Calling it now, better than the original. And has Niel deGrasse Tyson actually managed to make science sexy finally?

File: 16 KB, 474x313, ndgt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Mar 17 06:12:55 2014 No.6419091 [DELETED]

Calling it now, better than the original.

And has Niel deGrasse Tyson actually managed to make science sexy finally?

Anonymous Mon Mar 17 06:16:55 2014 No.6419094

>>6419091
>And has Niel deGrasse Tyson actually managed to make science sexy finally?

>Neil De Grasse Tyson: Sexiest Astrophysicist Alive
http://unfollowingjesus.com/pictures/neil-degrasse-tyson-is-officially-the-sexiest-astrophysicist-alive-stephen-hawking-unimpressed/
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20132902,00.html

http://globalnews.ca/news/1193958/cosmos-making-science-sexy-again/

>Neil deGrasse Tyson Is Happy to Be a Nerd Sex Symbol
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20795780,00.html

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 06:23:25 2014 No.6419099 >>6419091 It is ok. Wish the episodes were a full hour.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 06:27:25 2014 No.6419103 >atoms the size of planets >universes as small as an atom I tuned out when he said that, which was about 5 minutes in.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 06:29:29 2014 No.6419106 >>6419103 Yeah, someone like you would probably be happier watching Big Bang theory or some other stupid shit. Anything that makes you use your mind must be bad!

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 06:37:02 2014 No.6419118 >>6419106 Considering that it was written so that the average American 12 year old could understand the program I'm glad that you enjoyed it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 06:39:33 2014 No.6419119 >>6419118 That guy couldn't apparently.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 09:05:41 2014 No.6419252 >>6419106 I'd be happier watching something that wasn't dumbed down inaccurate bullshit. Babbys first science show? real cute son

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 09:13:41 2014 No.6419255 >>6419252 >inaccurate bullshit What did he say that was inaccurate?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 09:15:41 2014 No.6419262 File: 1.93 MB, 1266x950, CoolStoryBro.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6419103

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 09:17:41 2014 No.6419264 >>6419255 a few things but really he said more or less nothing with a lot of words. The show should be renamed philosmos

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 09:18:11 2014 No.6419265 >>6419264 Got examples?

Anonymous Mon Mar 17 09:32:02 2014 No.6419272

>>6419265
I'm not going to create a list for you did you even read the last few threads?

Portraying Multiple universes as a known fact. Tidal waves. Life begins in a tidal pool. Explaining the moon moving away as tidal waves instead of tidal locking / tidal friction.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 09:34:02 2014 No.6419274 >>6419272 How was what he said actually inaccurate? Some of it was obviously oversimplified, and a lot of details glossed over, but he didn't say anything that was actually wrong.

Anonymous Mon Mar 17 09:40:02 2014 No.6419279

>>6419274
There is a distinction between oversimplification and stating unknown ideas as facts or talking about things vaguely related to the topic at hand and presenting it as the cause of said action. That is something that a professor would mark on my paper and revoke credit for on a test if I wrote tidal waves as the cause of the moon and earth gaining difference. Why is NDT deserving of a pass because he is a black man?

Violent Simians Guy Mon Mar 17 09:49:02 2014 No.6419287

The original series is dated. Sagan was obviously obsessed with the problems of his era, largely the threat of nuclear war. It seems quaint now, considering the real concern is the inevitable collapse of a high-tech civilization due to depletion of fossil fuels.

Anonymous Mon Mar 17 09:57:02 2014 No.6419303

>>6419279
Easy man, I don't think the fact that he is a nigger has anything to do with anything.

I haven't seen the new one, but I remember how Sagan will often talk about things in which he believed saying "there MIGHT be" or "it is POSSIBLE" never stating them as facts. That was one thing I loved about the show, it was indeed philosmos.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 12:31:53 2014 No.6419528 It would be better than the original, if it wasn't flashy commercialized CGI porn.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 12:49:53 2014 No.6419557 >>6419091 >Calling it now, better than the original. pleb who never watched the original detected

Anonymous Mon Mar 17 12:57:53 2014 No.6419573

>>6419303
And he told you about experiments the early inquiring minds imagined to predict things about the universe, meanwhile feels like Neil's Cosmos is one big enumeration of facts. I did enjoy his explanation of evolution with the examples of dogs and polar bears though, however even there I find Carl's example of the samurai crabs was even more compelling

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 14:20:23 2014 No.6419706 >>6419528 There is nothing wrong with flashy CGI as long as it is used as a visualizing tool.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 14:21:23 2014 No.6419711 >>6419091 I have no doubt that this new series will be fantastic and I've been very impressed with what we've seen so far, but there's no point in trying to compare it to its predecessor. It's different Cosmos for a different generation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 14:23:53 2014 No.6419722 >better than the original. >Calling it now 2/13

