Carl Sagan's Cosmos returns to television

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
every molecule in our body is a solar system
 
what is the relation between our size and the smallest particle? isnt it comparable? humans are just average sized sadly (thats what i tell the ladies)
 
3RA1N1AC said:
what is the relation between our size and the smallest particle? isnt it comparable? humans are just average sized sadly (thats what i tell the ladies)
Click to expand...

I think the scale is more approximately comparable between composite particles like protons & neutrons as in "proton is to human as human is to solar system".

If size is even meaningful for the "smallest" elementary particles, the scale to humans would be exponentially greater than human to solar system.
 
crowTrobot said:
I think the scale is more approximately comparable between composite particles like protons & neutrons as in "proton is to human as human is to solar system".

If size is even meaningful for the "smallest" elementary particles, the scale to humans would be exponentially greater than human to solar system.
Click to expand...

yeah i was going bigger than solar system, galaxy?
 
crowTrobot said:
There's a South Park episode you might like
Click to expand...

Appropriate, seeing how Seth McFarlane is the executive producer of this version of Cosmos.

I only saw the first episode (so far). The cartoons were... Family Guy for science.
 
My main problem with the cartoon about Bruno:

The whole thing was basically used as an opportunity to paint religious folks as evil and cruel. They made Bruno into a Christ figure (was this intentional? it had to have been... but why?) who was persecuted by figures that were so comical they may as well have been Jafar from Disney's Aladdin. Then when he dies and ascends into atheist heaven or whatever, Neil comes back on and basically says that Bruno's theories that they just spent 20 minutes lionizing were all just a lucky guess and had no scientific basis. WHAT? Why inthefuck did you just spend all that time teaching us about Bruno then? Why go through all the heavy handed characterizations for some dude with a lucky guess? Just to demonize the church?

It was just 100% unnecessary and felt like to me like a big middle finger to the fundamentalist religious types that were going to be flinging their poo at the screen anyway. Just don't engage them. I really wanted Cosmos to just be above the fray, but they dove right in and started swinging and hit nothing in particular.
 
hoojacks said:
My main problem with the cartoon about Bruno:

The whole thing was basically used as an opportunity to paint religious folks as evil and cruel. They made Bruno into a Christ figure (was this intentional? it had to have been... but why?) who was persecuted by figures that were so comical they may as well have been Jafar from Disney's Aladdin. Then when he dies and ascends into atheist heaven or whatever, Neil comes back on and basically says that Bruno's theories that they just spent 20 minutes lionizing were all just a lucky guess and had no scientific basis. WHAT? Why inthefuck did you just spend all that time teaching us about Bruno then? Why go through all the heavy handed characterizations for some dude with a lucky guess? Just to demonize the church?

It was just 100% unnecessary and felt like to me like a big middle finger to the fundamentalist religious types that were going to be flinging their poo at the screen anyway. Just don't engage them. I really wanted Cosmos to just be above the fray, but they dove right in and started swinging and hit nothing in particular.
Click to expand...

Actually the religious right was really happy with the first show. The show very carefully made sure to say that god could have created the universe. It criticized certain already discounted religious believes but it did not discount belief in religion. It was actually more sensitive to religious beliefs than the original Cosmos was. They were very "FOXxy" in their presentation.
 
hoojacks said:
My main problem with the cartoon about Bruno:

The whole thing was basically used as an opportunity to paint religious folks as evil and cruel. They made Bruno into a Christ figure (was this intentional? it had to have been... but why?) who was persecuted by figures that were so comical they may as well have been Jafar from Disney's Aladdin. Then when he dies and ascends into atheist heaven or whatever, Neil comes back on and basically says that Bruno's theories that they just spent 20 minutes lionizing were all just a lucky guess and had no scientific basis. WHAT? Why inthefuck did you just spend all that time teaching us about Bruno then? Why go through all the heavy handed characterizations for some dude with a lucky guess? Just to demonize the church?

