New Cosmos Premiers Tonight

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by Makhaidos (1613 posts) -

In a time where people apparently believe the sun revolves around the Earth, at least one guy decided to bring us some quality educational programming: Seth freakin' MacFarlane. Are you gonna watch the first episode?

#2 Posted by Motokid6 (5331 posts) -

This is big. The air time this show is getting speaks to what there trying to achieve. I hope families around the world sit down to watch this. We need to inspire people and KIDS with GOOD role models and proper dreams. ( We have quite the opposite right now ) I hope this inspires the whole nation to shift its mood to space. And who knows... the interest COSMOS 2014 generates could lead to great things.

That's saying its good.. I don't think NDT would do a bad job...but the moment this accomplished physisct starts twirling a ball and string above his head to explain orbits is the moment I stop watching. Lame analogies better stay the hell away from this show. Up until now Wonders of the Solar System with Brian Cox ( whom I desperately hope to see in this show ) was my favorite documentary by far. Using only limited, good analogies and at the same time breaking down the math right there in front of you. I hope COSMOS can top that.

This show could be a revolutionary moment in history. By de-beiberizing America. The moment the world starts dreaming again. The moment people start asking the big questions again. I cannot wait.

#3 Posted by lostrib (34998 posts) -

The commercials make it sound like it's some sci fi action movie

#4 Edited by br0kenrabbit (12854 posts) -

@lostrib said:

The commercials make it sound like it's some sci fi action movie

Documentaries should totally be more action-oriented.

So waiting for the Michael Bay 'The women of the Suffrage Movement' doc.

#5 Posted by RadecSupreme (4646 posts) -

What Carl Sagan did in the 80s with this show was incredible and very educative. I'm glad to see Neil DeGrasse Tyson follow in his footsteps. I'm hoping this show has the same impact that it had in the 80s. Astronomy and cosmology are some of the most fascinating sciences as well as the most inquisitive.

#6 Posted by SaintLeonidas (26069 posts) -

Sagan's series was very personal and almost poetic. This new one, from all the TV spots I have seen, seems like just the usual space themed program the Science Channel airs all the time. I'll watch it for Neil deGrasse Tyson, but I am currently not too hyped.

#7 Edited by lamprey263 (23294 posts) -

I'll watch it, but I expect the same dead horse that been beaten to death on the Science Channel over the last few years, countless shows that pretty much all cover the basic stuff. Blah blah blah, Bang Bang blah blah blah, matter/anti-matter battle, blah blah blah, cosmic evolution, blah blah blah, Big Freeze, blah blah blah, we'll learn more at the LHC, blah blah blah, now we need a particle accelerator the size of Texas, blah blah blah, this is string theory and imagine living on the surface of a garden hose, blah blah blah... whatever the programs are called they pretty much have said the same thing for years and years, then they get replayed. We'll probably see all the same faces, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku, Briane Greene, and that other Brian Green guy, and so on, maybe some more Morgan Freeman. Will this have anything ground breaking or new to offer, probably not. But hey, at least it's on FOX, which is pretty much free for everyone, and unlike PBS's NOVA series it's actually on a channel people watch.

#8 Posted by Motokid6 (5331 posts) -

@lamprey263: I hope not.. really. The commercials are trying to make it seem like that, but ive heard that the shows objective is to chronicle all of the scientific discoveries that have happened sine the first COSMOS in the 80s. THAT would be good. Seth McFarlene ( whether you like family guy or not ) knows what hes doing when it comes to investments. He has FOX in his pocket and this proves that. 9pm.. primetime.. on a dozen channels. So id like to think they'd try something fresh and new.

I want it to have the Wonders of the Solar System vibe, If they can achieve that then the goal is accomplished.

#9 Posted by Pirate700 (46465 posts) -

Nope. I don't see how it differs from any other space-based educational show I've seen countless times.

#10 Edited by Boddicker (2582 posts) -

I watched the original Carl Sagan episodes in order yesterday on the NatGeo channel for the first time. They were enormously interesting and Sagan certainly did have a strange charisma.

I'll catch the Neil Degrasse Tyson version on the reruns. There's only one TV hooked up to cable in my house and my mom's got it right now.

#11 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

Color me interested. What channel and what time?

#12 Posted by Hallenbeck77 (14404 posts) -

Color me interested. What channel and what time?

9 pm EST on Fox. It will also air on Nat Geo the following day as well.

#13 Edited by Motokid6 (5331 posts) -

@AmazonTreeBoa:

Uhh.. all of them I think. 9pm EST "Fox, FX, FXX, FXM, Fox Sports 1, Fox Sports 2, National Geographic Channel, Nat Geo WILD, Nat Geo Mundo, and Fox Life"

@Pirate700:

Lol im sure its gonna be corny as hell, but.. 181 countries, 220 channels.. well see.