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 14:28:23 2014 No.6419731 Sagan and Feynman made science sexy a looooooong time ago.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 15:02:23 2014 No.6419799 Does anybody know if it's only going to be one season long, or will it be like The Universe with a ton of seasons?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 15:06:23 2014 No.6419809 >>6419731 Sagan talks like he's got a turd behind his teeth.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 15:15:53 2014 No.6419838 He is only known because he is black. Affirmative Action. He has done nothing. Just a useless black benefiting from white guilt.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 15:16:23 2014 No.6419839 >>6419809 But his voice is liquid sex so why does that matter

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 15:21:24 2014 No.6419850 File: 159 KB, 1200x801, 1395084062692.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Niel deGrasse Tyson

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 15:33:54 2014 No.6419877 >Too flashy >Dumbed down >CG! So basically "I Hate it because Fun."

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 15:42:53 2014 No.6419897 File: 48 KB, 450x765, nigger+ape+planet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Niel deGrasse Tyson

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 15:47:24 2014 No.6419909 >>6419877 >science show aimed at a general audience >This show sucks! It's aimed at a general audience! Pretty much /sci/'s response.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 15:47:54 2014 No.6419911 >>6419877 I don't hate it, but it's definitely got a different message and feel than the previous Cosmos. Change isn't bad, but the shortcomings of the show come from it being pushed onto a mainstream channel for commercialism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 15:53:25 2014 No.6419924 >>6419850 >>6419897 We get it. He is a super intelligent ape from the future.

Anonymous Mon Mar 17 15:55:24 2014 No.6419925
File: 437 KB, 800x650, 1359267092320.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6419091
>better than the original
Anyone who claims this can't possibly understand the true spirit of science, which fell from Carl Sagans mouth like an invisible waterfall that only true science lovers could see, including NDT who drank from the river as a child and is now just pissing out a far less impressive stream than the original source

>has Niel deGrasse Tyson actually managed to make science sexy finally?
Science was always sexy, you were just too dim witted to see it

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 16:01:24 2014 No.6419936 >>6419925 >stop liking what I don't like

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 16:07:54 2014 No.6419946 >>6419272 >Explaining the moon moving away as tidal waves instead of tidal locking / tidal friction. You need to listen harder, tidal friction is exactly what he said as the reason for the moon moving farther away

Anonymous Mon Mar 17 17:08:54 2014 No.6420105

>>6419287
>implying fear of fossil fuel depletion isn't quaint

It's not 2008 anymore. Peak oil is dead. Fracking changed everything. We won't run out of fossil fuels for hundreds if not thousands of years at current consumption level.

Why, we'll fry well before we run out of things to burn

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 17:11:54 2014 No.6420112 File: 106 KB, 429x410, 1249230775171.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I would inflate his dark matter, if you catch my drift.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 17:12:24 2014 No.6420117 >>6420105 >Fracking changed everything Yeah, it set a new standard for assholes disrespecting the environment and endangering human lives

Anonymous Mon Mar 17 17:22:54 2014 No.6420141

>>6420105
>we'll fry well before we run out of things to burn
That was true even before fracking, the environmentalists just never got it. Even by conservative estimates we would hit maximum coal production at around 2050, and oil from coal techniques work already decently enough that it wouldn't even increase the price of oil much beyond current levels.
Deep drilling techniques massively increased the oil we have access to, and there's always the weirder stuff like clathrate, which have massive known reserves.
There's way, way, way too much carbon around for us to ever run out in the foreseeable future.
We had ~2000 ppm CO2 just 100 million years ago, that stuff had to go somewhere and we're about to bring it all back.

Anonymous Mon Mar 17 17:41:28 2014 No.6420190

>>6419091
>better than the original
The original used a poetic story of Heiki crabs to illustrate artificial selection. Then illustrated natural selection with a beautiful animation of life evolving from single-celled organisms to humans set to classical music.

NDT used the wolf to dog example I got in my biology class years ago. Then he recycled the same animation from the original without any narration of what we were seeing and crammed it into the end of the show.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 18:50:10 2014 No.6420356 >>6420190 >He Implying deGrasse made every aspect of the show single handedly. Why do you blame him for every little thing? Oh right, racism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 18:52:40 2014 No.6420364 >>6419103 >yfw Carl Sagan said exactly the same in the original series.

Anonymous Mon Mar 17 18:54:40 2014 No.6420368

COSMOS is a ratings DISASTER!!!! It's one of the worst watched shows on TV!

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/03/17/tv-ratings-sunday-resurrection-the-mentalist-revenge-down-believe-tumbles-mediocre-premiere-for-crisis/245084/

It's gonna get taken off the air soon.

This is what you get for putting that mumbling idiot as the host.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 18:57:10 2014 No.6420373 >>6420368 It's the content. Not the host. If people wanted to be preached at on a sunday they'd just go to church. Nobody gives a shit about your atheist god that you're a part of because we are the universe observing itself.

