Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Five Things Neil deGrasse Tyson’s “Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey” Gets Wrong
The Federalist ^ | 03/14/2014 | Hank Campbell

Posted on 03/14/2014 10:51:54 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. – Dr. Carl Sagan

Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, is a sequel to the PBS program Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, hosted by Dr. Carl Sagan in 1980. Unlike the PBS version, this has big names behind it: Seth MacFarlane, creator of successful comedy programs like “The Family Guy”, Brannon Braga, producer and writer for “Star Trek”, and astronomer Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who is far more famous as a science personality than Sagan was when he hosted the original Cosmos. They are all backed by a Fox network budget rather than a PBS one, and that network is giving it a primetime slot and an aggressive marketing campaign.

The stage is set to put television science – not that Ghost Labs pseudoscience stuff – back on the cultural map. You don’t get the host of a science show in a GQ photoshoot unless expectations are high.

But how accurate is the science? Does it matter? Isn’t science, like pizza, still pretty good even if it’s bad, in a way that companies feel all publicity is good publicity?

No, flawed science is flawed science and Sagan wanted to hear valid criticism, just as Tyson does now. Tyson knows valid criticism either forces him to hone his argument or it reaffirms his position. “Other things being equal, it is better to be smart than to be stupid,” Sagan wrote in his famous Cosmos book, and Tyson will happily concede if you show him to be wrong about something.

Tyson, like Sagan, believes that the mindset needed for a healthy science understanding is the same mindset needed for a healthy democracy – don’t just accept what authority tells you, as intellectual and moral docility is suicidal. So we won’t. They had three years to write this, after all.

In the spirit of Sagan, here are four things the new Cosmos gets wrong, plus one more thing that is a bit of a style problem.

1. Venus Was Not Caused By Global Warming

Tyson assures us right away that we are to “question everything” so we have to ask why he thinks Venus is the way it is due to the greenhouse effect — which is another way of saying global warming. Venus is almost 900 degrees Fahrenheit and the clouds are sulfuric acid. Even the most aggressive climate change models and their 20-foot ocean rises don’t predict that for Earth, no matter how many Chevy Volts we don’t buy.

We can allow that catchy buzzwords make something timely and that they are a snapshot of the culture of the period. James Cameron used the term “shock and awe” in the futuristic “Avatar” film not because he actually believes solders will be using that term when we invade other planets, but because he was selling an anti-military message to viewers at a time when George Bush was president. If this sequel to Cosmos had been made in 1989 the screenwriters of Cosmos would have invoked acid rain on Venus instead of global warming. Regardless, CO2 did not cause the poisonous conditions on Venus; instead, CO2 is an effect of the poisonous conditions on Venus. Invoking the greenhouse effect when talking about Venus is like blaming ocean liners for inventing barnacles.

If you watch the original program now you have to wonder what ever happened to that nuclear winter, too.

2. The Multiverse Is Not Science

Any time a scientist begins a sentence with “Many of us suspect,” it is codespeak for “we sit around and discuss it at the bar.”

There’s nothing wrong with that. Should you get the chance to join them at that bar, please avail yourself of the opportunity, because there are few occupations where the participants are as funny and engaging as scientists. But “many of us suspect” is a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority, and that makes for terrible science, as Sagan noted often.

Why not just let that go as artistic license? When Carl Sagan was filming the original Cosmos program, physicists Alan Guth and Andrei Linde had not even come up with “inflation” for the Big Bang that Tyson mentions casually. Thus, it would not have made it into the original Cosmos as fact. Too much speculation makes the audience wonder if scientists are going to be trusted guides or another version of Dr. Oz and his Miracle Vegetable of the week. Science doesn’t need to toss in speculation to be interesting, because what we know and therefore don’t know is fascinating enough. The audience does not need talk about 5, 6 or 11 dimensions, or a multiverse, to find science intriguing. There are trillions of stars all sending stuff toward us at the speed of light and yet the sky is not a solid sheet of white. Some people believe that advanced alien civilizations travel all of this way just to leave crop circles while others believe we are alone. Those are all great topics. Sagan indulged in plenty of personal philosophy, of course, but he was making A Personal Voyage. For Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey we should expect physics.