#14 Posted by Hallenbeck77 (14404 posts) -

@Motokid6 said:

@AmazonTreeBoa:

Uhh.. all of them I think. 9pm EST "Fox, FX, FXX, FXM, Fox Sports 1, Fox Sports 2, National Geographic Channel, Nat Geo WILD, Nat Geo Mundo, and Fox Life"

I think that's for the premiere episode only, but I could be wrong. From next week on, new episodes will be on Fox on Sunday nights, with re-broadcasts on Nat Geo on Mondays.

#15 Posted by Makhaidos (1613 posts) -

The music is epic.

#16 Edited by Makhaidos (1613 posts) -

I'm loving this so far.

#17 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12854 posts) -

I'm...disappointed. For one, there's almost as much ad time as show time. Two, and I hope it's just because it's the premier, this seems more of a summary. Also, there's quite a bit of misinformation. For example: the tidal forces aren't pushing the moon away, they're pulling on it. But since the Earth rotates, the tidal bulges are pushed ahead of the moon, therefore causing the moon to speed up and thus recede from Earth.

#18 Posted by Makhaidos (1613 posts) -

I'm...disappointed. For one, there's almost as much ad time as show time. Two, and I hope it's just because it's the premier, this seems more of a summary. Also, there's quite a bit of misinformation. For example: the tidal forces aren't pushing the moon away, they're pulling on it. But since the Earth rotates, the tidal bulges are pushed ahead of the moon, therefore causing the moon to speed up and thus recede from Earth.

So, to put it simply: tidal forces are pushing the moon away.

#19 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12854 posts) -


So, to put it simply: tidal forces are pushing the moon away.

No, tidal forces are speeding the moon up. The tidal forces pull, not push.

#20 Posted by Makhaidos (1613 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

So, to put it simply: tidal forces are pushing the moon away.

No, tidal forces are speeding the moon up. The tidal forces pull, not push.

But to recede from Earth means to move away from Earth. When things are pulled, they come closer. When things are pushed, they go farther away.

I think you're looking into it a little too literally.

#21 Posted by n1i2e3 (15 posts) -

great show.

#22 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12854 posts) -

But to recede from Earth means to move away from Earth. When things are pulled, they come closer. When things are pushed, they go farther away.

I think you're looking into it a little too literally.

The moon isn't receding because it's being pushed, it's doing so because it's gaining speed. This is the conservation of angular momentum in action. Nothing is being pushed.

#23 Edited by Makhaidos (1613 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

But to recede from Earth means to move away from Earth. When things are pulled, they come closer. When things are pushed, they go farther away.

I think you're looking into it a little too literally.

The moon isn't receding because it's being pushed, it's doing so because it's gaining speed. This is the conservation of angular momentum in action. Nothing is being pushed.

I don't think the general audience (to whom this show is geared) would understand the conservation of angular momentum. Hence, the language "pushed away."

I'd like to hope Neil DeGrasse Tyson knows how the moon works.

#24 Edited by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

@br0kenrabbit said:

@Makhaidos said:

So, to put it simply: tidal forces are pushing the moon away.

No, tidal forces are speeding the moon up. The tidal forces pull, not push.

But to recede from Earth means to move away from Earth. When things are pulled, they come closer. When things are pushed, they go farther away.

I think you're looking into it a little too literally.

Take a rubber band and tie a small rock to one end. Now spin it in the air. Notice how the faster you go, the farther away from your hand the rock goes? Yet the whole time, the rubber band is pulling on the rock. That's how the moon works. The rubber band being gravity in the case of the moon.

#25 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12854 posts) -

I don't think the general audience (to whom this show is geared) would understand the conservation of angular momentum. Hence, the language "pushed away."

I'd like to hope Neil DeGrasse Tyson knows how the moon works.

It could be explained very easily with a simple graphic, but they spent all the art department funds on that flashy yet somehow still stupid looking spaceship.

And it's not like that was the only thing wrong with the show. "Cosmic Calender?" Where have I seen that before? Oh yeah, in absolutely every other show about the origins of the universe.

Also, when talking about how we know about the big bang, did he give one example as "the distribution of helium in the universe"? Shouldn't that be hydrogen?

I also felt that he could have taken 10 seconds to explain how all elements began with hydrogen-hydrogen fusion when he was talking about 'star stuff'.

This show played like the first chapter in a 6th grade science book.

#26 Posted by SaintLeonidas (26069 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

I don't think the general audience (to whom this show is geared) would understand the conservation of angular momentum. Hence, the language "pushed away."

I'd like to hope Neil DeGrasse Tyson knows how the moon works.

It could be explained very easily with a simple graphic, but they spent all the art department funds on that flashy yet somehow still stupid looking spaceship.

And it's not like that was the only thing wrong with the show. "Cosmic Calender?" Where have I seen that before? Oh yeah, in absolutely every other show about the origins of the universe.

Also, when talking about how we know about the big bang, did he give one example as "the distribution of helium in the universe"? Shouldn't that be hydrogen?