Anonymous Mon Mar 17 19:13:10 2014 No.6420404

>>6420368
>This is what you get for putting that mumbling idiot as the host.

Not Neil's fault, you could put Sagan's resurrected body and you'll get the same thing. The general audience is simply not interested, which is a shame since it's a wonderful show.

That being said I heard it did well in Europe, though my sources are not...reliable.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 19:19:40 2014 No.6420414 >>6420373 ;_; tfw no pantheist gf

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 19:24:10 2014 No.6420426 >>6419838 >actually believing this

Anonymous Mon Mar 17 19:31:10 2014 No.6420440

>>6419103
He's being poetic, and completely elaborated on that statement in the second episode when presenting the complexity of self-reproducing molecular structures and machines in DNA.

He quote the number of atoms in a strand of DNA as rivaling the number of stars in a galaxy.

And that's what he meant by universes as small as an atom. It's simply referring to the vast complexity of small structures in the universe, and if you're going to be so picky as to say he was being misleading, then you'll also have to be picky and be mad at scientists for even calling atoms "atoms" since the etymology for the term is a greek word meaning "uncuttable," and atoms were initially philosophical ideas with completely different properties than the ones we understand them to have now.

Religious and philosophical terms evolve into scientific terms with time and refinement. It's not that the idea is bad so much as the form it's presented in, and there's nothing wrong with being a little loose and poetic in the presentation of something for the sake of saving time on fucking "have some commercials" network television.

Sacrifices have to be made.

Anonymous Mon Mar 17 19:34:41 2014 No.6420444

>>6420373

It's probably one of the most downloaded series though.

I hate TV and commercials and have been watching both episodes in a media player.

Sure I'm "unsupportive of good content," but should advertising shithole hubs (aka TVs) really be rewarded for being an antiquated and badgering form of entertainment?

No.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 19:36:10 2014 No.6420449 The likes of this is so great because like most science answers often leave you with more questions. We will never know our true significance in this cosmos and would you want to know

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 19:41:41 2014 No.6420465 File: 749 KB, 400x315, 1393668886810.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >thinking that black science man is better than sagan

Anonymous Mon Mar 17 19:45:11 2014 No.6420474
File: 40 KB, 512x288, 1395099904132.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6419091

I found it to be a little more oriented and targeted towards a younger audience of children, or just some dumb fucking hicks that watched "Carl Sagan's Cosmos for Rednecks." The cartoons and the usage of this spacecraft he uses to explore the universe just seems to be a complete contrast of another science show I really enjoy, Through the Wormhole. That show, I feel, caters to a more mature audience.

I love Niel, but there was something fascinating about listening to Carl Sagan's voice, the cadence of his words were so soothing and a pleasure to listen to.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 19:50:40 2014 No.6420485 >>6420474 The animation and spaceships were present in the original series, and much more poorly done. Did you even watch it? >I liked Through a Wormhole Oh, you're only joking.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 19:52:10 2014 No.6420492 File: 1.58 MB, 4064x2704, Brian_Cox-4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Wonders of the Universe > Cosmos.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 19:53:10 2014 No.6420495 >>6420485 There's a reason I prefer the original Star Wars and not the prequels. Through the Wormhole is far better than the new Cosmos. Niggerdamus Freeman > NDT

>>	mothergoose !!DUwV6rmVW4k Mon Mar 17 19:55:40 2014 No.6420498 >>6420495 but through the wormhole is straight pseudo science. it's like the prequel to what the bleep do we know

Anonymous Mon Mar 17 20:00:11 2014 No.6420504

>>6420498
I prefer to explore the unknown, rather than what has already been touched upon in other science shows. No science show has ever questioned the things that Through the Wormhole has, even if there's little evidence to support any of the claims. Sometimes asking the right questions can be more stimulating.

Maybe I just need to watch more Cosmos? It just seemed repetitive. I only watched the first episode.

>dammit nigger i already know how old the universe is

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 20:00:40 2014 No.6420506 >>6420492 My favorite Astronomy based should will still be the one Mike Rowe Narrated. "how the universe works"

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 20:07:11 2014 No.6420523 >>6420504 You're not the target audience for the show, nor is anyone else coming on /sci/ to complain about it. You're the choir, not the benighted masses, if you follow the metaphor.

