Cosmos, with Neil DeGrasse Tyson - In which we learn that FOX is not the same as Fox News

MagicPrime · April 2014

During the 2012 Derecho on the East Coast we were without power for three days. That first night I was able to go out in my back yard (I have a house on the outskirts of small city) and see the milky way.

CaptainPeacock · April 2014

MagicPrime wrote: »

During the 2012 Derecho on the East Coast we were without power for three days. That first night I was able to go out in my back yard (I have a house on the outskirts of small city) and see the milky way.

Was your first thought: "Oh no, this wont do. Those will have to go."?

davidsdurions · April 2014

Veevee wrote: »

To be fair to wraith, he posted before SIG. However, I can confirm there are no ads with adblock on

Yeah, I'm just trying to help. I'm a crazy person who reads every post, but I guess I need to remember that not everyone does that.

Cosmos, though, I'm behind a week but it sounds like it really picks up in this next episode, I'm excited for that! Someone posted earlier they wanted a second season, I don't think this is the kind of show that lends itself to season after season. It's more like this is the second season, just decades later. So, a third season in 2035 or so?

I would like to see an epilogue show that talks about the discoveries that have happened since they filmed, probably focusing on the background radiation discovery from last week. Unless something else amazing happens by the end of the show!

Wraith260 · April 2014

davidsdurions wrote: »

Veevee wrote: »

To be fair to wraith, he posted before SIG. However, I can confirm there are no ads with adblock on

Yeah, I'm just trying to help. I'm a crazy person who reads every post, but I guess I need to remember that not everyone does that.

if SIG, or anyone, has posted that ink earlier in the thread, then fair enough. but there's a difference between reading every post and remembering every post. maybe keep in mind that we were all just trying to help.

emnmnme · April 2014

Muzzmuzz · April 2014

Any way a non-American can watch this show online? (specifically, a Canadian)

I'm willing to watch it legit, with ads, online, but I can't seem to find a way to play it.

Gnome-Interruptus · April 2014

Muzzmuzz wrote: »

Any way a non-American can watch this show online? (specifically, a Canadian)

I'm willing to watch it legit, with ads, online, but I can't seem to find a way to play it.

You can install something like MediaHint on your Chrome browser, and watch it on Hulu.

Alternately, here: http://www.globaltv.com/cosmos/

Muzzmuzz · April 2014

Welp, I feel like an idiot, I somehow thought it was on CTV, and was flummoxed when I couldn't find it.

Veevee · April 2014

New episode is here watch it ad free with adblock on

Another great episode on why science and the scientific method is so god damn important, but is this the first without a direct, overt Carl Sagan reference?

syndalis · April 2014

Veevee wrote: »

New episode is here watch it ad free with adblock on

Another great episode on why science and the scientific method is so god damn important, but is this the first without a direct, overt Carl Sagan reference?

BILLIONS AND BILLIONS

Samphis · April 2014

I'd welcome more Carl Sagan over less Carl Sagan. If this ends without an updated Pale Blue Dot, I'll be a little sad.

yossarian_lives · April 2014

This show is amazing, it keeps bringing up memories of growing up in Wyoming. Specifically, witnessing a meteor shower at 5,000 feet above sea level. I never knew what a privilege it was to see a midnight sky while camping in the mountains, until my family moved away. I feel like Cosmos has rekindled a piece of my childhood. Hopefully, I'll be able to give my son the same experience some day.

Decomposey · April 2014

Samphis wrote: »

I'd welcome more Carl Sagan over less Carl Sagan. If this ends without an updated Pale Blue Dot, I'll be a little sad.

And if it ends with an updated Pale Blue Dot, I'll be a little teary.

chamberlain · April 2014

Decomposey wrote: »

Samphis wrote: »

I'd welcome more Carl Sagan over less Carl Sagan. If this ends without an updated Pale Blue Dot, I'll be a little sad.

And if it ends with an updated Pale Blue Dot, I'll be a little teary.

Don't get me wrong, I love Neil, but I don't know if he has the right gravitas in his narration for this to work. I would be satisfied with Sagan's version over new visuals.

RonaldoTheGypsy · April 2014

Veevee wrote: »

New episode is here watch it ad free with adblock on

Another great episode on why science and the scientific method is so god damn important, but is this the first without a direct, overt Carl Sagan reference?

starstuff seems a pretty direct reference.

