test, but even that's not a fair test, because in 1980, I was starved for information and engagement, as I had no source for it but a few shows that I could barely ever get my mom to let me watch (e.g., Nova) and as many books as I could carry out of the library on the far-too-rare times I got to go there. Cosmos did something nothing else at the time did, so no wonder it swept me away. Today, if I were that same 13-year-old, Neil's version might well have a far greater impact on me than it has on a tired, well-read 46-year-old who's been to CERN and can explain quantum physics, but there's not much chance it'd do what Sagan's did, because it doesn't come into the same almost-vacuum his did. A kid as eager as I was, today, would be getting a steady stream of cool science stuff on the Internet. This Cosmos has to serve a fundamentally different purpose than Sagan's, because it exists in a world that already was changed by the first Cosmos, so a direct comparison doesn't make sense even if you could compare apples to apples (that is, eager-to-learn 13-year-olds).


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> You should be


Well, I'm not worthy, but I appreciate the compliment!

(I may geek out over it, but I'm pretty terrible at science...which is why I ended up with a PhD in medieval history. Latin is MUCH easier than math.)


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> ...Latin is MUCH easier than math.


Since when?


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

waynomo said:


> Since when?


in saecula saeculorum


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

xt+1 (that should be a subscript, but I can't seem to do that with Tapatalk)


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

DUDE_NJX said:


> in saecula saeculorum


I had to look that up.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> ... Latin is MUCH easier than math.)


that's only because they have more numbers now than they did way back when Latin was spoken


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Latin is MUCH easier than math.)


See, even with 2000 years of intervening time, I STILL don't understand this exchange...



Monty Python's Life of Brian said:


> [Brian is writing graffiti on the palace wall. The Centurion catches him in the act]
> Centurion: What's this, then? "Romanes eunt domus"? People called Romanes, they go, the house?
> Brian: It says, "Romans go home. "
> Centurion: No it doesn't ! What's the latin for "Roman"? Come on, come on !
> ...


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

Well, creationists are now demanding Neil "teach the controversy" and demand an episode all about creationism.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/...il-degrasse-tysons-cosmos-to-provide-balance/

Of course, I suppose the question is which is more entertaining - seeing these guys try to get their way, or Cosmos.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

is it too late to TiVo this? I am not sure if this was a one off special or if it's a multipart series


----------



## Goober96 (Jun 28, 2005)

jsmeeker said:


> is it too late to TiVo this? I am not sure if this was a one off special or if it's a multipart series


Multipart series


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> is it too late to TiVo this? I am not sure if this was a one off special or if it's a multipart series


You've missed the first two episodes. If it's like the original, there will be 11 more.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

I guess I need a "marathon" or something. Probably want to watch in order.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> I guess I need a "marathon" or something. Probably want to watch in order.


So far I see no need to do so. Other than the first 5 minutes or so of the first episode re-introducing the series, each episode appears to be independent on seeing the others.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Hunter Green said:


> I can see where you're coming from but I would have said this the opposite way. Tyson seems a bit more playful and prone to goof around than Sagan was. I was glad to see him go with it, for instance, just before the asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs in the first episode, that smirking crouch and putting his fingers in his ears, you would never have seen Sagan do something like that. I'm disinclined to put much stock into the question "is Tyson doing better or worse than Sagan" because no one's in a position to tell. Will a 13-year-old with a keen mind tuned to science right now react to this version the way I did to Sagan's? That's the closest thing we can get to a real test, but even that's not a fair test, because in 1980, I was starved for information and engagement, as I had no source for it but a few shows that I could barely ever get my mom to let me watch (e.g., Nova) and as many books as I could carry out of the library on the far-too-rare times I got to go there. Cosmos did something nothing else at the time did, so no wonder it swept me away. Today, if I were that same 13-year-old, Neil's version might well have a far greater impact on me than it has on a tired, well-read 46-year-old who's been to CERN and can explain quantum physics, but there's not much chance it'd do what Sagan's did, because it doesn't come into the same almost-vacuum his did. A kid as eager as I was, today, would be getting a steady stream of cool science stuff on the Internet. This Cosmos has to serve a fundamentally different purpose than Sagan's, because it exists in a world that already was changed by the first Cosmos, so a direct comparison doesn't make sense even if you could compare apples to apples (that is, eager-to-learn 13-year-olds).