Anonymous Mon Mar 17 22:52:23 2014 No.6420751

>>6420368
Probably because when the original Cosmos came out, it was the first show to deal with many of those topics. Now we get science specials like this every week on five different networks, plus IMAX movies, so it's basically like watching reruns with a host many people find irritating.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 22:53:54 2014 No.6420754 So how mad were southerners after yesterdays evolution centric episode?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 23:00:53 2014 No.6420763 >>6419925 >http://unfollowingjesus.com/pictures/neil-degrasse-tyson-is-officially-the-sexiest-astrophysicist-alive-stephen-hawking-unimpressed/ We need more people to think science is sexy, and NDT is doing that when no one else is.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 23:04:24 2014 No.6420767 File: 283 KB, 457x446, old-spice1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6420763 Black men have swag, white guys don't. Black men can make anything sexy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 23:32:53 2014 No.6420825 >>6419850 >>6419897 >>>/b/

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 23:37:53 2014 No.6420834 File: 1.40 MB, 300x199, screamsinternally.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6420474 >only smart people can have science You are literally worse than cancer.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 23:45:29 2014 No.6420843 >>6419091 >permian holocaust MUH 6 BILLION JEWLIFES

ㅤ Mon Mar 17 23:46:29 2014 No.6420846
File: 117 KB, 1280x720, science_newton.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6420474
It did sound to me like Niel was lecturing to grade-schoolers while Carl was preaching to an audience of adult dimwits.
The computer animation looked cheesy, but that's probably just my reaction from seeing so many bad action movie CG effects. Or maybe just nostalgia goggles.
Can't really make a judgement yet. The first episodes are entry-level first-day-of-class astronomy and biology we've heard a million times so it's easy to get impatient.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 23:48:29 2014 No.6420848 >>6419091 >better than the original. troll/10

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 23:49:59 2014 No.6420856 >>6420846 >grade-schoolers while Carl i was that age when saw Carl on tv in 70s-80s

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 23:55:00 2014 No.6420868 >>6420848 Cuz nobody could possibly find Tyson more interesting than Sagan, amirite?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 23:55:00 2014 No.6420870 >>6420190 this show is tailored to the scientific illiterate not people with HS level knowledge of things

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 17 23:57:00 2014 No.6420873 Watched it and thought it was average. I have watched like a dozen shows on nat-geo and discovery ect, and it was really no different then them.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 00:45:30 2014 No.6420942 shit is that the Nova nigga? How much longer until the visuals are dated? 10 years? The original cosmos still stands up

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 01:04:26 2014 No.6420969 >>6420368 And from your link it's the most watched show on Fox. Are you by any chance retarded?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 01:08:26 2014 No.6420974 >>6420969 pretty sure you just got trolled, newfriend

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 01:10:26 2014 No.6420981 >>6420974 >I'm totally not retarded >I was just pretending >r-right guys? Yeah, nah.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 01:14:26 2014 No.6420991 >>6419272 He said it was just an idea, not a fact. You on the other hand are posting bullshit as fact. Why?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 01:16:56 2014 No.6420996 >>6419103 The show is to teach the young and the ill informed. What do you expect.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 01:53:51 2014 No.6421071 >>6420981 Wasn't me who posted it, jackass.

Anonymous Tue Mar 18 02:03:51 2014 No.6421092

I'm not going to watch it, because I've watched enough shows about space that I can probably explain all the topics they're going to cover in the same amount of detail they're going to cover them in and probably using the same metaphors. However, if he gets people interested in and talking about science, then I can't really fault NDT for anything.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 02:05:21 2014 No.6421095 >>6421092 Definitely, NDT is adding sex appeal to science, showing it's not just for beta white nerds.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 02:05:51 2014 No.6421094 Affirmative Action. What has he actually done besides make pop-sci documentaries?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 02:06:21 2014 No.6421097 >>6421094 Quite a bit, he was instrumental in the reclassification of Pluto for example.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 02:08:22 2014 No.6421101 >>6421097 hahahahaha, clever lil blacky

Anonymous Tue Mar 18 02:14:21 2014 No.6421107
File: 78 KB, 1306x354, Go home [pol]acks.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6421094
>>6421101

I know that >>>/pol/ is right next /sci/, but that doesn't mean you have to bring it over here.

>LOL Neil deGrasse Tyson is black that means he's stupid XD!

Go away.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 02:15:51 2014 No.6421109 File: 479 KB, 750x501, 1395123339721.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Niel deGrasse Tyson >Of African origin

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 02:18:51 2014 No.6421115 >>6421109 caption that >contemplating russelment

Anonymous Tue Mar 18 02:18:51 2014 No.6421116

>>6421107
It's ironic they call him stupid, considering most intelligence polls list NDT as one of the five smartest people alive, some even listing him as THE smartest person alive. I guess it's mostly jealousy. they spend their lives promoting the stereotype that black people aren't as smart as white people, then along comes NDT and totally disproves every single myth they have hung their entire ideology on.

polweenies are to be pittied.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 02:19:51 2014 No.6421120 >>6421109 Niel deGrasse Tyson Of mixed origin >Clearly he got a decent set of alleles.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 02:25:22 2014 No.6421132 >>6421116 Clearly there is a distribution, that's just simple logic. Only a simpleton would assume that one example outside of the norm would disprove a clearly observable pattern.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 02:26:23 2014 No.6421135 >>6421116 >An outlier proves my egalitarian dogma

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 02:32:52 2014 No.6421144 File: 64 KB, 590x538, 1395124350927.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] God bless Affirmative Action! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHT-tEaNOhI

Anonymous Tue Mar 18 02:35:22 2014 No.6421146

>>6421132
>>6421135

Intelligence is determined by education, not genetics. NDT had a good education, and as a result is smarter than 99.999% of white guys, or possibly 100%, depending on which poll you look at. If you want to get rid of things like crime and ignorance, than stop denying black people access to proper education. Public schools are grossly underfunded, and white society does everything it possibly can to discourage black people from bettering themselves. You shove black people into underfunded overcrowded ghettos, deny them access to proper eduction, deny them access to good jobs, then act shocked when we resort to crime. If you really want to get to the source of "black crime", take a look in the mirror, idiot.

