Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey

Not sure what that was in response to, but a) most scientists, even hardcore anti-theists accept the possibility of a "god", they just don't accept that "he" sent his son down to die for our sins 4000 years after the earth/universe (I think the bible considers this the same) was created, or that there's a god that even gives a shit about us - the evidence would be in fact overwhelming the opposite if you even want to go there. b) There is no compromise in science. You in fact DO need to learn a new language. Metaphors and analogies only carry you so far, and by definition are not perfect representations of the world. While they can be useful for getting your foot in the door, we can't make the mistake of assuming those metaphors are how the world works. I would submit, in fact, that it will often hinder and warp the understanding of our universe. We see this all the time with crazies like Ken Ham and his AiG stooges who warp science to do exactly that - as an example, the wonderful Banana Theory.

Edit: Science is not a language, it's a process. Math is the language of science. One does not need to know math to understand science. They do need to understand the process, however, otherwise it's just a collection of facts that can be easily refuted by "but maybe".

Tonight's episode, btw, is on Black Holes. I'm jazzed.

I don't really disagree with you Bold. I guess what I'm suggesting is merely a slight change in tact. Manipulate the situation to achieve the desired result.

BoldW_sl said:

Not sure what that was in response to, but a) most scientists, even hardcore anti-theists accept the possibility of a "god", they just don't accept that "he" sent his son down to die for our sins 4000 years after the earth/universe (I think the bible considers this the same) was created, or that there's a god that even gives a shit about us - the evidence would be in fact overwhelming the opposite if you even want to go there.

Click to expand...

It's in response to everybody, to be honest. No one in particular.

I agree. "Proof" is something only mathematicians can truly be said to deal in. I know the philosophy of that, if not the exact mechanics of it. I believe it can found as true from both angles. The mechanical and the philosophical.

What I mean, is that I want to allow for 'THE GOD THAT STARTED IT ALL' to exist. Because, of course, we don't have any proof that he doesn't and nor will we ever. So let him exist. Let him exist in the minds of the person you're talking to. Don't allow any magic. No Jesus, no plague of frogs, no flood, none of that babble. 'GOD THAT STAR...etc', yes. Magic? No.

God yes. Magic no.

This puts God in a new place in their minds. He's still there. And so far as of yet, he is still the source of 'all' and, more importantly, the source of 'love'. But no matter the accuracy of this idea (I agree it isn't accurate to say that God is the source of love), it has to stand in their minds as something they can hang on to as they begin the roller coaster ride of science. You have to let them have that little pebble of 'Him'. With that pebble in their pocket, armed with it, they will more fearlessly, and finally, engage the hard realities of the hard questions they've been patting themselves on the back for asking, for so long now.

b) There is no compromise in science. You in fact DO need to learn a new language. Metaphors and analogies only carry you so far, and by definition are not perfect representations of the world. While they can be useful for getting your foot in the door, we can't make the mistake of assuming those metaphors are how the world works. I would submit, in fact, that it will often hinder and warp the understanding of our universe. We see this all the time with crazies like Ken Ham and his AiG stooges who warp science to do exactly that - as an example, the wonderful Banana Theory.

Click to expand...

The only underlying principle at play, in the whole fight, is the Scientific Method. A love of science. A love of the method by which we do science. I would argue, that building a love inside them is more effective than fostering a negative mind of ... anything. The timescale we are fighting against is immense. Make your little dent in the sphere of understanding and know that it will echo through the medium of genetics and human behavior.

Edit: Science is not a language, it's a process. Math is the language of science. One does not need to know math to understand science. They do need to understand the process, however, otherwise it's just a collection of facts that can be easily refuted by "but maybe".

Click to expand...

I agree but to me that sentence right there, is both the first lessonandthe entire goal. That is what makes it so hard to do, I think.

I dig it.

Tonight's episode, btw, is on Black Holes. I'm jazzed.

Click to expand...

Amen. Can't wait.

HAIL SAGAN! KILL IN HIS NAME! SKULLS FOR THE BLOOD LORD! DEATH TO THE INNOCENTS!

I wasn't trying to argue, and am glad you are interested in how our universe works.