Quiet and calm may have been the wrong words. I was going for more normal. Not egghead quirky like Sagan was.

I loved the Sagan VoiceOver in episode 2.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, I'm not worthy, but I appreciate the compliment! (I may geek out over it, but I'm pretty terrible at science...which is why I ended up with a PhD in medieval history. Latin is MUCH easier than math.)


An ancient roman walks into a bar and holds up two fingers. "I'll have five beers."


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

Maybe it's my creationist upbringing speaking, but Episode 2 had a lot of comments that came across as "Stupid Creationists, neener, neener, neener". The science of the episode was solid (and quite interesting), but the attitude rubbed me the wrong way.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

doom1701 said:


> Maybe it's my creationist upbringing speaking, but Episode 2 had a lot of comments that came across as "Stupid Creationists, neener, neener, neener". The science of the episode was solid (and quite interesting), but the attitude rubbed me the wrong way.


Do you recall any of these comments? I didn't have the same upbringing as you and I didn't notice any comments like that. Unless the part about how some people don't think the eye could evolve via natural selection, and then it proceeds to show how the eye evolved.


----------



## Shaunnick (Jul 2, 2005)

doom1701 said:


> Maybe it's my creationist upbringing speaking, but Episode 2 had a lot of comments that came across as "Stupid Creationists, neener, neener, neener". The science of the episode was solid (and quite interesting), but the attitude rubbed me the wrong way.


I was brought up on the belief that God created the universe and everything in it (a belief I still hold) and I did not get that feeling at all.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

doom1701 said:


> Maybe it's my creationist upbringing speaking, but Episode 2 had a lot of comments that came across as "Stupid Creationists, neener, neener, neener". The science of the episode was solid (and quite interesting), but the attitude rubbed me the wrong way.


That's why I don't host. The entire episode would be filled with "stupid creationists, neener, neener, neener!"


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Shaunnick said:


> I was brought up on the belief that God created the universe and everything in it (a belief I still hold) and I did not get that feeling at all.


That's not creationism.

(I always wonder about people who are not creationists but try to associate themselves with creationists in this manner.)


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I thought Ep3 was really boring and more of those stupid cartoons. I don't know if Fox had it but I have been watching on NatGeo and during one commercial break they had an inside look on the series and they discussed using the cartoons rather than actors to give it more realistic feel (or something like that). To me it gives the show more of a Saturday morning cartoon feel to it. I still say that this show is aimed at elementary show kids.

I'm beginning to lose interest. Not sure if I will make it through the whole series. Sure looks purdy though in HD  (well the non cartoon parts)


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

I'm way past elementary school (about 45 years past) but I didn't know about the relationships between Hooke, Wren, Halley, and Newton. Or that Newton was so cranky. So I found Episode 3 very educational.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Graymalkin said:


> I'm way past elementary school (about 45 years past) but I didn't know about the relationships between Hooke, Wren, Halley, and Newton. Or that Newton was so cranky. So I found Episode 3 very educational.


I didn't know it either. But, I found that I really didn't care. Maybe it was because of the way it was presented, or maybe I didn't find it all that interesting, but I started losing interest pretty quick. I admit to NOT being all that much of a science geek, but I do enjoy well done shows about space.

Maybe Sagan presented the material better. I never saw the original.


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

I enjoyed Connections much more than the original Cosmos.
Just re-watched it recently. Still great!


----------



## ehusen (Jan 7, 2002)

Graymalkin said:


> I'm way past elementary school (about 45 years past) but I didn't know about the relationships between Hooke, Wren, Halley, and Newton. Or that Newton was so cranky. So I found Episode 3 very educational.


Just to contrast with StevenKJ (  ), I thought this stuff was very interesting as well. I too am way past elementary school.

As for the "neener neener, Creationists" vibe, I felt it was there but in the most gentle way. Frankly, I think the Creationists need a lot more "neener neener" responses. The universe is big and complicated and wonderful. And a lot older than 6000 years. It's time to get over it and join the 21st century.

No one asking you to give up your religion/spirituality, just the silly parts.


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

ehusen said:


> No one asking you to give up your religion/spirituality, just the silly parts.