The multiverse is not science. It is more like an anthropic secular alternative to a divine origin. It’s not science because it can’t be proved or disproved — it’s just postmodernism with some math. And it’s invoked shortly after the introduction where Tyson tells us to test everything.

An anthropic focus for the laws of nature is not new, and it was not even new in 1973 when Cambridge physicist Brandon Carter postulated it at a conference to celebrate the Polish astronomer Copernicus, who said the Earth was not the center of the universe in the 16th century. In fact, anthropic beliefs are quite old, and it was Copernicus who really began to undo them, though he did not realize it at the time. Ironically, by invoking the multiverse Tyson harkens us back to a time when the anthropic principle was rampant and disputing it was heresy, just before the telescope changed everything. Tyson believes in the multiverse with the same lack of evidence religious authorities had in favor of an Earth-centric universe in 17th-century Italy.

3. There Is No Sound In Space

To go on this journey, we need to be “free from the shackles of space and time”, Tyson tells us. And apparently all of the other laws of physics. Why can we hear his spaceship when he is exploring the cosmos? Yes, it is a “spaceship of the imagination,” but I would hope Tyson’s imagination is more scientifically accurate than that of a teenager playing “Mass Effect.” If it’s instead my imaginary spaceship, there is no sound in space and (sorry Neil) the captain is Alessandra Ambrosia. Perhaps the “Star Trek” producer convinced them to put the sound in. If I am watching the original “Star Trek” episodes and the song and that spaceship whooshing sound are not in the opening credits, you can be certain I am writing a letter to Congress, but in a 2014 program it stands out as an error.

And that brings us to the fourth, and largest, error in Cosmos.

4. Giordano Bruno Was Not More Important To Science Than Kepler And Galileo

According to Cosmos, at the dawn of the age of astronomy there was “only one man on the whole planet who envisioned an infinitely grander cosmos, and how was he spending New Years Eve of the year 1600? Why, in prison, of course.”

Now we are getting away from the cosmic stuff and into the juicy personal side of science, with its anarchy and back-stabbing, and insurrection — a much different reality than the cold, logical, evidence-based perception of scientists. What science giant are they talking about? Galileo? Kepler? Brahe? No, Tyson is instead talking about Giordano Bruno, who, we are told, “couldn’t keep his soaring vision of the cosmos to himself” at a time when “there was no freedom of thought.”

And we are to believe science is the reason why he was in jail, because Copernicus “did not go far enough” and supposedly Bruno did.

First, let’s examine this freedom of thought concept. Yes, this was the time of The Inquisition — no one is defending that — but most people brought up on charges of “heresy” (a moving target, to be sure) apologized for whatever they did and went on their way. So in some cases The Inquisition suppressed freedom of expression, not freedom of thought. Bruno was excommunicated from three different religions, which means two of them accepted him after he had already been excommunicated from others. If freedom of thought was really suppressed, they wouldn’t have taken him at all.

The cartoon we get about Bruno shows him getting run out of Oxford also, but the audience must realize he got invited to talk at Oxford even though they knew what he was about, so clearly they were not suppressing freedom of thought. He lived in England for two years. What is left out of this very long cartoon — 10 minutes of a 41-minute program is devoted to this revisionist history of Bruno – is that Bruno only agreed with Copernicus because he worshiped the Egyptian God Thoth and believed in Hermetism and its adoration of the sun as the center of the universe. Both Hermes and Thoth were gods of…magic.

The church and science did not agree with Bruno that pygmies came from a “second Adam” or that native Americans had no souls, but they were also not going to kill him over it. There is no evidence his “science” came up at any time. He was imprisoned for a decade because the church wanted him to just recant his claims that Hermetism was the one true religion and then they could send him on his way. When he spent a decade insisting it was fact, he was convicted of Arianism and occult practices, not advocating science. It was discovered shortly after his execution that the “ancient texts” he believed had predicted, among other things, the birth of Jesus Christ, had only been created a century earlier, not at the time of Moses.

After the cartoon about Bruno, Tyson immediately concedes that Bruno was not a scientist.