Sort of off topic, can any amateur astronomer point out good starter telescope? I know they vary greatly depending on what you want to do, so, I'd like to be able to look at parts of the moon as well as other intra-solar bodies. Computer/GPS controlled and being able to take photos through it would be awesome (storms on jupiter/rings of saturn). As a starter telescope, I would not be too worried about seeing far off galaxies with any real clarity (generally requires a larger aperture from what I've read and you start getting pretty expensive), though being able to distinguish them would rock. Price range no great than 2K. Oh, and portability is a concern, as I'd want to take it places.

BoldW_sl said:

I wasn't trying to argue, and am glad you are interested in how our universe works.

Click to expand...

Right on. I was just bouncing off you. =)

BoldW_sl said:

I wasn't trying to argue, and am glad you are interested in how our universe works.

Sort of off topic, can any amateur astronomer point out good starter telescope? I know they vary greatly depending on what you want to do, so, I'd like to be able to look at parts of the moon as well as other intra-solar bodies. Computer/GPS controlled and being able to take photos through it would be awesome (storms on jupiter/rings of saturn). As a starter telescope, I would not be too worried about seeing far off galaxies with any real clarity (generally requires a larger aperture from what I've read and you start getting pretty expensive), though being able to distinguish them would rock. Price range no great than 2K. Oh, and portability is a concern, as I'd want to take it places.

Click to expand...

Without getting into complex telescope jabber, I'd highly recommend this as a starter scope. I first got mine in mid 80's and still use it over my much more expensive ones. You can always upgrade to other ones but this is a great starter scope.

http://www.scientificsonline.com/ast...telescope.html

Karloff: Thanks. I think this would be perfect for my first. I've already read the manual, which is really good.

I loved this episode. It seriously moved me, though that could have been the couple drinks I had. Patrick Stewart as Herschel's voice was $$.

BoldW_sl said:

Karloff: Thanks. I think this would be perfect for my first. I've already read the manual, which is really good.

I loved this episode. It seriously moved me, though that could have been the couple drinks I had. Patrick Stewart as Herschel's voice was $$.

Click to expand...

This is how I felt as well. I normally sit around lurking but this episode compelled me to express how much I liked it. The part about light speed and that it's not possible for the earth to be only 6500 years old if we can see light from further than that was money.

I enjoyed it. Wished he talked more about the twin paradox and similar issues when traveling at the speed of light.

I really enjoy the history part of the show as well. I love the presentation and most of it is fairly obscure details left out of most class rooms yet critical information when brought all together. I really enjoyed the Hooke Newton story last week and the one tonight was good as well.

The 6k year light map was also outstanding and demonstrated the point very well.

Nuts to think our entire universe is just a black hole in another universe which is a black hole in another universe and so on

Urlithani_sl said:

This is how I felt as well. I normally sit around lurking but this episode compelled me to express how much I liked it. The part about light speed and that it's not possible for the earth to be only 6500 years old if we can see light from further than that was money.

Click to expand...

Yeah I explained that to a young-earther friend of mine and he said that God created light already in transit. Basically there is absolutely no evidence you can offer that these people won't hand-wave away.

Speaking of telescopes, I'm looking at buying aCelestron Advanced VX 8 SCTin the next month or so. The 8" scopes seem like they're right at the sweet spot of opening up the universe, and the combo should still be pretty portable while maintaining stability.

McQueen_sl said:

Speaking of telescopes, I'm looking at buying aCelestron Advanced VX 8 SCTin the next month or so. The 8" scopes seem like they're right at the sweet spot of opening up the universe, and the combo should still be pretty portable while maintaining stability.

Click to expand...

Some of those user submitted images are stellar (some pun intended).

Something like this will be my second purchase I'm sure, and was something like what I wanted. However, given that I've never owned a telescope, I think Karloff's submission will be better for me to start out with. Bookmarking it though. Have you guys messed around with the photography aspect of it at all?

ShakyJake_sl said:

Yeah I explained that to a young-earther friend of mine and he said that God created light already in transit. Basically there is absolutely no evidence you can offer that these people won't hand-wave away.

Click to expand...

That is irrefutable logic. Absolutely air tight. Unfortunately it is also pointless.

Ask him why his God seems intent on tricking the faithful. And ask him why 6500 is the arbitrary number... given his argument then creation could have been created either 1 second ago, or tomorrow.

