Carl Sagan Cosmos series, the sequel!

[troutman]

Neil deGrasse Tyson Makes Us Feel Inadequate on This Week’s ‘Cosmos’


http://www.thewire.com/culture/2014/...cosmos/359458/

Why do we know the names of mass murderers, but not scientists?

In this week's episode, I also learned that if you, like Robert Hooke, end up dying without getting an image of yourself preserved for future generations, a science show will turn you into an evil, balding hunchback to increase the drama of a history lesson. So take selfies forever, I guess.

[Bobblehead]

So apparently creationists are feeling left out.

"I was struck in the first episode where [Tyson] talked about science and how, you know, all ideas are discussed, you know, everything is up for discussion -- it's all on the table -- and I thought to myself, 'No, consideration of special creation is definitely not open for discussion, it would seem." said Danny Faulkner of Answers in Genesis.

"You don't talk about the spherical earth with NASA and then say let's give equal time to the flat-earthers," said Tyson.

http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_New...5881395675954/

[troutman]

This Old Earth Is Warming Up


http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...ng_denial.html

[troutman]

Cosmos, Episode 4:

http://www.space.com/25279-cosmos-pa...stronomer.html

Stewart, who portrayed Captain Jean-Luc Picard on "Star Trek: The Next Generation," is one of two guest actors on the fourth episode of "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey" hosted by astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. In the episode, dubbed "A Sky Full of Ghosts," Stewart will voice an animated version of astronomer William Herschel as part of a historical reenactment on the science-themed show.

Another British acting veteran, Julian Ovenden (Charles Blake on "Downton Abbey"), will make an appearance on Sunday's "Cosmos" as Michael Faraday, the 19th century inventor of the electric motor. In "A Sky Full of Ghosts," "Cosmos" will recount how Faraday "discovered invisible fields of force that help him understand how gravity works," according to an episode description.

Tyson took direct aim at Young Earthers, showing how if the universe was only 6,500 years old, we would only be able to see a small fraction of the stars in the Milky Way (those within 6,500 light years).

"To believe in a universe as young as six or seven thousand years old is to extinguish the light from most of the galaxy"

"He should just drop the mic and walk off stage after that" - Pier on Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/COSMOSonTV?rf=388305197891838

[GreenLantern]

I thought that sounded like him!

Great episode last night, really enjoyed all the black hole stuff.

[nik-]

Yeah I thought it might be him too, but it sounded just different enough that I wasn't sure.

[GGG]

Little disappointed in the direct shot at creationists. I think its much better just to present the science. Becasue if you believe that the universe is 6500 years old then it is just as easy to believe that the universe was created to appear older. Just present the science as science. Dont debate things that don't make predictions and can be tested. They are not relevant to science.

Liked the Patrick Stewart voice work.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

I was torn about the shot at young earthers. On one hand it was just such an obvious shot at them, that it seemed off-putting relative to the spirit of the show. On the other hand, it was really cool to see what 6500 years of star light looked like relative to the entire spectrum.

And huh, so it was Patrick Stewart. I totally thought so too, but wasn't sure.

[trackercowe]

Does anyone else find it creepy listening to Patrick Stewart on American Dad (wanting to "get with" with Stan) to then voicing William Herschel on this immediately after? It's just a really strange transition to accept. I was expecting him to try and molest his son on the beach for a second.

[Coach]

I liked this episode as well, espeically once he started to get into black holes. Although its all a pretty basic explanation of everything and most of it I already know (so far anyways).

I really don't look at the 6500 years thing as a "shot", again its just him telling the truth. I was watching Tyson's interview on Colbert from a couple weeks ago and Colbert asked him what he thought would surprise Carl Sagan the most about our society today, and Tyson said it was the fact that we still had to fight for science to be relevant and listened to. I think you can tell Tyson is frustrated with the apparent unwillingness to learn and be taught by many people. But if you watch the show, you can see how this has been the case throughout all recorded history. New ideas and discoveries are often met with resistance and hostility.