This leads to an obvious question: Why would a science program devote 25 percent of its first episode to the persecution of someone who was not a scientist, was not accepted by scientists, and published no science, but was instead a martyr for magic?

That is a mystery only the producers can answer, but science historians can’t be happy that Galileo’s primary credit to the science of astronomy in Cosmos becomes that he “looked through a telescope, realizing that Bruno had been right all along.”

We can’t know exactly what Galileo thought when he looked through that telescope, but we can be certain that a sun-worshiping philosopher was not on his mind. Instead of being a champion for science and a martyr for freedom of thought, as Cosmos tries to portray him, Bruno undermined science — religious authorities, including the Pope, who had been interested in a good argument for Copernicus, began to wonder if it was all a cult. Yet they didn’t kill to protect religion from science, no matter how the story of Bruno is framed. Both Copernicus and Galileo, actual scientists who shook the pillars of heaven, died peacefully in their sleep.

There is one good thing about believing in the multiverse, though: if there are infinite universes, in one of them the story of Giordano Bruno happened exactly as the Cosmos show says it did.

Unfortunately, in the actual universe, it did not.

Finally, at number five, we have something that might be a style issue, but it is relevant because of MacFarlane’s avowed atheism and Tyson’s unspoken yet obvious sympathy for it.

5. The Universe Was Also Not Created In One Year

On January 1st, we had the Big Bang and on December 31st, I am alive, less than a tiny fraction of a millisecond before midnight. That can’t be right — it took me a whole day just to write this article.

Oh, Cosmos is not being literal? Oddly, a number of religious critics, Tyson included, insist that too many religious people believe the Book of Genesis is taken literally by people who read the Bible. Unless we accept that figurative comparisons help make large ideas manageable, a year is no more accurate than six days — it is instead a completely arbitrary metric invented to show some context for how things evolved.

It seems odd to be critical when religion does it and then invent a new timescale for how the universe came to be. It’s almost like we are to believe that short timescales are opiates for the masses.

While I have never met any, I know there are people who truly believe the universe was created in just six days, just like there are people who believe in the multiverse or that Bruno was a champion of science and free thought. But extrapolating the behaviors of individuals out to an entire culture is a mistake Sagan said we should be immune from making.

Rather than seeking to take jabs at religion, science should be embracing it. From a science perspective, religious people are involved in the largest ongoing experiment of all time. The major religions all disagree with each other in ways large and small and yet people are turning knobs in their lives and making adjustments to try and solve a grand mystery. What, if anything, comes next?

And they are persisting despite all obstacles. Fans of free thought should be inspired by that.

MacFarlane says he was inspired to reboot Cosmos for the 21st century because he feels like we are going backwards. Does the evidence bear that out? No, America leads the world in adult science literacy, America leads the world in science output, with 5 percent of the global population producing over 30 percent of global science, and America leads the world in science Nobel prizes. Hardly the trademarks of a backward nation being overrun by superstition.

And if the goal is to reach religious people who he believes need science the most, insulting them in the first episode is the wrong approach. Carl Sagan got the history of Hypatia and Christians and the Library of Alexandria wrong in the original Cosmos, but he was wise enough to do it at the end.

“Other things being equal, it is better to be smart than to be stupid”, Sagan wrote, and that holds true today. We want Cosmos to make us a little smarter, not to advance a particular worldview.

Hank Campbell is the creator of Science 2.0 and the co-author of Science Left Behind.



TOPICS: Astronomy; History; Religion; Science; TV/Movies
KEYWORDS: carlsagan; cosmos; giordanobruno; multiverse; neildegrassetyson

1 posted on 03/14/2014 10:51:54 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"2. The Multiverse Is Not Science"

Would anyone have ever had any reason to think up the multiverse nonsense in the first place but for to get around the fact that the anthropic principle points unmistakably to a transcendent, intelligent, Creator. The universe was specifically and meticulously designed for life, there's no way around it.

2 posted on 03/14/2014 10:56:51 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

to sagan - intelligence and wisdom are different things.


3 posted on 03/14/2014 10:57:52 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I started watching this, even when Omama introduced it and at first the effects and animation were worth watching. From there is was downhill and seemed to be aniti-church, politically correct with lame cartoons and stopped watching half way through.