I got that vibe a little bit when Neil was explaining how the explanation of how all the complicated 'clockwork' of the Solar System works was just explained as "God made it that way". I think his point was that a lot of people didn't think there was any point in trying to understand how it worked because of that.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I've always felt that being polite to crazy-pants notions only encourages crazy-pants notions.

That being said, I think Cosmos is being pretty polite to some pretty crazy-pants notions.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I've always felt that being polite to crazy-pants notions only encourages crazy-pants notions.
> 
> That being said, I think Cosmos is being pretty polite to some pretty crazy-pants notions.


Not a big fan of the multiverse, eh?


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

loubob57 said:


> I got that vibe a little bit when Neil was explaining how the explanation of how all the complicated 'clockwork' of the Solar System works was just explained as "God made it that way". I think his point was that a lot of people didn't think there was any point in trying to understand how it worked because of that.


He distinctly said that that answer didn't lead to any further questions. It's questions that lead to more knowledge.

When I was a kid, we were taught that the smallest unit of matter was the proton, neutron, and electron, which we now know are made up of even smaller units called quarks. In science, the search for greater knowledge, the search for ever more fidelity in the answer, is a good thing.

A giant "God did it, no point in searching for any further answers" sign is anathema to the scientific method.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Ereth said:


> He distinctly said that that answer didn't lead to any further questions. It's questions that lead to more knowledge.
> 
> When I was a kid, we were taught that the smallest unit of matter was the proton, neutron, and electron, which we now know are made up of even smaller units called quarks. In science, the search for greater knowledge, the search for ever more fidelity in the answer, is a good thing.
> 
> A giant "God did it, no point in searching for any further answers" sign is anathema to the scientific method.


The thing is, for those religious types, you could easily accept what science tells us and God creating it without a real argument...if you believe that there has to be a finite point of creation and that whatever was the "chicken or egg" of the universe was God's creation. From there, God let natural science take over, for billions and billions of years. It's reasonably plausible. It's the crazy "everything was created 6000 years ago, over a 7 day period" whack-a-doodle stuff that makes no sense.

Personally, I don't think there was a definitive beginning and that the universe (or whatever was there before the universe) always existed and evolved. There was no beginning of existence of something, it just always has, and maybe in a form we just cannot comprehend (yet).


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

The universe we live in is almost certainly not infinite in either time or space. That's science.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

"Finite but unbounded."


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

^^ good clarification

...regarding the series. I am undecided. I gobble up all these types of shows and have seen most of them multiple times. I keep falling asleep during this one though. :-/ I'm not a fan of the animated parts, either. 

I appreciate NDT, but his tone, while full of wonder, really dances on the edge of patronizing. That's just his style - I don't think it speaks to the aim of the series at all.

Brian Cox does the "wonder" thing much better without making us feel like 5th graders, IMO.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> The thing is, for those religious types, you could easily accept what science tells us and God creating it without a real argument...if you believe that there has to be a finite point of creation and that whatever was the "chicken or egg" of the universe was God's creation. From there, God let natural science take over, for billions and billions of years. It's reasonably plausible. It's the crazy "everything was created 6000 years ago, over a 7 day period" whack-a-doodle stuff that makes no sense.
> 
> Personally, I don't think there was a definitive beginning and that the universe (or whatever was there before the universe) always existed and evolved. There was no beginning of existence of something, it just always has, and maybe in a form we just cannot comprehend (yet).


Sure. I really thought the religious would simply take The Big Bang and say "See? Let there be Light!" and conjoin at that point, but the most fervent of them even deny the Big Bang, which confuses the heck out of me.

And the new idea, that the universe may be a hologram simulation? That would seem to me to fit into the "external creator" story rather well.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Ereth said:


> Sure. I really thought the religious would simply take The Big Bang and say "See? Let there be Light!" and conjoin at that point, but the most fervent of them even deny the Big Bang, which confuses the heck out of me.


Too logical. I also wonder why they don't jump on that. But then they get hung up on the six days.