I personally just don't understand the idea of it being a "shot" and young earthers. there should be "shots" at these people. Someone needs to shock everyone into reality. They are wrong. There is no debate on that at all. And I don't think we need to try and be sensitive to people who actively preach inaccuracies. They need to be told that they are wrong. And above that, they need to be told what we actually do know to this point. Tyson is very open about where they have lapses in knowledge and still aren't sure on things, which is something religious zealots never are and it's an issue. You have to be open to be corrected and in the face of uncertainty, embrace it and strive to discover it. We're beyond just making something up and preaching it as truth. It's ok to NOT KNOW.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I personally just don't understand the idea of it being a "shot" and young earthers. there should be "shots" at these people. Someone needs to shock everyone into reality. They are wrong. There is no debate on that at all. And I don't think we need to try and be sensitive to people who actively preach inaccuracies. They need to be told that they are wrong. And above that, they need to be told what we actually do know to this point.

While I agree with your sentiment I don't thing arguing against them is the best aproach especially when you are trying to educate the masses.

It is a shot against their belief directly because it is brought up as 6500 years of star light. It is a direct refutation of their belief. What it also does is present the 6500 year old universe as an alternative to whats being presented here. Then the show goes on and states a bunch of crazy stuff about how black holes work. It leaves a choice, you can believe in one crazy idea backed by old books or you can believe in another crazy idea backed by scientific research. The marketing problem is that both are crazy.

So engaging in refutation I think presents a false choice. There is no choice of what to believe in science. You test hypothesis until they are proven wrong. Whats left is the current state of universe. I would have much perferred him just leaving out the 6500 years of light.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by GGG

I would have much perferred him just leaving out the 6500 years of light.

I really don't understand what you are saying. What is the problem? Are you worried that some might be offended?

[Coach]

Well I think Tyson's whole reason for doing this series stems from the sentiment in my first paragraph. I think he does want to show why/how they're wrong. I think he finds it frustrating that people can still believe these things in the face of all evidence to the contrary. I really do think it's his mission to educate the masses and specifically those that have been indoctrinated into believing something that is false. Some people (kids specifically) are not made aware of these things and are sheltered to keep them in accordance with religious beliefs. I don't think his line about 6500 years is a dig at them, its an answer to what he presumes is their question. He plays it like:

"The universe is almost 14 billion years old"
"But momma says its only 6500"
"I'm glad you mentioned that, here's what the universe would look like if it was only 6500 years old....etc"

In short, I really don't think its a bad thing to throw some truth in these people's faces. They've been throwing their "truth" in everyone else's face for centuries. It's not about payback, its about making sure everyone at least has access to basic human understanding. Let's face it, none of what has been presented so far is groundbreaking, its all pretty simple.

I do wish he gave a bit more explanation about how we know how far these things are. Maybe I zonked out for a few minutes but he never really seemed to get into that.

[troutman]

How do astronomers measure the distances to galaxies?
http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk...5&cat=galaxies

Astronomers measure the distance to a galaxy in the same way we estimate the distance to an oncoming car by the brightness of its headlights. We know from experience how much light a car's headlights emits, so we can determine how far away the car is.

To measure the distance to a galaxy, we try to find stars in that galaxy whose absolute light output we can measure. We can then determine how far away the galaxy is by observing the brightness of the stars. Such stars can help us measure the distance to galaxies 300 million light years away.

If a galaxy is too far away for us to distinguish individual stars, astronomers can use supernovae in the same manner, because the light output of supernovae at their peak brightness is a known fact. Supernovae can be used to measure the distance to galaxies as far as 10 billion light years away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder

[Coach]

Originally Posted by troutman

How do astronomers measure the distances to galaxies?
http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk...5&cat=galaxies

Astronomers measure the distance to a galaxy in the same way we estimate the distance to an oncoming car by the brightness of its headlights. We know from experience how much light a car's headlights emits, so we can determine how far away the car is.