His argument is literally 1 step away from non-sense. As in, if you abstract it out a single step, it becomes the antithesis of sensical. Isn't reason meant to inform faith rather that nullify it? Isn't he making the exact same mistake that existential empiricists make, only in negative color?

I'd like to try astrophotography at some point. I decided to go with the Advanced VX instead of some other similar options to that end. It shouldn't be too hard to add a small webcam and get some nice planet shots with that scope and mount, at least.

Honestly, they didn't explain the concepts very expansively. Or really... hardly at all. They barely even mentioned concepts. There were too many assumptions and not enough explanation. I mean here's an example -- he spoke about apparent paradoxes that occur at near lightspeed. But then he didn't mention a single one of them, and just went rambling off about Dark Stars instead. The girl on the motorbike? An allusion to Sagan's episode, but that was all. They could have made the allusion and used it for more than a fanservice callback. It was actually self-contradicting. They mention that the bike is moving at the speed of light -- but then they show her headlights projecting light in front of the bike while they are voicing over "Thou shalt not add the speed of light to thine own speed".

And they actually spent time in specifically refuting the 6500 year thing directly -- which they could have done MORE effectively indirectly. And they leaned on the Sagan adulation again at the end. A lot of the graphics were neat. But... just not a very good episode honestly. It's ok if you already now what he's talking about. If you don't that episode would be confusing at best and mindless entertainment at worst.

"And everything is at the center. That's just what you get when you have a speed of light and a finite starting point". That's fine, I guess. But instead of proclaiming a grand truth and rubbing your belly -- why not walk the audience through exactly WHY that has to be the case? Oh... right. Cause you'd already spent money on those goofy ass going into the black hole graphics.

It's kinda degenerating. That's not what this show should be.

This is why you don't argue with idiots. The presentation is not doing justice to the subject matter.

Iannis_sl said:

Honestly, they didn't explain the concepts very expansively. Or really... hardly at all. They barely even mentioned concepts. There were too many assumptions and not enough explanation. I mean here's an example -- he spoke about apparent paradoxes that occur at near lightspeed. But then he didn't mention a single one of them, and just went rambling off about Dark Stars instead. The girl on the motorbike? An allusion to Sagan's episode, but that was all. They could have made the allusion and used it for more than a fanservice callback. It was actually self-contradicting. They mention that the bike is moving at the speed of light -- but then they show her headlights projecting light in front of the bike while they are voicing over "Thou shalt not add the speed of light to thine own speed".

Click to expand...

Yeah, but even if you're moving at the speed of light and you flick on the headlight, that light appears to be moving at the speed of light relative to you. You're right though, they didn't get into that.

Iannis_sl said:

And they actually spent time in specifically refuting the 6500 year thing directly -- which they could have done MORE effectively indirectly. And they leaned on the Sagan adulation again at the end. A lot of the graphics were neat. But... just not a very good episode honestly. It's ok if you already now what he's talking about. If you don't that episode would be confusing at best and mindless entertainment at worst.

"And everything is at the center. That's just what you get when you have a speed of light and a finite starting point". That's fine, I guess. But instead of proclaiming a grand truth and rubbing your belly -- why not walk the audience through exactly WHY that has to be the case? Oh... right. Cause you'd already spent money on those goofy ass going into the black hole graphics.

It's kinda degenerating. That's not what this show should be.

This is why you don't argue with idiots. The presentation is not doing justice to the subject matter.

Click to expand...

I get the feeling that COSMOS is trying to fit as much in as they can, but not so much as to overwhelm people by focusing too much on specifics. It's all a brief overview of the history and present of what we know and how it was discovered and by who.

If it gets good ratings, maybe we'll see a second season where they focus on the subjects that, so far, they've only briefly been talking about.

As someone who is really looking forward to this show every week is it worth watching the old cosmos?

Tarrant_sl said:

They way they explained so simply why out universe is older then 6500 years old was brilliant and awesome.

I fucking love this show and I live the constant praise and mention of Carl Sagan.

Click to expand...

Yeah I loved that. The most concise way of saying "There is no fucking way the entire universe is that young."

Daly_sl said:

As someone who is really looking forward to this show every week is it worth watching the old cosmos?

Click to expand...

I believe the entire series is available on youtube.