Also

>>>/pol/
>>>/pol/
>>>/pol/

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 02:50:52 2014 No.6421160 >>6421146 Niel deGrasse Tyson is only known because he brings a black face to white science.

Anonymous Tue Mar 18 03:00:12 2014 No.6421166

>>6420834

No, you totally missed my point. Just because it is targeted towards a younger audience, does not mean I think it's objectively terrible. I, personally, did not enjoy it. In fact, I think it's great that they've brought it to Fox so that it can be exposed to children and other casuals to understand the universe.

But as for us nerds, Cosmos is not a interesting. If I were Seth McFarlane, I would have contributed the same costs to bringing basic science to plebs out there. Don't confuse that.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 03:11:12 2014 No.6421178 >>6421146 >Intelligence is determined by education, not genetics Do you really believe that? How do you explain all the self-taught geniuses such as ramanujan or heaviside, if intelligence equals education?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 03:17:42 2014 No.6421186 >>6421146 >Intelligence is determined by education, not genetics. Is this a joke?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 03:22:12 2014 No.6421194 >>6421160 I find this statement ironic since Ernest Just who was a marine and cell biologist was extactly that over 70 years ago but it seems virtually everyone on /sci/ is ignorant of his existence.

Anonymous Tue Mar 18 03:44:42 2014 No.6421208

>>6420368
It's because on its original airings Believe and Resurrection are playing at the same time. If I had the ability I would watch all three shows at once. Right now I watch Believe on Sunday, Cosmos on Monday on NGC, and the rerun of Resurrection on Saturday. It sucks that the executives of the three networks can't drop their egos divvy up the viewers.

Anonymous Tue Mar 18 03:52:43 2014 No.6421219

>>6421208
drop their egos and divvy up the viewers*

The three shows air at 9 PM on Sunday. Shit sucks. I think the premier of the series is the most accurate indication of how many people actually watch it on TV, that is if the two other shows didn't also premier at the same exact time.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 03:55:12 2014 No.6421223 >>6421219 iirc Resurrection had ~14 million viewers on its first episode and Believe ~10 million.

Anonymous Tue Mar 18 03:58:42 2014 No.6421228 [DELETED]

File: 108 KB, 708x832, black42a115_4123917.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6421194
Back then we didn't have liberal white guilt and Affirmative Action policies. One had to EARN your reputation. Not be given it like another government handout.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 04:19:13 2014 No.6421263 http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/curriculum-vitae#education dat Curriculum Vitae

Anonymous Tue Mar 18 04:27:42 2014 No.6421277

>>6421116
>most intelligence polls list NDT as one of the five smartest people alive, some even listing him as THE smartest person alive

Now don't get me wrong, he's smart as fuck and uses his brain better than 98% of the population, but most of his contributions are in popularizing science, not contribution to the field.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 04:33:42 2014 No.6421288 >>6421277 he has some published papers. http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/curriculum-vitae#research

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 04:42:12 2014 No.6421300 >>6421277 >>6421288 FUCKING REKT

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 04:45:12 2014 No.6421304 >>6421288 Welp, I know what I'll be reading. Thanks for the info.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 04:46:12 2014 No.6421307 >>6421304 babby got spanked, haha

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 04:51:42 2014 No.6421311 >>6421116 How many papers has NDT written or co-written?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 04:52:12 2014 No.6421314 >>6421311 14 apparently

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 16:19:29 2014 No.6422112 >>6421263 >>6421288 The guy has published almost nothing. Keep in mind that he got his PhD more than 20 years ago. >>6421277 makes a very fair point here.

Anonymous Tue Mar 18 16:24:59 2014 No.6422118

>>6422112
Except for all the columns and articles he wrote, in addition to serving on the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry and the President's Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy, and received NASA's Distinguished Public Service Medal.

So I'd say his contributions are readily apparent and recognizable.

Anonymous Tue Mar 18 16:32:58 2014 No.6422131

>>6422118
Don't pass off as articles/columns as actual research. The man tries to promote astrophysics in the US (notice how he gives literally zero fucks about any science other than his) and has become a very public figure.
Him being part of the boards you mentioned sure doesn't seem to have helped the Aerospace industry much.

