# Cosmos: A Waste of Spacetime **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 10, 2014, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmos-a-waste-of-spacetime/683324 "2014-03-10T03:06:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmos-a-waste-of-spacetime/683324/81 "2014-03-11T18:41:12Z")
[Some on the religious right are calling the new _Cosmos_ “a glossy multi-million-dollar piece of agitprop for scientific materialism.”](http://www.salon.com/2014/03/11/watch_out_cosmos_the_holy_inquisition_is_not_happy_with_you/) ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmos-a-waste-of-spacetime/683324/82 "2014-03-11T18:54:14Z")
The very modern day religious right is precisely why every generation needs to hear about Bruno et. al. If Bruno is religion-bashing, the Holocaust is merely conservative bashing. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmos-a-waste-of-spacetime/683324/83 "2014-03-11T20:45:28Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > It sounds more like they burned him for not thinking Jesus was magic enough. Well, everyone knows Jesus was a wizard. And Neil deGrasse Tyson is a black Carl Sagan. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmos-a-waste-of-spacetime/683324/84 "2014-03-11T21:09:47Z")
> [@Frank\_Merton](#): > > Well I kinda wondered why they picked Bruno: he was a fanatic who based his beliefs on a vision, not on any kind of scientific reasoning (unless you think Lucretius is scientific, which he is in a sort of poetic way – the universe must be infinite or we would all have reached bottom by now). Bruno didn’t reach his ideas be standard scientific methods, yes. But at the time he did have a radical and visionary idea and the only argument against it was that the current attitude was “Aristotle or GTFO”. > [@](#): > > Men like Galileo and Newton and Copernicus should get the attention, as they were the path setters. I won’t argue, but it isn’t like there isn’t enough attention paid to these guys already. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmos-a-waste-of-spacetime/683324/85 "2014-03-11T21:09:58Z")
> [@AaronX](#): > > Oh, the best part of the talk was his response to, with such advanced technology, why don’t we have huge advancements in science. In that linked video, I loved his response to the question as to why he omitted Pluto. After a couple funny retorts about only being an accessory to Pluto’s demotion, he says, “Its orbit crosses Neptune’s. No other planet _does_ that. That’s just creepy.” Good laughs on that one. I liked the pilot, that said, I have some bigger expectations of subsequent deeper episodes, and though the pilot may have been a bit of a weak start, it was expertly done. I’m excited about the rest of this series and wish I could binge-watch it the way I can now with Sagan’s. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmos-a-waste-of-spacetime/683324/86 "2014-03-11T21:17:57Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > I understand and acknowledge these points about what, to be as generous as I can bring myself to be, I would describe as the “necessary evil” of showing it on network prime-time TV, but mostly because Druyan, et. al., had been shopping it around for years and found no takers until MacFarlane pushed it to the Fox people. > > If you insist that Druyan deliberately and explicitly decided against airing it on PBS, I’ll tentatively take your word for it, but I retain some doubts (or at least major disappointment). PBS in general, and _Nova_ in particular, is in \*\*\*desperate \*\*\*need of a rebirth, because it hasn’t produced a science show in years – it’s little more than another unimpressive technology showcase – and a new \*Cosmos \*would have done just that! Sure, not many people watch PBS, but that’s hardly new, even if shows like _Frontline_ are the very finest out there. More to the point, developing and airing a new _Cosmos_ would have brought PBS multitudes of \*\*new \*\*viewers, re-invigorating the most pro-science and objective information source this country has to offer! I personally feel that Ann Druyan should feel at least a _little_ shame. > > As for the repeated argument here that airing it on Fox (or the National Geographic channel, which has sunk so abysmally low to the tragic point that it’s just another vehemently anti-science, pro-crackpot clone of the gob-smackingly \*\*\*putrid \*\*\*Discovery / TLC / ID / Science / History Channels, where nothing gets on the air unless it is filled with complete and utter lies and/or anti-scientific **bullshit** ) will interest and intrigue a lot of people to pay attention and actually lead them to try to learn some science, I’m just not buying it (at least not for more than a very few). Why not? The same reason I posited above: The fact that they had to break off interest and concentration and narrative flow to make room for all the commercials! > > Please understand: With this I’m **not** seeking to bash consumerism or free enterprise or network TV or make other similar social-political criticisms. My great concern is that the _content_ of the show has been chopped into such small, disjointed bits that it becomes blurred with the commercials themselves; requires too much effort to distinguish from the rest of the noise; severely damages comprehension; stops contemplation cold; decimates any narrative (and narrative hooks); turns it into yet another disjointed pile of immediately forgotten mainstream pablum; and again just slides along with the rest of the rabid anti-intellectualism of our time. > > Curiously, **SeaDragonTattoo** acknowledges this tragic state of affairs even as he criticizes my arguments and tells me to shut up about it. He/she describes _“modern sound-bite audiences who are constantly multi-tasking, and whose attention is difficult to keep”_, who _“have their phones, laptops, and tablets going at the same time as the show”_. Yep, that’s our modern anti-intellectual cultural catastrophe, all right. _ **So why surrender to it? Why reinforce it?