4 posted on 03/14/2014 11:02:32 AM PDT by skyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
agreed
5 posted on 03/14/2014 11:03:28 AM PDT by skyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Should you get the chance to join them at that bar, please avail yourself of the opportunity, because there are few occupations where the participants are as funny and engaging as scientists.

It's funny..I've heard that Sagan was found of sitting in bars with an audience of young acolytes he could pontificate to for hours on end.

6 posted on 03/14/2014 11:04:24 AM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (Do I really need ot use the sarcasm tag?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skyman

Yeah, I watched it as well. I thought it was ok, but some of it seemed trippy. It was hard to tell where the science began and the conjecture/theories/magic ends.


7 posted on 03/14/2014 11:06:31 AM PDT by corlorde (forWARD of the state)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Excellent post. Thanks.

I was also put off by the Bruno segment because they did it as a cartoon. Seriously? In a science show? Must be that MacFarlane touch.

8 posted on 03/14/2014 11:07:04 AM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
And we are to believe science is the reason why he was in jail

Whether he was or not is immaterial to Tyson. It was merely a way to bash the Catholic church as being the monolithic, hateful, close-minded brutes the Left believes them to be.

9 posted on 03/14/2014 11:08:39 AM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (Do I really need ot use the sarcasm tag?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skyman

put it this way: man’s intelligence gives us zero tolerance, global warming, gay marriage, women in combat, and the belief we’re safer if only cops and criminals have guns.

wisdom shows us that none of the above are good, true, or work.

and you can quote me but credit me. :-)


10 posted on 03/14/2014 11:10:17 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

11 posted on 03/14/2014 11:10:33 AM PDT by martin_fierro (< |:)~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

bingo


12 posted on 03/14/2014 11:11:07 AM PDT by raygunfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
to sagan - intelligence and wisdom are different things.

“Intelligence is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.”

13 posted on 03/14/2014 11:12:26 AM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (Do I really need ot use the sarcasm tag?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I did watch the program and enjoyed it. I also think some of the “points” Campbell makes are strained. My guess is that most people know there is no sound in space, but adding sound to add interest to the animation doesn’t bother me. I also know that most of the pictures I’m looking at during show are not real, but should I call the producers to task because they are not “real” pictures? I also don’t mind speculation, as long as it is stated as such and, contrary to the writer’s statement, the discussion of the Multiverse was stated as speculation. At some point in the past someone “speculated” that the earth was round, not flat, and that the earth was not at the center of the universe. Speculation can cause us to think and, unlike Campbell, I don’t find that a bad thing. He should try it.


14 posted on 03/14/2014 11:13:10 AM PDT by econjack (I'm not bossy...I just know what you should be doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
MacFarlane says he was inspired to reboot Cosmos for the 21st century because he feels like we are going backwards.

Could this be leftist code for 'people aren't buying our global warming crap any more' ?

15 posted on 03/14/2014 11:13:51 AM PDT by TurboZamboni (Marx smelled bad and lived with his parents .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro

I’ve always thought Tyson was way over hyped.


16 posted on 03/14/2014 11:18:49 AM PDT by dragonblustar ( Psalm 103, Psalm 37:7, Ephesians 6:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

I remember hearing a German scientist state the obvious; “if there is no Multiverse, there is a God’.


17 posted on 03/14/2014 11:22:36 AM PDT by heights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Watched a little bit of the show. Missed Obozo at the beginning, but that would have made me turn it off sooner. After 5 minutes, I was convinced the show wouldn’t last. Boring!!!!


18 posted on 03/14/2014 11:23:55 AM PDT by RobertoinAL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dragonblustar
RE: I’ve always thought Tyson was way over hyped.

I hear you...
19 posted on 03/14/2014 11:35:57 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

#5 is a ridiculous criticism, and really takes away from the first 4, even if they are valid. The one year scale is simply used to help our brains deal with the vastness of “billions of years”, and put it into a perspective that we can comprehend.