Veevee · April 2014

RonaldoTheGypsy wrote: »

Veevee wrote: »

New episode is here watch it ad free with adblock on

Another great episode on why science and the scientific method is so god damn important, but is this the first without a direct, overt Carl Sagan reference?

starstuff seems a pretty direct reference.

Not nearly as overt or direct as "Carl Sagan's day planner" or "This animation and audio from the original show."

Aistan · April 2014

"Billions and billions" is also a reference, but I don't recall anything direct, no.

The Ender · April 2014

This is a dumb question, but: does anyone know where / to whom you could shoot off a napkin idea in theoretical physics to ask about a means of testing said idea?

DanHibiki · April 2014

The Ender wrote: »

This is a dumb question, but: does anyone know where / to whom you could shoot off a napkin idea in theoretical physics to ask about a means of testing said idea?

depends on what it is... a coworker of mine had some success just contacting a local university.

SteevL · April 2014

Just in case you need some more science TV, Your Inner Fish is a 3-part series about evolution that starts tonight. My fiancee thinks it'll be great, but she might be biased because her boss and lab is featured in one of the segments.

Hevach · April 2014

Is that the one from the guy who discovered Tiktaalik? I've been looking forward to that. I don't really know a whole lot about Neil Shubin other than Tiktaalik, but from what I've read, he makes a point of seeking out bible belt red state hellscapes to talk about his discovery. And he apparently knows better than to subject himself to silly debates where he's hamstrung by rules set by an opponent who will just claim victory regardless of what happens, so he actually gets through to a few people.

Marathon · April 2014

I watched the first part this last week and really liked it. As a biologist I'm a fairly biased audience though.

maximumzero · April 2014

Goddamn this show makes me feel like an idiot.

maximumzero · April 2014

I'm really going to miss this show when it's gone. I wish it was an ongoing thing.

DanHibiki · April 2014

that photosynthesis segment had some embarrassingly bad CGI.

King Riptor · April 2014

maximumzero wrote: »

I'm really going to miss this show when it's gone. I wish it was an ongoing thing.

It might be. Doubt itll stay on Fox Sundays though

Rhesus Positive · April 2014

Nocren wrote: »

N1tSt4lker wrote: »

Zilla360 wrote: »

The Ender wrote: »

One of his journals is basically nothing but symbol-based coded messages. That he wrote for himself.

Eh, it's not that weird. I did that when I was nine, making up ciphers and gibberish alphabet substitutions, all thanks to 'My First Spy Kit'.

I...may have learned Tolkein's elvish alphabet in order to write secret messages in my journals, just in case.

Brittainna runes for me.

You guys are making my deranged alphabet combined with Rosicrucian cipher look positively bush-league.

N1tSt4lker · April 2014

This episode is so great. Atoms are so stinking cool!

Edit: neutrinos! Even cooler!

King Riptor · April 2014

It had Aquaman wax poetic about an Atom.

That had to be on purpose

TexiKen · April 2014

Netflix has The Inexplicable Universe up where Tyson does 30 minute lectures about the universe/science and trying to understand stuff.

At this point I actually prefer it to Cosmos because Tyson is talking a lot more looser and faster than how he's been doing for primetime, where he's still got visual assistance but he's giving the audience a little bit more respect about what he's saying.

And I think that's what's making me feel like the recent Cosmos episodes have been streets behind; on top of a few spots feeling redundant and the abundance of animation that I'm not too keen on, it feels like Tyson is kind of condescending when he's constantly using his rhetorical device to explain stuff. Maybe not condescending but it almost feels like they're playing the soundtrack when Tyson was filming his segments and he's waiting for cues or something and there's always an impetus to deliver something grand and flashy with the CGI when all I really want is for the smart guy to show why he's smart and not just look at the CGI stuff himself.

With Inexplicable Universe he seems much, much more enthusiastic about explaining science.

Dedwrekka · April 2014

You should check out his speeches on Youtube. In one he gets so animated that he scares off Brian Green.

King Riptor · April 2014

TexiKen wrote: »

Netflix has The Inexplicable Universe up where Tyson does 30 minute lectures about the universe/science and trying to understand stuff.

At this point I actually prefer it to Cosmos because Tyson is talking a lot more looser and faster than how he's been doing for primetime, where he's still got visual assistance but he's giving the audience a little bit more respect about what he's saying.