I did some bible study when I was younger and the Monsignor who led it held the belief that a God who can make things work via and within the intricate machinations of science and evolution, etc, was far more powerful and mysterious than a God who just snapped his fingers and made things happen. I always liked it phrased that way. Who says God isn't the universe and the universe isn't God? Faith is less strong when uncontested and made into a magic show.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> ...Who says God isn't the universe and the universe isn't God? Faith is less strong when uncontested and made into a magic show.


Well the religious don't see it that way.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Too logical. I also wonder why they don't jump on that. But then they get hung up on the six days.
> 
> I did some bible study when I was younger and the Monsignor who led it held the belief that a God who can make things work via and within the intricate machinations of science and evolution, etc, was far more powerful and mysterious than a God who just snapped his fingers and made things happen. I always liked it phrased that way. Who says God isn't the universe and the universe isn't God? Faith is less strong when uncontested and made into a magic show.


I used to ask questions like this to my Rabbi during my days in Hebrew School. The answer I got...well God's 7 days are not "human" 7 days.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

starting rereading this recently - the following came to mind...



> "Qing-jao, why do you say that it is an obvious lie that the fleet is carrying the M.D. Device?"
> 
> "Because-- because that would be monstrous. It would be like Ender the Xenocide, destroying an entire world. So much power has no right or reason to exist in the universe."
> 
> ...





Steveknj said:


> I used to ask questions like this to my Rabbi during my days in Hebrew School. The answer I got...well God's 7 days are not "human" 7 days.


Taking the science from the universe of the above excerpt - relativistic speeds actually make that plausible.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

MonsterJoe said:


> starting rereading this recently - the following came to mind...


I just finished Children of the Mind yesterday at lunchtime...


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

waynomo said:


> Well the religious don't see it that way.


Plenty do. Don't paint them all with one brush.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I used to ask questions like this to my Rabbi during my days in Hebrew School. The answer I got...well God's 7 days are not "human" 7 days.


I have no real problem with that. The biblical stories were originally oral and were needed to be understood by those whose knowledge was limited. Not stupid, just having limited knowledge. A day could be eons and years and years simplified for understanding.

Let's take the firmament. It is in the same part of the bible that says seven days. It has been disproven. And yet it was a good working model for a long time.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> I have no real problem with that. The biblical stories were originally oral and were needed to be understood by those whose knowledge was limited. Not stupid, just having limited knowledge. A day could be eons and years and years simplified for understanding.
> 
> Let's take the firmament. It is in the same part of the bible that says seven days. It has been disproven. And yet it was a good working model for a long time.


I'm not saying it's right or wrong. There are just ways to spin what's in the bible and make it coexist with what we currently know as scientific fact. I think it is important that we question things written in the bible rather than take them as cold hard facts, as religious zealots tend to do. Questions like:

If Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel, who were both men, how did we get more people? The obvious answer is they were mentioned in the bible but there were many other children that weren't

If incest is wrong, isn't it true that we all stem from incestuous relationships between the children of Adam and Eve?

And so forth.


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

Yeah, my kid got kicked out of CCD for asking those questions in the 2nd grade...


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

DUDE_NJX said:


> Yeah, my kid got kicked out of CCD for asking those questions in the 2nd grade...


CCD = Confraternity of Christian Doctrine?


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

Yes, a Catechism class.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

DUDE_NJX said:


> Yes, a Catechism class.


I had to google it and then still wasn't sure. 

At least they didn't try and burn him at the stake. 

I don't suppose you remember the specific question(s) they had issues with?


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

My daughter asked if A&E had two sons, where did THEIR children (and all other people) come from?


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

Contradictions and hypocrisies are easily explained as "God's" will. Full stop.

It's hard to argue points that so casually retreat to being unaccountable.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Judaism actually encourages these types of questions. The answers given by the religious leaders don't always make sense, but many religious Jews spend a LOT of time studyng the holy books, and the Talmud, which is kind of the Cliff Notes to the Bible that was written by religious scholars over many years and is studied to this day tries to explain a lot of these questions (again, though, it was written in the days before modern science). Perhaps this is a reason why Jews emphasize education.

As part of my Synagogue membership I get a magazine called Moment. It's more of a Jewish cultural magazine than a religious one. They recently brought in a bunch of religious and secular scholars to discuss science and how it relates to Judaism. They also polled Rabbis of various denominations to discuss the topic. Interesting reading.

http://www.momentmag.com/jewish-thought-influenced-science/

http://www.momentmag.com/ask-rabbis-religion-science/


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> ...but many religious Jews spend a LOT of time studyng the holy bucks...