20 posted on 03/14/2014 11:43:10 AM PDT by Teacher317 (We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317

Agree


21 posted on 03/14/2014 11:53:40 AM PDT by LuciaMia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

unwatchable.....my first hint should have been zer0 opening for Tyson....

here is a post I posted elsewhere on the topic. What I learned from watching Cosmos

I learned that Seth MacFarlane produced a lemon

I learned that starting the show with the POSOTUS made me want to turn it off immediately.

I learned that 400 years is not enough time to forgive the now scientifically up to date Catholic Church...but lets bash the Church anyway....

and I learned that Neil Degrasse Tyson who I usually like to listen to on other TV science programs was told by the producers (I assume the aforementioned Seth MacFarlane ) to get emotional and hammy and ruin the show for everyone. (critics wont criticize, because Tyson is a gentleman of color and like the POSOTUS he is above criticism)

BTW, the photography and space shots were pretty and I may give it one more chance....


22 posted on 03/14/2014 11:56:56 AM PDT by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317

Agree
And I think the emphasis on Bruno was because he’s so little known, compared to Kepler and Galileo.


23 posted on 03/14/2014 11:57:26 AM PDT by LuciaMia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

[1. Venus Was Not Caused By Global Warming

Tyson assures us right away that we are to “question everything” so we have to ask why he thinks Venus is the way it is due to the greenhouse effect — which is another way of saying global warming. Venus is almost 900 degrees Fahrenheit and the clouds are sulfuric acid. Even the most aggressive climate change models and their 20-foot ocean rises don’t predict that for Earth, no matter how many Chevy Volts we don’t buy. ]

Venus is hot because it lack plate techtonics so it resurfaces itself every 100 million years or so as there is no outlet for the core heat in the planet until it all belches forth. Also this action causes a LOT of outgassing which is WHY it has such a dense atmosphere over 100X as much pressure as earth.

Also the Sulfur Dioxide clouds in the upper atmosphere actually Reflect somewhere upwards of 90% of the light and heat FROM the sun...

If Venus had an atmosphere that was our pressure and still had the same percentage of CO2 in it’s atmosphere and had a dead core... IT would most certainly be FROZEN!!!!


24 posted on 03/14/2014 11:59:16 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro

They should have picked Rodney McKay....

Fans of Stargate will get this...


25 posted on 03/14/2014 12:00:29 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

3. There Is No Sound In Space

There can be as space is not actually “empty” there are atoms here and there... sound propagation is very slow and drops off very sharply though....


26 posted on 03/14/2014 12:01:57 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Nice pictures and mostly speculation and theory, not enought facts for me to watch.


27 posted on 03/14/2014 12:09:58 PM PDT by jyro (French-like Democrats wave the white flag of surrender while we are winning)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

The multiverse has been around for quite some time. It originates in the so-called “Many Worlds Interpretation” of quantum physics first described by Hugh Everett in 1957.


28 posted on 03/14/2014 12:15:54 PM PDT by AustinBill (consequence is what makes our choices real)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dragonblustar
I haven't read his actual academic work, which for all I know may be freaking brilliant, but it's a sad side effect of Affirmative Action that I suspect he achieved his visibility due to, well, other non-academic considerations.
29 posted on 03/14/2014 12:21:41 PM PDT by martin_fierro (< |:)~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dragonblustar

I hear this guy getting talked up in lefty circles.

What’s their infatuation with him? Is it the hyphenated name cool factor ?


30 posted on 03/14/2014 12:32:12 PM PDT by TurboZamboni (Marx smelled bad and lived with his parents .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni
What’s their infatuation with him? Is it the hyphenated name cool factor ?

That and other things. I got this guy pegged a long time ago, before he started to parade around with Bill Nye and kiss Obama's cheeks.

31 posted on 03/14/2014 12:46:25 PM PDT by dragonblustar ( Psalm 103, Psalm 37:7, Ephesians 6:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: skyman

I started to watch it, and by the time the Bruno segment finished, I had to turn it off. It was so obviously agenda driven with a total disregard for the truth. Even Sagan would have been ashamed of it. The men with crosses on their hats looking like they came out of Disney cartoons running around and burning people were just too much.