To measure the distance to a galaxy, we try to find stars in that galaxy whose absolute light output we can measure. We can then determine how far away the galaxy is by observing the brightness of the stars. Such stars can help us measure the distance to galaxies 300 million light years away.

If a galaxy is too far away for us to distinguish individual stars, astronomers can use supernovae in the same manner, because the light output of supernovae at their peak brightness is a known fact. Supernovae can be used to measure the distance to galaxies as far as 10 billion light years away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder

Thanks I couldn't recall what the actual method was. I wish he'd spent just a minute explaining that though, because when I was watching that segment, if I was a creationist, I would think, well how do they know how far away these things are?

[troutman]

If the supernova is close enough such that we can measure the angular extent, θ(t), of its photosphere, we can use the equation where ω is angular velocity, θ is angular extent. In order to get an accurate measurement, it is necessary to make two observations separated by time Δt. Subsequently, we can use
where d is the distance to the supernova, Vej is the supernova's ejecta's radial velocity (it can be assumed that Vej equals Vθ if spherically symmetric).

[Brannigans Law]

the series has been a dream come true. its done so perfectly, beautifully, and with earnest and loving reverence to carl the whole way. ill be a very sad panda when it ends but will enjoy showing this series to my kids one day alongside the original.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by troutman

I really don't understand what you are saying. What is the problem? Are you worried that some might be offended?

Its not about hurting feelings its about giving screen time to something that doesn't need to be debated. In this case there is only one side to the story. By mentioning the 6500 years it raises the footing of the young earth "theory" to something that is worth being discussed. You don't see him saying and because we know this about space the earth can't sit on the back of a turtle.

I think it detracts from the grand scale of what I see as the purpose of the program which is to state Here is what we know about the universe and how we got here.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Well I think Tyson's whole reason for doing this series stems from the sentiment in my first paragraph. I think he does want to show why/how they're wrong. I think he finds it frustrating that people can still believe these things in the face of all evidence to the contrary. I really do think it's his mission to educate the masses and specifically those that have been indoctrinated into believing something that is false. Some people (kids specifically) are not made aware of these things and are sheltered to keep them in accordance with religious beliefs. I don't think his line about 6500 years is a dig at them, its an answer to what he presumes is their question. He plays it like:

"The universe is almost 14 billion years old"
"But momma says its only 6500"
"I'm glad you mentioned that, here's what the universe would look like if it was only 6500 years old....etc"

In short, I really don't think its a bad thing to throw some truth in these people's faces. They've been throwing their "truth" in everyone else's face for centuries. It's not about payback, its about making sure everyone at least has access to basic human understanding. Let's face it, none of what has been presented so far is groundbreaking, its all pretty simple.

I do wish he gave a bit more explanation about how we know how far these things are. Maybe I zonked out for a few minutes but he never really seemed to get into that.

I haven't watched the new series enough to notice anything like that.

The thing that made Carl Sagan so good is that you never got the feeling that he was trying to proselytize his message in that series. It makes me glad that I watched the original series in an era before social media and when I was innocent enough to not even know that there was a debate.

The whole fact that things have to be portrayed as "us versus them" these days is sad and I think it's just going to chase people away from wanting to participate in either.

While Sagan was highly critical of zealots and organized religion, he also thought that spirituality and science were totally compatible and science could be a source for spirituality. I much prefer to see that angle delivered. It just seems more positive and more effective if you really want to get religious people interested in science. Attacking just pushes them further away.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by troutman

I really don't understand what you are saying. What is the problem? Are you worried that some might be offended?

The problem for me is that it felt targeted towards on one specific audience when really the show should be meant for the masses. He might as well said "I'm looking at you, young-earthers!" at the end of that segment.

Anyway it's really a minor quibble. Overall, the show is pretty cool.