Anonymous Tue Mar 18 16:36:28 2014 No.6422138

>>6422131
>Don't pass off as articles/columns as actual research

Peer-reviewed published writing in known good journals and periodicals don't count as a contribution to science? This is news to a lot of people.

>Him being part of the boards you mentioned sure doesn't seem to have helped the Aerospace industry much.

And what incredibly detailed metric are you basing that statement off of?

Anonymous Tue Mar 18 16:39:29 2014 No.6422144

>>6422138
Have you actually checked the list of published works he's written? The man has only worked on a handful of papers. Those are contributions to science - not pop-sci texts and interviews.

>And what incredibly detailed metric are you basing that statement off of?
Aerospace industry sure has been booming these past decades, hasn't it? The constant cuts to NASA's funding are only a token of their miraculous growth.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 16:41:28 2014 No.6422147 >>6422144 So you're arguing that NDT isn't a great scientist because the aerospace industry isn't the top priority of the US government?

Anonymous Tue Mar 18 16:46:58 2014 No.6422161

>>6422147
I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion. I'm saying he isn't a great scientist because he's published very little work, which implies he's done very little work.
Your argument was that his contributions are so grand (emphasising his participation on various boards), yet these boards have not shown to lead to successful results (i.e., ones stimulating research by enlarging budgets for research).

Anonymous Tue Mar 18 17:01:58 2014 No.6422193

>>6422161
>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/03/17/tv-ratings-sunday-resurrection-the-mentalist-revenge-down-believe-tumbles-mediocre-premiere-for-crisis/245084

You keep saying, he doesn't he has published very little work, yet people keep linking you to all HIS MANY WELL REGARDED PUBLISHED WORK.

Are you retarded? I feel like you'd the kinda person I can show a blue ball to, tell you its blue, and you'll insist its red.

Anonymous Tue Mar 18 17:08:10 2014 No.6422200

>>6422161
>I'm saying he isn't a great scientist because he's published very little work, which implies he's done very little work.

That doesn't really pan out at all. The implication that publishing research is the *only* measure of greatness for scientists is complete bullshit.

>Your argument was that his contributions are so grand (emphasising his participation on various boards), yet these boards have not shown to lead to successful results (i.e., ones stimulating research by enlarging budgets for research).

NASA, and the previous President of the United States, disagree with you. Forgive me for siding with them over you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 17:26:39 2014 No.6422225 Science deniers getting BLOWN THE FUCK OUT http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/03/science-deniers-cosmos-neil-tyson

Anonymous Tue Mar 18 17:37:09 2014 No.6422242

>>6422200
>That doesn't really pan out at all. The implication that publishing research is the *only* measure of greatness for scientists is complete bullshit.

Contribution to the field is what makes the great scientist - ergo why it's peer-reviewed, non pop-sci papers a good measurement.

No one is arguing that he hasn't contributed to the field or that he's not doing anything important.

>>6421116
>most intelligence polls list NDT as one of the five smartest people alive, some even listing him as THE smartest person alive

What's being argued is whatever or not he's the smartest man alive or in the Top 5.

He's most definitely the most popular scientist alive, maybe number 2 depending on your opinion on Hawking, but he's most definitely not someone whose contribution to the field matches his popularity.

Anonymous Tue Mar 18 17:50:09 2014 No.6422275

What Sagan did was tell us what he knew, and how he knew it, and that he didn't know anything at all. He then went out and smoked pot and told a story of inspiration, not that "LOOK AT ALL THIS SCIENCE WOW HOLY SHIT SPACE" kind of show, the kind of show that said "Look at all this neat shit. You can do it too. Imagine all this shit you could do. Look at this nebula, bitch, ain't that somethin'. It's this tiny little thing, this picture, but it's actually larger than our little corner of the galaxy. Shit."

Carl Sagan informed and inspired, Tyson informs, but doesn't quite have that inspiration part down. Plus he bashes on religious folk, which just turns them even harder to religion. Sagan calmly explained and then blew your mind with last sentence.

So yeah, Sagan > Tyson forever and always.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 17:53:09 2014 No.6422280 >>6422275 >Tyson informs That Titan scene really makes me want to go there, dunno about you. > Plus he bashes on religious folk No he isn't.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 17:59:09 2014 No.6422294 >>6422242 >but he's most definitely not someone whose contribution to the field matches his popularity. Only by the strictest definition of contribution, which you have set as "original science research posted in journals."

Anonymous Tue Mar 18 18:08:39 2014 No.6422302

>>6422280
Religious folk as you put them, feel bashed anytime someone says something they don't agree with.

We had this argument last damn week, NDT bashes on Traditional authority that tries to stifle progress, the problem is, that the Church has been the Traditional Authority Figure for LIKE 2000 YEARS.

So maybe religion wouldn't feel so bashed, if they hadn't decided that Church and State should be the same thing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 18:28:09 2014 No.6422333 >>6422302 It's only American nut jobs that are like this, the Catholic Church acknowledges evolution as fact and it was a Catholic priest who came up with the Big Bang theory. These people deserve to be mocked.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 18:35:10 2014 No.6422350 >>6422333 >These people deserve to be mocked. They are a large part of the U.S. They have the right to vote. They do not understand why the gov. should pay for science. They vote Republican. The Republican party is more likely to invest in NASA.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 18:36:09 2014 No.6422353 >>6422350 >[spoiler] I always forget.

Nuka-Cola: Gamma Grape Tue Mar 18 21:53:07 2014 No.6422736

its very whizbang without much content, but a very high visual effects budget
if it gets nasa more funding i really dont care, i'll enjoy the pretty visualizations

>yfw the black hole/supernova/neutron start/deep space horrors episode....with a bajillion dollar budget

Anonymous Tue Mar 18 22:18:21 2014 No.6422796

Love the visuals.

However, if you've ever seen NDT on stage at a conference or at a talk, he is full of so much energy and passion. But on Cosmos, he seems so restrained and muted. It's really kind of jarring. I wonder if that's how the director is asking him to roll.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 22:26:17 2014 No.6422815 File: 39 KB, 150x150, face001.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6419091 >better than the original >implying science isn't sexy

Anonymous Tue Mar 18 22:27:18 2014 No.6422819

>>6422796
My guess:
On stage, live, he's talking without a script and actually speaking off the cuff. Thus his natural love and wonder of science inevitably takes over, and you get an animated and excited talk.
On Cosmos, everything is scripted and if he's not reading from a teleprompter, he's recited memorized lines. He's not an actor; he just isn't able to let his excitement bubble over when he's spewing lines.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 22:27:47 2014 No.6422818 >>6422796 The issue is NDT trying to channel sagan vs just being himself. I agree as someone who listens to his Star talk radio show every week. He is way more affable then he is on the cosmos

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 22:30:17 2014 No.6422824 File: 9 KB, 290x218, burke_connections.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I think Connections was better than Cosmos. but I like the new Cosmos mostly. It's got a little anti-religious flavor which bores me, but it's good TV.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 22:54:19 2014 No.6422886 I watched the first one. Seemed to mostly be about Giordano Bruno's mystical bullshit and not science. Didn't watch the second.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 18 23:42:31 2014 No.6422976 >>6422886 Here's the abridged version of the second episode: http://youtu.be/Ar6Pd8TU3Dg?t=2m38s Try to picture low budget flash animation followed by high budget DNA and Tardigrade animation.

>>	Nuka-Cola: Gamma Grape Wed Mar 19 01:13:50 2014 No.6423170 >>6422824 HOLY SHIT I LOVE CONNECTIONS WHEN CAN WE GET A REMAKE OF THAT

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 19 16:33:09 2014 No.6424364 >>6420492 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30ruBtLIvJM better than the original

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 19 16:52:09 2014 No.6424407 >Humans lived through Ice Age Obvious bullshit.

Anonymous Wed Mar 19 17:21:09 2014 No.6424470
File: 22 KB, 299x311, 1395264063150.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6419091
>has Niel deGrasse Tyson actually managed to make science sexy
Research side's been fairly sexy for a while, it's the publication model no one understands.

>>6420763
>Stephen Hawking Unimpressed
That's understandable.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 19 18:17:09 2014 No.6424608 File: 50 KB, 264x191, 1394500090378.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6419094

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 20 05:29:09 2014 No.6425587 >>6424608 One less /pol/ social reject spewing hate on the interwebs from his mom's basement. The world won't mourn the "loss".

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 20 05:37:09 2014 No.6425595 >>6425587 Honest hate is always better than friendly backstabbers. At least with the hater you will always know where you stand. I'm not debating your argument, I'm just saying.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 20 05:55:09 2014 No.6425614 >>6421146 But NDT is a white person

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 20 05:58:09 2014 No.6425616 >>6425614 A white person couldn't do his job. He is a disgruntled black man that knows he is giving stupid people ammunition.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 20 06:00:09 2014 No.6425618 >>6425616 >black man Are you judging someone by the color of his skin anon?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 20 06:03:09 2014 No.6425623 >>6425618 If they could have used a white man, they would have. They had to use a black man that doesn't want to be there.

>>	Cogito ergo sum Thu Mar 20 07:09:09 2014 No.6425676 >>6425616 >He is a disgruntled black man that knows he is giving stupid people ammunition Don't be ridiculous. How do you figure that NDT is a religious fundamentalist?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 20 08:20:09 2014 No.6425751 >>6425623 >If they could have used a white man, they would have. >Implying Bill wasn't ready and willing

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 20 08:23:09 2014 No.6425755 >>6425751 >implying any white actor or scientist was asked.