It was just 100% unnecessary and felt like to me like a big middle finger to the fundamentalist religious types that were going to be flinging their poo at the screen anyway. Just don't engage them. I really wanted Cosmos to just be above the fray, but they dove right in and started swinging and hit nothing in particular.
Click to expand...

I think they made an effort (perhaps an ill-fated one) to depict the person of faith as virtuous and the institution of faith as inflexible and fragile; an attempt to show that religious people have contributed to science for the sake of inclusion. Listing the birth years of various religious figures was another example. I don't know if it will be worthwhile in the long run but they are trying.
 
crowTrobot said:
NDT is generally one of the more tolerant atheists out there.
Click to expand...

And we recently had a thread about him saying there is no way to reconcile religion and science. At all. I agree;)
 
It's was interesting to see how gentle they were with religion in the 1st episode and the full on smack down they went with against it in the 2nd episode. Tonight's episode should be interesting.
 
Why in the world should this show try to not offend (or try to offend) any religious belief? This is a show about what is scientifically known, or what is currently being researched scientifically about our universe. There is no reason religion should enter the picture at all. No need to say god could have started the ball rolling, and no need to say no god. Why can't we just get a show like this that just concentrates on scientific theories.

That being said, I have enjoyed most of the first couple episodes and will watch the rest.
 
Further said:
Why in the world should this show try to not offend (or try to offend) any religious belief? This is a show about what is scientifically known, or what is currently being researched scientifically about our universe. There is no reason religion should enter the picture at all. No need to say god could have started the ball rolling, and no need to say no god. Why can't we just get a show like this that just concentrates on scientific theories.

That being said, I have enjoyed most of the first couple episodes and will watch the rest.
Click to expand...

First, it's on FOX and their sister networks. Also religion has been brought up in the first two episodes. Religion has entered been entered into the picture.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
First, it's on FOX and their sister networks. Also religion has been brought up in the first two episodes. Religion has entered been entered into the picture.
Click to expand...

I understand, I am saying I don't think the show should have brought up religion.
 
Most Christians aren't Creationists and will appreciate the series including religion in the historical context.
 
I just watched Cosmos, hour #1, on free Hulu. As expected, the attraction was special effects, not information, since I am well-versed on that. I disliked 3 things: 1) He travels in an oval spacecraft, a constant distraction from the great view behind him I'm trying to see, 2) the cartoon portions are low-quality and not up to the standard of the special effects, and 3) the unimaginative, superficial calendar portion wastes an opportunity to show evolution of both physical universe and then life.

The show copies the Sagan version in most ways, including the host standing on a deck and looking down on stars, which I disliked in the late 70s and still do. One change is that this host doesn't look up all the time with a Hollywood toothy smile. The original Cosmos was America's answer to the vastly more interesting British series Connections, starring James Burke, which I used to say was my favorite TV series of all time. I suppose it still is. You really should see it if you like science history.
 
crowTrobot said:
false, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Sorry, should of specified YE Creationists. But again that is my general impression and polls might show otherwise.
 
Oh no he didn't!

Neil is causing a shit storm now. Too bad everyone's mind is already made up on this.

Oh wait, this is on Fox. Fox is mother, Fox is truth. So global warming must be true!

I'm so confused.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SlyPokerDog
Science Neil deGrasse Tyson under investigation after accusations of sexual misconduct
Replies
19
Views
1K
noknobs
noknobs
SlyPokerDog
Neil deGrasse Tyson Explains Why He Believes Faith & Reason Are Irreconcilable
2 3
Replies
60
Views
4K
crowTrobot
crowTrobot
Denny Crane
Contact, the Movie
Replies
8
Views
1K
Denny Crane
Denny Crane
Real
NYT: McCain's ties to gambling industry
Replies
5
Views
2K
PapaG
PapaG
speeds
75 Remakes and Reboots on the way
Replies
10
Views
910
Big Frame
Big Frame

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top