I also felt that he could have taken 10 seconds to explain how all elements began with hydrogen-hydrogen fusion when he was talking about 'star stuff'.

This show played like the first chapter in a 6th grade science book.

#27 Edited by Motokid6 (5331 posts) -

It was indeed an introductory/summary of what there going to be covering in the coming episodes. I agree on the lame space ship, but other then that the graphics department gets a +++ imo on Jupiter's red spot. Other then that it was putting religion in a bad light ( though every bit of it true ). Which.. had to be done and they got it out of the way early. The tribute to Segan in the end was nice.

I also thought it was cool that the president introduced the show..

What I didn't like and erk'ed me the post was the false representation of the Asteroid belt. When he was flying out they should've visited Ceres or any of the other minor planets in the belt instead of a dense asteroid field. Of which the real one is not. If you were standing on the surface of any asteroid in the belt you would not see another. They'd be stars moving against the back ground.

I liked it overall and look forward to the next. Which... I hope we get to hear other physicists as well.

#28 Posted by konvikt_17 (22175 posts) -

i chuckled at "we are all made up of 'star stuff'"

you would think there would be a scientific name for it.

though im thinking he said that on purpose. to be more understandable and such.

#29 Posted by SaintLeonidas (26069 posts) -

i chuckled at "we are all made up of 'star stuff'"

you would think there would be a scientific name for it.

though im thinking he said that on purpose. to be more understandable and such.

...OMG people...

It is a reference to something Carl Sagan used to say.

#30 Posted by Kevlar101 (6081 posts) -

i chuckled at "we are all made up of 'star stuff'"

you would think there would be a scientific name for it.

though im thinking he said that on purpose. to be more understandable and such.

Yeah, I actually lingered on that for a minute as well. Shouldn't it be called "Star Dust" ?

Anyway, I thought it was a pretty cool show. I am moderately hyped for the next one.

#31 Edited by SaintLeonidas (26069 posts) -

@Kevlar101 said:

@konvikt_17 said:

i chuckled at "we are all made up of 'star stuff'"

you would think there would be a scientific name for it.

though im thinking he said that on purpose. to be more understandable and such.

Yeah, I actually lingered on that for a minute as well. Shouldn't it be called "Star Dust" ?

Anyway, I thought it was a pretty cool show. I am moderately hyped for the next one.

He is referencing Sagan, and it isn't meant to be scientific. It is more metaphorical. "Star-stuff" to Sagan meant that we are made up of the very same stuff (matter) that make up the stars, and the whole of the Cosmos; and our consciousness, our ability to question, explore and learn about the universe, is a way for the Cosmos to understand itself.

#32 Posted by Kevlar101 (6081 posts) -

@Kevlar101 said:

@konvikt_17 said:

i chuckled at "we are all made up of 'star stuff'"

you would think there would be a scientific name for it.

though im thinking he said that on purpose. to be more understandable and such.

Yeah, I actually lingered on that for a minute as well. Shouldn't it be called "Star Dust" ?

Anyway, I thought it was a pretty cool show. I am moderately hyped for the next one.

He is referencing Sagan, and it isn't meant to be scientific. It is more metaphorical. "Star-stuff" to Sagan meant that we are made up of the very same stuff (matter) that make up the stars, and the whole of the Cosmos; and our consciousness, our ability to question, explore and learn about the universe, is a way for the Cosmos to understand itself.

Ahhhhh okay, makes sense.

And that story about Sagan at the end was actually surprisingly heartwarming.....

#33 Posted by SaintLeonidas (26069 posts) -

@SaintLeonidas said:

@Kevlar101 said:

@konvikt_17 said:

i chuckled at "we are all made up of 'star stuff'"

you would think there would be a scientific name for it.

though im thinking he said that on purpose. to be more understandable and such.

Yeah, I actually lingered on that for a minute as well. Shouldn't it be called "Star Dust" ?

Anyway, I thought it was a pretty cool show. I am moderately hyped for the next one.

He is referencing Sagan, and it isn't meant to be scientific. It is more metaphorical. "Star-stuff" to Sagan meant that we are made up of the very same stuff (matter) that make up the stars, and the whole of the Cosmos; and our consciousness, our ability to question, explore and learn about the universe, is a way for the Cosmos to understand itself.

Ahhhhh okay, makes sense.

And that story about Sagan at the end was actually surprisingly heartwarming.....

Sagan was awesome. Him, his books and the original 'Cosmos', inspired a lot of people like Neil. Which is why this updated version of the show, broadcast on so many channels and so many countries, could be pretty important in inspiring a whole new generation. Hence why it doesn't play out like a college level astronomy text book. It is meant as an introduction, one that hopefully gets people to dig a bit deeper themselves.

#34 Edited by konvikt_17 (22175 posts) -

Ah. havent seen Sagans Cosmos. i thought he was just trying to be general and easily understood by all and such.