That's racist (or something)


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

DUDE_NJX said:


> My daughter asked if A&E had two sons, where did THEIR children (and all other people) come from?


I think my son would have been kicked out right along with your daughter. I'm thinking I probably would have also. I hope you appropriately rewarded her.


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

Some high-fiving was present. She reminds me a lot of who I was at that age...


----------



## Shaunnick (Jul 2, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> That's not creationism.
> 
> (I always wonder about people who are not creationists but try to associate themselves with creationists in this manner.)





> Creationism is the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, such as in a literal reading of Genesis, rather than by natural processes such as evolution


I am not exactly trying to associate myself with anyone, especially the likes of Ken Ham and gang. As the above description suggests, what I believe would best fall under creationism. I am curious as to why you disagree.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

DUDE_NJX said:


> Some high-fiving was present. She reminds me a lot of who I was at that age...


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> ... As part of my Synagogue membership I get a magazine called Moment. It's more of a Jewish cultural magazine than a religious one. They recently brought in a bunch of religious and secular scholars to discuss science and how it relates to Judaism. They also polled Rabbis of various denominations to discuss the topic. Interesting reading.
> 
> http://www.momentmag.com/jewish-thought-influenced-science/
> 
> http://www.momentmag.com/ask-rabbis-religion-science/


Thanks for those links ...

The second link, under "Renewal", mentions some stuff about "animal-human hybrids" but neglects to offer a link to examples. 


> Rabbi Moshe D. Tendler has written that a human brain, for example, in an animal's body would contravene the Jewish principle of k'vod habriyot, respect for the integrity of species. This accords with the Ramban, who taught that one who mixes two different species is "changing and denying the Divine Creation of the world."


Was that just speculative thinking? I recall Christine O'Donnell believing this as "fact" in her run for the GOP in the '08 election.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Shaunnick said:


> I am not exactly trying to associate myself with anyone, especially the likes of Ken Ham and gang. As the above description suggests, what I believe would best fall under creationism. I am curious as to why you disagree.


There's a difference between "God created the universe" and "evolution didn't happen."

Creationists (in the American sense of the word) believe in a "literal" interpretation of the Biblical creation account (I use quotes because their literal interpretation tends to be highly selective); that the universe was created in its present form. They reject reality.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

What would you call someone who believed "God created the universe and all the natural laws that allowed it to grow as it did and as science has discovered"?

It's not really the god of the gaps at that point, is it?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Ereth said:


> What would you call someone who believed "God created the universe and all the natural laws that allowed it to grow as it did and as science has discovered"?
> 
> It's not really the god of the gaps at that point, is it?


But that's not creationism, at least not in the sense that it used used in American political discourse.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

I accept that, I was just wondering if there was an easy term for that position as well.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Ereth said:


> What would you call someone who believed "God created the universe and all the natural laws that allowed it to grow as it did and as science has discovered"?


Reasonable?


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

Ereth said:


> What would you call someone who believed "God created the universe and all the natural laws that allowed it to grow as it did and as science has discovered"?
> 
> It's not really the god of the gaps at that point, is it?


That statement could apply to someone 2000 years ago. It's basically saying god created everything.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

Point being that despite the wonderful and amazing accomplishments of science we are butt ignorant of all the how, why (if any) of this universe.
Science has its limits as essential and terrific as it is.

Now, back to the TV show Cosmos.


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But that's not creationism, at least not in the sense that it used used in American political discourse.


You just took a giant leap from defining creationism very specifically, to attempting to identify it based on "American political discourse".


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Creationists (in the American sense of the word) believe in a "literal" interpretation of the Biblical creation account (I use quotes because their literal interpretation tends to be highly selective); that the universe was created in its present form. They reject reality.


There are "Young Earth Creationists" (the 6000-year gang), but also the less common "Old Earth Creationists" (day/age types). But both deny reality.



Ereth said:


> What would you call someone who believed "God created the universe and all the natural laws that allowed it to grow as it did and as science has discovered"?


Deist.

Edit: A summary of various positions:

http://www.originscience.com/origin-views-comparison-chart.htm


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

Saw this on the newspaper stand at the grocery store. I might consider buying it if it was available digitally. Maybe it is, but I can't find a place to download it.

http://onlinestore.usatoday.com/national-geographic---cosmos-p17346.aspx


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

I found the latest episode a bit disappointing. Overall it was good, but there was a glaring omission. The whole episode was about space time and the speed of light, but when they get to the part about how things can't travel faster than the speed of light, they basically said the reason that is is because Einstein said so. No explanation is ever given, Neil just said it's a universal "commandment". 

I realize the show is dumbed down and a lot of the time I feel Neil is talking down to the audience as if they are children, but to skip over this and then spend 5 minutes on a theoretical black hole CGI light show is really inexcusable. They didn't have to get into the math behind it, but they could have at least mentioned Einstein's general relativity E=MC2 equation, which virtually everyone knows and which explains why nothing can go faster than the speed of light. 

I'll say, it did seem fitting to have Patrick Stewart voicing the astronomer.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

E=MC^2 only applies to particles are rest. Particles in motion have a relativity-compensated variation that take into account mass increases with motion. It's actually a pretty complex topic (the reason we can't go the speed of light is because a particle increases its mass to infinity the closer to the speed of light we get).

It's also how we get "rest mass" for otherwise massless particles (needed for momentum calculations for stuff like the photoelectric effect).

But yeah, it glossed over a lot of things. And it glossed over relativity in an of itself, which really explains gravity and many other things.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Worf said:


> E=MC^2 only applies to particles are rest. Particles in motion have a relativity-compensated variation that take into account mass increases with motion. It's actually a pretty complex topic (the reason we can't go the speed of light is because a particle increases its mass to infinity the closer to the speed of light we get). It's also how we get "rest mass" for otherwise massless particles (needed for momentum calculations for stuff like the photoelectric effect). But yeah, it glossed over a lot of things. And it glossed over relativity in an of itself, which really explains gravity and many other things.


I'm aware of the increased mass, which leads to requiring an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light, but they didn't even get into the basics. It was basically "it can't be done because it's a universal law" and the way Neil said it, he was speaking as if he was reading one of the Ten Commandments. It made me think of all the "God says so" arguments, they way he presented it.


----------



## hairyblue (Feb 25, 2002)

I thought that was Patrick Steward's voice. I know he's probably good friends with Seth. And Patrick seems to do a lot of voice jobs for everything. He has a very unique sounding voice. I like it.

Maybe they'll do a more in depth episode for gravity and space/time. I'd like to see one.

Anyone know how many episodes are in the new Cosmos?


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

hairyblue said:


> Anyone know how many episodes are in the new Cosmos?


There are a finite yet unbounded number of episodes in the new Cosmos.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

MonsterJoe said:


> There are a finite yet unbounded number of episodes in the new Cosmos.


Fox has announced that the last episode is on June 8. Note that there is no episode on the Sunday before Memorial Day as Fox is airing the NASCAR Coca-Cola 600 race that night.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

That Don Guy said:


> Fox has announced that the last episode is on June 8. Note that there is no episode on the Sunday before Memorial Day as Fox is airing the NASCAR Coca-Cola 600 race that night.


...and how many times have they cancelled "Family Guy"????

UNBOUNDED


----------



## bruab (Nov 16, 2001)

MonsterJoe said:


> There are a finite yet unbounded number of episodes in the new Cosmos.


He meant without re-runs.


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

I was a little upset with the reference to Sagan at the end of this week's episode. It was OK for the first show, but now it feels like he's trying to flash his street cred. 

I know that's not the right way to describe it, but it just felt phony.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

midas said:


> I was a little upset with the reference to Sagan at the end of this week's episode. It was OK for the first show, but now it feels like he's trying to flash his street cred.
> 
> I know that's not the right way to describe it, but it just felt phony.


It also felt paddy, like the calendar analogy. Isn't it a little early in the show to be having reruns? 

(Reminds me of Clerks: The Series, the second episode of which was a clip show.)


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Graymalkin said:


> I'm way past elementary school (about 45 years past) but I didn't know about the relationships between Hooke, Wren, Halley, and Newton. Or that Newton was so cranky. So I found Episode 3 very educational.