Especially when that was completely bogus, totally out of the imagination of the atheist writers. It was just anti-Christian hate.


32 posted on 03/14/2014 12:50:22 PM PDT by I still care (I miss my friends, bagels, and the NYC skyline - but not the taxes. I love the South.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dragonblustar

I hate to say it, but I think he has the same qualifications as Obama.

He’s leftist and he’s the right color. He’s the left’s very own “token”. Darn competence and truth.


33 posted on 03/14/2014 12:52:28 PM PDT by I still care (I miss my friends, bagels, and the NYC skyline - but not the taxes. I love the South.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: I still care

[ I started to watch it, and by the time the Bruno segment finished, I had to turn it off. It was so obviously agenda driven with a total disregard for the truth. Even Sagan would have been ashamed of it. The men with crosses on their hats looking like they came out of Disney cartoons running around and burning people were just too much. ]

They are certainly not honest in that while there was persecution by christians there was a lot of other pwersecution going on... The arabian islamic “Father of optics” was jailed for instance....

There were also a lot of texts from greek and roman era concerning science that were saved by monks and copied meticulously as well which was important after the islamics burned down the library at alexadria...

Instead of portraying religion in that era as completely evil they should have portrayed it as a doubledged sword which is MUCH closer tot he relity..


34 posted on 03/14/2014 12:53:29 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

#6 We have NINE planets and not 8 and then some!

Mickey


35 posted on 03/14/2014 3:47:52 PM PDT by minnesota_bound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

Rodney blew up a solar system!


36 posted on 03/14/2014 3:57:17 PM PDT by minnesota_bound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: minnesota_bound

Rodney blew up a solar system!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Me3-r5rsUSI

Way to make all the little children cry Neil....


37 posted on 03/14/2014 4:00:42 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: econjack

My biggest complaint was the “dumbed down” graphics, particularly of the asteroid belt and the Oort Cloud, and also Saturn’s rings. They’ve got a lot of nerve talking about “hard science” in the face of this kind of childish imagery.

I actually quit watching at that point, but then with all the buzz, I wanted to see the Bruno sequence. Fortunately it’s available ON DEMAND from Comcast, so I watched it last night.

I was wondering about the “dream sequence” because I had never heard of search a thing, but today I found what I think must be the basis for it. There is a “sonnet” at the beginning of Bruno’s “Infinite Universe” dialogue, and it ends:

Wherefore I give my steady wings to Sky,
Fearing no crystal barrier or glass;
But, splitting heavens, to the Infinite I pass;
And from my globe to others rising high
Through empyrean fields, further I wind:
What others see from far, I leave behind

... so I think they were within artistic license. The “dart and wall” imagery was from Lucretius.

In the end, this was about the best thing in the show, as the other stuff seemed rather pedestrian to me.


38 posted on 03/14/2014 5:53:02 PM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317

Spot on. Even the Low Information Voters can comprehend the compression of all suspected history since the Big Band into a single year.

However, what I would like to see is putting all of the recorded climatological data used to “prove” glo-bull warming into that same time compression model. Perhaps when people realize that we’ve been tracking these patterns for maybe the last millisecond or two of recorded time, we “doubters” might get the credibility we are due.


39 posted on 03/16/2014 10:24:32 PM PDT by ssaftler (Obama speaking is like the Fat Lady warming up: "Me Me Me Me Meeee")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

FOX is just as far left as the rest of them


40 posted on 03/16/2014 10:44:40 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

I guess there could be pockets of gas dense enough here and there


41 posted on 03/16/2014 10:50:36 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

I think Venus is so hot because it rotates so very slowly.

Planets do not have an ‘average’ temperature, they have TWO average temperatures - a day temperature and a night temperature.

Look at the lunar day/night temperatures for the best example of what Earths temperatures would be without rapid rotation and atmosphere.

The rotation on Venus is so slow, that any Ocean would be boiled off during the very long day.

The huge day/night difference will cause enormous storms as the atmosphere seeks to redistribute the heat.

Just as our seasons are caused by the TILT of the Earth, Venus’s hot temperatures are caused by her lack of rotation.


42 posted on 03/23/2014 9:25:04 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson