So, was this an electrifying, magnetic episode, or what? 
That was a nice glimpse of Carl Sagan lecturing.
That was a nice glimpse of Carl Sagan lecturing.
Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey
- Thread starter Valka D'Ur
- Start date
woody60707
Deity
Oh yea, this was a great episode.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
This was my favorite episode so far. I love electromagnetism, and I love that this was so geared toward getting children involved and interested in science.
I also like it when I figure out what's about to happen: I was able to predict that the man to solve Faraday's math issues was going to be Maxwell.
I also like it when I figure out what's about to happen: I was able to predict that the man to solve Faraday's math issues was going to be Maxwell.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
I haven't seen the original, but from what I heard about the new show that it was meant to be a good show and yet it is so basic that if you hadn't learnt all this by the time of high school, then something is wrong with your education.
Seth Macfarlane is and idiot who thinks he knows more than he really does, which does explain why the new series has been such a let down with so many historical inaccuracies that it is has been a great disappointment.
Considering that Valka or anyone who has seen the original, do you prefer the Sagan series or the new one from what you have seen?
@Cheezy, good thing they mentioned those two giants of science, considering the are both also creationists.
They're dead. You mean they were Creationists?
On all counts, I prefer the Sagan series. Sure, there's been some interesting tidbits about other scientists in this one, but nothing I couldn't have picked up in a normal documentary or with some reading. There hasn't been a lot of new information on astronomy or discoveries or about what NASA has been up to since 1990 (the year of the "Cosmos Update" series).
And for sheer presentation... let's just say the music in this one isn't doing anything for me. I've already heard it years before, in the Contact movie. Original Cosmos had such interesting, dynamic, multicultural music that could send chills down a person's spine or move me to tears.
The Original Cosmos is available on YouTube. Do yourself a favor and watch it.
Aroddo
Emperor
The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.
But Cosmos has a season 2.
But Cosmos has a season 2.
The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.
But Cosmos has a season 2.
Pretty much sums up why i didn't bother watching that.
Btw, one of the linked videos has a link for the presenter/main figure in the new Cosmos series, and Orley? (sic)
That by itself should tell one just how seriously these people take tv morons (Orley) and then actual science. I heard the show is on fox, but who in their right mind would taint their image by discussing science with someone who should have been a career janitor.
Do you really think McFarlane is the one writing the script and producing all the segments??
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Macfarlane is the guy who's funding it, not the guy who writes anything.
If you would care to point out any of these historical inaccuracies which are so detracting from the show, here is the place.
I prefer this one, to be honest. Carl Sagan is amazing, but Tyson is a bit more personable than Sagan. Sagan can seem a bit arrogant at times. It's an attitude well-earned, but Tyson's delivery is more in the style of a layman speaking to a layman, rather than an expert dumbing himself down for the layman, which is a bit more how Sagan feels.
Enjoy this lecture by Dr. Tyson about Creationist scientists.
Link to video.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
That scientist give the credit that is due to God, to humans?
Feel free to correct my misinterpretation:
Humans are brilliant on their own. When they invoke God, they go wrong.
There are a few assumptions that we have to go through to get to that notion.
Pointing out flaws in design, does not negate an intelligent designer. It does not even point to a cruel designer. I am sure that there are more brilliant people than I who accept that though.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Creationist scientists was snark on my part. They were religious is all. Willing to invoke God to explain things they couldn't.
Whut?Pretty much sums up why i didn't bother watching that.
Btw, one of the linked videos has a link for the presenter/main figure in the new Cosmos series, and Orley? (sic)
Could you please rephrase this post, because it's not making a lot of sense.
I was 16 when I saw the Original Cosmos. By that time I'd already been reading about, and studying, astronomy in various ways for 12 years (yes, I really did start at age 4). I didn't feel it was dumbed down at all, and helped me understand some things that had been confusing me.
With a couple of exceptions, the new Cosmos feels annoyingly dumbed down, like a lot of it's at the junior-high level instead of high school, university, or beyond, as the original series was.
Those stupid cartoons don't help.
Those stupid cartoons don't help.
Here's improved version of the last nights cartoons:
Link to video.
Spoiler :
Aroddo
Emperor
I was 16 when I saw the Original Cosmos. By that time I'd already been reading about, and studying, astronomy in various ways for 12 years (yes, I really did start at age 4). I didn't feel it was dumbed down at all, and helped me understand some things that had been confusing me.
With a couple of exceptions, the new Cosmos feels annoyingly dumbed down, like a lot of it's at the junior-high level instead of high school, university, or beyond, as the original series was.
Those stupid cartoons don't help.
So you are telling us that you are so smart that you scoff a pop science TV but you are not smart enough to see that the series is tailored for todays demographic?
Once again, Cosmos is not designed to substitute for academic education. It's made to counter the anti-intellectual trend that resulted in Rush Revere's Time Travel Adventures.
Link to video.
Plus, Neil deGrasse Tyson is perfect.
I scoff at the cartoons. It's actually pretty sad that the writers/producers felt this was the best way to reach current younger viewers.
Also, I haven't actually watched a lot of TV during the past 10 years or so, either because I had no cable TV, or I didn't have a working TV, period. I got out of the TV habit, and even now that I do have both a TV and cable, I don't watch much. And the last time I saw a movie in a theatre was literally last century. So yeah, I'm out of touch with "today's demographic."
Aroddo
Emperor
oh, the cartoons. and the music, I gather.
Weeeeeell ... I don't know their rationale for using cartoons instead of paying good actors and creating expensive sets for the historical scenes ... ok, maybe I do.
Anyway, it could have been worse: They could have used bad 3D CGI for the historic parts. Kinda like Shrek or Kung-Fu Panda.
Don't you like cartoons on principle or don't you like the directing of the cartoons?
Weeeeeell ... I don't know their rationale for using cartoons instead of paying good actors and creating expensive sets for the historical scenes ... ok, maybe I do.
Anyway, it could have been worse: They could have used bad 3D CGI for the historic parts. Kinda like Shrek or Kung-Fu Panda.
Don't you like cartoons on principle or don't you like the directing of the cartoons?