Same here. I found it fascinating. Who knew that Halley played such a pivotal role in Newton's work? Not to mention the breadth of his own career.

And, although I had certainly heard of the Oort cloud, I had never heard of Jan Oort.

I'm liking this show.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

I've been watching the series with my 10-year-old son, and we are both enjoying it immensely. I agree that the anti-creationism stuff is a bit heavy handed at times, but I still find it to be a well made and enlightening program overall. I loved the part where they showed the developmental stages of eyesight in sea life with the split view. Very clever.


----------



## Mabes (Jan 12, 2001)

An entire episode about lead. Boring


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

It may have been boring, but it was actually a full episode about people who use fake science to damage society (lead, tobacco, global warning). Easily the most politically-charged episode so far, but apparently subtle enough not to piss people off the way the very gentle counter-arguments to religious fantasy posing as science have...


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I found it interesting with a lot of historical value. It showed what great lengths big business would go to in order to protect their interests and hide the real truth from the public just to make a buck. OTOH, they went totally off on a tangent to what the show was supposed to be about.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

This was more like a "filler" episode to me. Is this a one season show, or do they hope to do multiple seasons?
If the latter, they're going to have to have a lot more episodes like this, I would think.

I found this episode interesting. I remember the big deal that was made when lead was found out to be toxic, and all the efforts to get things lead free, etc., but I didn't know about all the business corruption that was involved.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

The latest episode saw a "nice rise in ratings" according to Seth MacFarlane.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/458572275990536192


----------



## JerryLBell (May 3, 2002)

I jumped at the chance to record and re-watch the original series, having not watched it since it originally aired. Like others here, I'm pretty nostalgic about that series and recall it fondly for being intelligent and unique in its content at the time. I greatly looked forward to the new series and am so far not disappointed. For those who say that Tyson isn't as enthusiastic as Sagan, I'd have to point you to his appearances on "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report". The man is nearly explosively enthusiastic (and it's contagious). He's toning himself WAY down for this series. Is this series aimed at third graders as some have suggested? I'd say it's aimed at those who have not even casually studied cosmology or the scientific method. That may include third graders (though some schools do a good job of introducing some of these ideas even by that early age) but it also includes people like my brother-in-law who watched a couple episodes with me and quite enjoyed it. He has a high-school education with no emphasis on science and kept going, "I didn't know that!" and was thrilled to learn a number of new ideas. I also watched a couple of episodes with my 85-year-old mother-in-law and she thoroughly enjoyed it and kept saying, "Isn't the universe wonderful?" She's an educated lady but not in the area of cosmology so having it simple enough for her to follow was great. Did I learn anything from it? Not so far, but then I watch a LOT of cosmology-themed shows and have read a bit on it despite it not really being a big subject in my education. Still, I'm enjoying the show (and Tyson) and will definitely watch the rest of the series. And kudos to McFarlane, whose work I generally find idiotic, for pushing this so hard.


----------



## Mabes (Jan 12, 2001)

Just discovered this on Netflix

http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/the-inexplicable-universe-unsolved-mysteries.html


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

'Cosmos': Fox & Nat Geo Order Season 2 Of Science Series Reboot Produced By Seth MacFarlane


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

realityboy said:


> 'Cosmos': Fox & Nat Geo Order Season 2 Of Science Series Reboot Produced By Seth MacFarlane


I thought they covered the entire universe in part 1.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

RGM1138 said:


> I thought they covered the entire universe in part 1.


THIS entire universe.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> THIS entire universe.


Wonder if they'll cover the multiverse as one unit or give each dimension its own special.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

RGM1138 said:


> Wonder if they'll cover the multiverse as one unit or give each dimension its own special.


Maybe they'll split the difference, and do it one way in this universe and the other in the one where they all have goatees...


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

It will all be from the perspective of being on the Orville.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

RGM1138 said:


> I thought they covered the entire universe in part 1.


The universe is ever expanding.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

TonyD79 said:


> The universe is ever expanding.


Yes, that's true. But, is there anything new in the universe? I mean beside a few protostars or a nebula or three. 
Unless the universe coughs up a few new elements or births some new type of force, we've pretty much seen it all.


----------

