View Single Post
  #10  
Old 03-09-2014, 10:58 PM
ambushed ambushed is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 2,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Get a DVR.
Like most people, I already have one. But that can't solve the actual problem, which is deeper and more fundamental. Skipping the commercials would make it less painful, of course, but the underlying problem is that the creators had to chop the content into easily chewable little bite-size fragments that damages, if not utterly destroys, continuity. That leaves no time for contemplation, for long explanations, for illustrating gradual changes, etc., etc. It's geared to those with very low concentration spans and the effect is painfully anti-intellectual, quite unlike Sagan's vision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
My suspicion is that NGT will go into it in greater detail in a subsequent episode and explain all that. This was more or less the introductory paragraph, not the whole enchilada.
Sure there will be more episodes, but there's no excuse for fibbing now only to tell the truth later! It is fine to abbreviate, but laying out falsehoods is a terrible idea, even if they're only brief falsehoods.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
And... from what I understand, space wasn't "being created simultaneously" as if there was some sort of timeline, but rather was created instantaneously at the very moment of the big bang, and the rest has essentially been expansion and cooling. Close enough to an "explosion" for that episode though.
Your words are a bit ambiguous, so we might not actually disagree very much. However, space was definitely not created "instantaneously at the very moment of the big bang" if by that you mean some volume of even-limited space existed into which the BB "exploded". The inflation/expansion of space was completely commensurate/simultaneous with the Big Bang. I stand by my words in the OP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
...and do you really think NGT would go parrot something that would be so very wrong in that sense?

I somehow doubt that one of the premier science educators of our day would go off saying things that are flat-out wrong.
I'm puzzled by this as well, which is why I pointed it out in my OP. NGT definitely knows better (as does Ann Druyan), so why did they misrepresent the facts? My guess for now is that somewhere along the line (at Fox perhaps?), some knuckle-dragger forced them to dumb it down into imbecility for the sake of network TV ratings.

All in all a very sad thing.