>>	Cogito ergo sum Thu Mar 20 15:47:09 2014 No.6426288 >>6425755 >implying any white actor or scientist was asked. Asked WHAT, you stupid fuck?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 20 15:56:09 2014 No.6426304 File: 28 KB, 300x300, willdeletesoon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6420492 i cannot be the only person, who for a minute, mistook this guy for pic related

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 20 16:31:09 2014 No.6426382 File: 55 KB, 1054x603, wat do.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I want to go, but I'm afraid it's going to be full of le edgy fedoras.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 20 17:12:09 2014 No.6426438 >>6426382 You're a douchebag, stay away less you infest people interested in science by your douchebaggory.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 20 17:15:09 2014 No.6426444 >A hat has turned atheists into a self-loathing community. Strange...

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 20 17:21:09 2014 No.6426457 There's no Vangelis. This remake is shit. It might be good for children to watch. Any adults that don't believe the stuff in the first two episodes probably has a believe system completely closed off to reality

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 20 17:36:09 2014 No.6426478 >>6420492 how does this faggot look so young? he's 46 and looks like he's 25

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 21 02:46:09 2014 No.6427432 >>6426457 >a believe system Not making a very strong case for atheism

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 21 03:04:09 2014 No.6427450 File: 321 KB, 604x1450, 1342411635707.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] This is officially my new show to watch when I'm high. No need to think too much, just sit back and marvel in awe of the universe

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 21 10:37:09 2014 No.6427820 >>6419103 You misquoted. He says 'As massive as'. Mass is not the same as size. Kill yourself.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 21 11:10:09 2014 No.6427843 >>6427820 Universes as massive as an atom? That's not any better.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 21 11:30:09 2014 No.6427881 >>6419091 If you prefer this one to Carl Sagan's then you are a style over substance kind of guy. No problem with that, just means you prefer flashing lights and pretty colors over incredibly presented arguments.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 21 11:31:09 2014 No.6427884 >>6419103 It wasn't made for people with a science background you idiot.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 21 11:32:09 2014 No.6427887 >>6419272 >Portraying Multiple universes as a known fact. He didn't. Pay some fucking attention.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 21 11:34:09 2014 No.6427893 >>6420105 >We won't run out of fossil fuels for hundreds if not thousands of years at current consumption level. Oh my god you are retarded my friend.

Anonymous Fri Mar 21 11:34:09 2014 No.6427895

>>6427843

You could argue that in this case he was meaning massive to mean size, seeing as our universe was in a point smaller than an atom at the moment of the big bang.

I know, it is a little heady to throw that right out at people, but it isn't in any way a non-nonsensical statement.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 21 11:35:09 2014 No.6427897 >>6420190 Tru dat.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 21 11:37:09 2014 No.6427904 >>6427884 It wasn't even made for children that play with astronomy coloring books.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 21 11:39:09 2014 No.6427906 >>6426288 Asked to host the new Cosmos, shitlard.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 21 11:46:08 2014 No.6427922 >>6420492 Oh my god my friend you deserve a bullet in each testicle. I tried watching Wonders of My Desktop Backgrounds a couple of times and it was just so bad. Kill yourself. Kill yourself now.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 21 11:49:50 2014 No.6427928 >>6421288 oh wow that really isn't that much.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 21 11:52:41 2014 No.6427933 >>6427904 It's made to blow kids' and adult idiots' minds and to make a statement for empiricism in society. And so far it is mildly succeeding. That's all one can really ask two episodes in.

Anonymous Fri Mar 21 12:05:11 2014 No.6427953

>>6427933
>It's made to blow kids' and adult idiots' minds

Black Disgruntled Science Man is still disgruntled.

Dumbed down rehash is dumb and not enchanting.

Everyone is laughing and pointing their fingers.

You're still pretending it is mildly attractive, like the father of an ugly daughter as she is dancing alone at her prom.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 21 12:06:11 2014 No.6427955 >>6427953 I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said that, I know the truth can be cruel.

Anonymous Fri Mar 21 12:24:11 2014 No.6427972

>>6427928
15 published papers
11 published books

He's published slightly over 1 book or paper a year since getting his PHD. That combined with everything else he does seems like a fair amount of stuff.

Then again, I have no idea how many papers the typical astrophysicist publishes.

Cogito ergo sum Fri Mar 21 13:44:47 2014 No.6428066

>>6427953
>You're still pretending it is mildly attractive, like the father of an ugly daughter as she is dancing alone at her prom

So I take it you're so bitter now because your daddy finally figured out just how fucking ugly you actually are?

I'm sure he still loves you. More or less.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 21 13:59:47 2014 No.6428090 >>6427972 Sagan had over 600

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 21 14:04:47 2014 No.6428100 ITT: Highschoolers and college kids that get mad when someone explains science in a way that doesn't make you look like a loser

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 21 14:05:47 2014 No.6428104 >>6427953 >Waah stop liking things I don't like

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 21 18:05:29 2014 No.6428675 >>6419091 Didn't BSM used to strip for science? Bet he has a package the size of jupiter.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math