Cosmos 2014

Soldato
Joined
15 Nov 2003
Posts
14,356
Location
Marlow
If this is even half as good as the original series, we're in for a treat! Although I do wonder how it will fair without Sagan's great writing and insight.


“Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there-on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot.

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

- Carl Sagan​
 
Permabanned
Joined
28 Dec 2009
Posts
13,052
Location
london
I watched first episode last night. Good graphics, bit cheesy acting but an interesting story. But when he starts talking about the age of the universe and how planet earth used to look I can't help but disagree and have to turn it off. But ill watch the next episode as hopefully they talk about deep space and other planets more.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
33,188
I think things like this is how we THINK planet earth used to look would make it far better. A science show making bold unprovable claims just seems wrong.

Either way, it was okay but far too much filler and not I don't think they picked the right guy to narrate it. Would be more interesting with less of the ship avoiding asteroids and more you know, actual stuff. Felt very slow, a bit stiff and like a chore to watch. First one though, maybe it will pick up pace and be a bit more interesting.
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Aug 2010
Posts
5,798
I thought it started off a bit weak but picked up as it went along.
If you want to see something more technical then I strongly recommend


'The Universe'

R2q9n0p.jpg

[url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1051155/reference[/URL]

I can't believe I let this amazing series slip past!
I've now got 7 seasons of this amazing series to watch in Blu ray :eek:
 
Permabanned
Joined
28 Dec 2009
Posts
13,052
Location
london
This series Cosmos would be perfect for school children to watch during school. But I agree the ship and some of his acting was a bit too cheesy for me. But I like how he/they thought it was necessary to tell the story of Galileo and the animations were quite good.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
16 Jan 2010
Posts
8,529
Location
Cumbria
But when he starts talking about the age of the universe and how planet earth used to look I can't help but disagree and have to turn it off. But ill watch the next episode as hopefully they talk about deep space and other planets more.

Why did you disagree though, what was wrong with the way they explained the early earth and universe.
 
Permabanned
Joined
28 Dec 2009
Posts
13,052
Location
london
Why did you disagree though, what was wrong with the way they explained the early earth and universe.

It starts by looking at the planet earth and by Neil saying this the planet earth 260 million years ago. It looked from the image that they were promoting the Pangaea theory which i disagree with completely. I advocate the expanding/growing planet theory. Which is that the planet earth was smaller and when the planet size is reduced all the continents fit together. This false idea that the continents seemingly drifted apart like logs on water is wrong. As the planet grew by splitting at rifts, the oceans cooled the mantle. When the earth was smaller there was no oceans, only one land mass like mars looks, then as it expanded the continents were created by the splitting mantle and cooled by the ocean. This is the same on all planets and moons.

I also disagree with the idea that Einstein theory of space time. The idea that the furtherest reaches of the universe are still being created due to the big bang. To me the speed of light is not a limitation, time is static and exists everywhere in the universe. The that fact that light has not reached us from a certain point in the universe does not mean that there is nothing there. It just means the light has not reached us from that distance yet. I don't agree with the big bang theory, i advocate that there was no known singularity. that the universe grows sporadically and galaxies form out of the dark matter at random places. This idea that there was a big bang and then there was certain stages that the universe went through i disagree with. It is true that there is developmental curve for everything in the universe, everything peaks. But there was not instant where everything came to be. There was always the universe and galaxies and solar systems and planets form continuous and die continuously.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Feb 2003
Posts
3,970
It starts by looking at the planet earth and by Neil saying this the planet earth 260 million years ago. It looked from the image that they were promoting the Pangaea theory which i disagree with completely. I advocate the expanding/growing planet theory. Which is that the planet earth was smaller and when the planet size is reduced all the continents fit together. This false idea that the continents seemingly drifted apart like logs on water is wrong. As the planet grew by splitting at rifts, the oceans cooled the mantle. When the earth was smaller there was no oceans, only one land mass like mars looks, then as it expanded the continents were created by the splitting mantle and cooled by the ocean. This is the same on all planets and moons.

I also disagree with the idea that Einstein theory of space time. The idea that the furtherest reaches of the universe are still being created due to the big bang. To me the speed of light is not a limitation, time is static and exists everywhere in the universe. The that fact that light has not reached us from a certain point in the universe does not mean that there is nothing there. It just means the light has not reached us from that distance yet. I don't agree with the big bang theory, i advocate that there was no known singularity. that the universe grows sporadically and galaxies form out of the dark matter at random places. This idea that there was a big bang and then there was certain stages that the universe went through i disagree with. It is true that there is developmental curve for everything in the universe, everything peaks. But there was not instant where everything came to be. There was always the universe and galaxies and solar systems and planets form continuous and die continuously.

Hahahahaha
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
16 Jan 2010
Posts
8,529
Location
Cumbria
It starts by looking at the planet earth and by Neil saying this the planet earth 260 million years ago. It looked from the image that they were promoting the Pangaea theory which i disagree with completely. I advocate the expanding/growing planet theory. Which is that the planet earth was smaller and when the planet size is reduced all the continents fit together. This false idea that the continents seemingly drifted apart like logs on water is wrong. As the planet grew by splitting at rifts, the oceans cooled the mantle. When the earth was smaller there was no oceans, only one land mass like mars looks, then as it expanded the continents were created by the splitting mantle and cooled by the ocean. This is the same on all planets and moons.

I also disagree with the idea that Einstein theory of space time. The idea that the furtherest reaches of the universe are still being created due to the big bang. To me the speed of light is not a limitation, time is static and exists everywhere in the universe. The that fact that light has not reached us from a certain point in the universe does not mean that there is nothing there. It just means the light has not reached us from that distance yet. I don't agree with the big bang theory, i advocate that there was no known singularity. that the universe grows sporadically and galaxies form out of the dark matter at random places. This idea that there was a big bang and then there was certain stages that the universe went through i disagree with. It is true that there is developmental curve for everything in the universe, everything peaks. But there was not instant where everything came to be. There was always the universe and galaxies and solar systems and planets form continuous and die continuously.

I think you need a reality check mate, strong words dissing Einstein's theory:eek:
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Nov 2003
Posts
14,356
Location
Marlow
It starts by looking at the planet earth and by Neil saying this the planet earth 260 million years ago. It looked from the image that they were promoting the Pangaea theory which i disagree with completely. I advocate the expanding/growing planet theory. Which is that the planet earth was smaller and when the planet size is reduced all the continents fit together. This false idea that the continents seemingly drifted apart like logs on water is wrong. As the planet grew by splitting at rifts, the oceans cooled the mantle. When the earth was smaller there was no oceans, only one land mass like mars looks, then as it expanded the continents were created by the splitting mantle and cooled by the ocean. This is the same on all planets and moons.

I also disagree with the idea that Einstein theory of space time. The idea that the furtherest reaches of the universe are still being created due to the big bang. To me the speed of light is not a limitation, time is static and exists everywhere in the universe. The that fact that light has not reached us from a certain point in the universe does not mean that there is nothing there. It just means the light has not reached us from that distance yet. I don't agree with the big bang theory, i advocate that there was no known singularity. that the universe grows sporadically and galaxies form out of the dark matter at random places. This idea that there was a big bang and then there was certain stages that the universe went through i disagree with. It is true that there is developmental curve for everything in the universe, everything peaks. But there was not instant where everything came to be. There was always the universe and galaxies and solar systems and planets form continuous and die continuously.

Maybe you should go and make your own series/program?
 
Back
Top Bottom