And I think that's what's making me feel like the recent Cosmos episodes have been streets behind; on top of a few spots feeling redundant and the abundance of animation that I'm not too keen on, it feels like Tyson is kind of condescending when he's constantly using his rhetorical device to explain stuff. Maybe not condescending but it almost feels like they're playing the soundtrack when Tyson was filming his segments and he's waiting for cues or something and there's always an impetus to deliver something grand and flashy with the CGI when all I really want is for the smart guy to show why he's smart and not just look at the CGI stuff himself.

With Inexplicable Universe he seems much, much more enthusiastic about explaining science.

Cosmos is designed for people with almost no understanding of modern science and its more cinematic and repetitive as a result. Its a teaching tool.

The lectures on netflix are for a different audience thats more familiar with the subjects

The animation is just as bad as the live action in the originals

a5ehren · April 2014

DanHibiki wrote: »

that photosynthesis segment had some embarrassingly bad CGI.

Holy shit you weren't kidding.

Looked like a 1999 Silicon Graphics demo.

Aegeri · April 2014

Given the nature of this thread, many of you probably followed the recent Nye-Ham debate from a while back. Nye actually has a nice account and what he thought about the debate up, which is well worth taking the time to have a read through.

KingofMadCows · April 2014

a5ehren wrote: »

DanHibiki wrote: »

that photosynthesis segment had some embarrassingly bad CGI.

Holy shit you weren't kidding.

Looked like a 1999 Silicon Graphics demo.

That part didn't even make any sense. Who's idea was it to portray the process with weird Rube Goldberg machinery? That was so jarring, I barely noticed how crappy the effects were.

syndalis · April 2014

KingofMadCows wrote: »

a5ehren wrote: »

DanHibiki wrote: »

that photosynthesis segment had some embarrassingly bad CGI.

Holy shit you weren't kidding.

Looked like a 1999 Silicon Graphics demo.

That part didn't even make any sense. Who's idea was it to portray it the process with weird Rube Goldberg machinery? That was so jarring, I barely noticed how crappy the effects were.

They were following the conceit of machinery to explain how it works through the whole segment on photosynthesis. And while I too ended up thinking about old VHS 3D demos of fish trying to hang out with birds... the actual function of the machine was appropriate, and all the "parts" were accomplishing the atomic dance that comprises photosynthesis.

We may not be the right audience for a simple visual like this, though... but if it helps a younger (or less educated) crowd grasp the concept of the generation of fuel/energy via photosynthesis, then it works.

N1tSt4lker · April 2014

I enjoyed it even though it was obviously simplistic. It also helped me to understand better how it could work large scale, a good thing since he segued into explaining why it could be game-changing for humans to figure out how to use photosynthesis in our own energy production.

maximumzero · April 2014

syndalis wrote: »

KingofMadCows wrote: »

a5ehren wrote: »

DanHibiki wrote: »

that photosynthesis segment had some embarrassingly bad CGI.

Holy shit you weren't kidding.

Looked like a 1999 Silicon Graphics demo.

That part didn't even make any sense. Who's idea was it to portray it the process with weird Rube Goldberg machinery? That was so jarring, I barely noticed how crappy the effects were.

They were following the conceit of machinery to explain how it works through the whole segment on photosynthesis. And while I too ended up thinking about old VHS 3D demos of fish trying to hang out with birds... the actual function of the machine was appropriate, and all the "parts" were accomplishing the atomic dance that comprises photosynthesis.

We may not be the right audience for a simple visual like this, though... but if it helps a younger (or less educated) crowd grasp the concept of the generation of fuel/energy via photosynthesis, then it works.

I immediately thought of the old "Animusic" videos.

Though looking at it now even it looks a bit nicer than the Cosmos segments.

Donnicton · April 2014

syndalis wrote: »

KingofMadCows wrote: »

a5ehren wrote: »

DanHibiki wrote: »

that photosynthesis segment had some embarrassingly bad CGI.

Holy shit you weren't kidding.

Looked like a 1999 Silicon Graphics demo.

That part didn't even make any sense. Who's idea was it to portray it the process with weird Rube Goldberg machinery? That was so jarring, I barely noticed how crappy the effects were.

They were following the conceit of machinery to explain how it works through the whole segment on photosynthesis. And while I too ended up thinking about old VHS 3D demos of fish trying to hang out with birds... the actual function of the machine was appropriate, and all the "parts" were accomplishing the atomic dance that comprises photosynthesis.

We may not be the right audience for a simple visual like this, though... but if it helps a younger (or less educated) crowd grasp the concept of the generation of fuel/energy via photosynthesis, then it works.