** _ > > Even with its far larger viewership compared to PBS, network TV with commercials over the last decade (or arguably several decades now) hasn’t measurably educated and enlightened very many people at all (and has probably made things considerably worse), especially compared to long-segment TV without commercials (PBS and all the streaming options), and I think it’s quite unlikely (perhaps even ludicrous) to think things will be any different with the new _Cosmos_ chopped up and spewed out this way. > > Network, commercial-laden TV has the same effect on me, too: A commercial comes on and I quickly forget what was going on in the narrative and start thinking about dozens of unrelated things. My concentration has been damaged by it, if not demolished. It’s the worst way _imaginable_ to communicate! > > I need to go now, but before I go, I’d like to point out that none of the posters I’ve quoted above has made any comment on a key point I raised above in response to **MsRobyn** : _ **“And it’s not all that uncommon for the major traditional networks to air some programs with little or no commercial interruptions, so there’s really not much excuse for butchering it so.”** _ > > Bye for now… I hear ya screaming on a lot of points. I’ve loved Cosmos since it originally aired. I own his heavily illustrated book on it, and have the original series, and even loved the VFX enhanced version they spat out a few years ago. But I really have to wait until the rest of the series is over until I work up any ire over any qualms I have at the moment. Getting a series made of any type is next to impossible, so I’ll cut them some slack if they had to compromise a bit with Fox to get this made. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmos-a-waste-of-spacetime/683324/87 "2014-03-11T21:48:20Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > It very much seemed that NGT was rushing like crazy to get something said before the next mind-bogglingly awful ad. Isn’t that what all commercial TV is these days? The supposed content so bent around the ad breaks that everything is delivered in 8- to 12-minute “acts”? Each ending with the biggest possible cliffhanger to keep you from tuning out? And not on any fixed schedule or length, no - because that would make them too easy to zap. I think the only reason you notice is because they’re trying to show real content instead of Honey Boo Boo’s latest accident or some shitcom’s lame recycled attempt at humor. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmos-a-waste-of-spacetime/683324/88 "2014-03-11T23:11:10Z")
> [@Frank\_Merton](#): > > Well I kinda wondered why they picked Bruno: he was a fanatic who based his beliefs on a vision, not on any kind of scientific reasoning (unless you think Lucretius is scientific, which he is in a sort of poetic way – the universe must be infinite or we would all have reached bottom by now). Men like Galileo and Newton and Copernicus should get the attention, as they were the path setters. > > Two theories: one was to get a dig in at the Church and its Medieval brutality (which it deserves); the other was that Sagan had already used up the really good figures and they wanted someone different. I think some of it was just that his ideas fit the theme of the episode. Regardless of how he came to his conclusions, he had a fairly modern view of the Cosmos, and Cosmos is the title of the program. And I don’t think the fact that his ideas were largely theological rather then scientific takes away from the point that its hard to advance our understanding of the universe when the authorities will burn you at the stake for thought-crimes. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmos-a-waste-of-spacetime/683324/89 "2014-03-12T01:23:58Z")
I also think Bruno’s story is poignant because Bruno _was_ a religiously devout man. The enormity of the university only strengthened his conviction of God’s power and wonder. I think it was a way of showing that being a scientist and being a believer in Mystery do not _have_ to conflict. In other words, it was a way of showing the religious viewers in the audience that it’s alright for them to be fascinated by the cosmos just as Bruno was. And if they are troubled by the enormity of the universe (and the insignificance of human beings, in the grand scheme of things), maybe they are confining God to too small a box. (“Your god is too small!”) ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmos-a-waste-of-spacetime/683324/90 "2014-03-12T02:34:11Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Maybe it’s just because I’m older than most of you guys, because I was well into my 20s when I watched the original _Cosmos_ and… it was good, but not that good. Granted, I think Sagan is a different league as a host than Tyson, but I can remember cringing more than once watching the original when they oversimplified or didn’t get something quite right. Same – let’s not get too caught up in it. That production was a creation of its time and a reboot that the younger generations could dig was in order. Some bits of the original were clever, some were so-so, some aged well, some did not. Ann Druyan has gotten into the guardian of the legacy role all these years not with the eyes of a curator protecting an icon but of someone who wants to reiterate the points that were made, and though there was a “refresh” of the original a while back, it really needed bringing up to date as a whole to do so. Whether this is a really succesful attempt is yet to be seen. I don’t find the first episode enough to judge that, though sure, I have some things I like, dislike and am left scratching my head about. The calendar is a good update of something Sagan had brought up in the original and gets refreshed. The spaceship-of-imagination IMO is not. The Bruno animation, eh, I am of two minds - the trouble with using the old-time science-heretics is that a bunch of them were also real heresy-heretics and sometimes got into trouble as much for stating a dissident position as for being a pest about it. Bruno’s an example of the courage required to question orthodoxy – but at the same time he was questioning it out of what _we_ would call “woo”, and he was NOT a put-upon philosopher guy, he was an abrasive and combative rebel. Neil deGrasse Tyson himself… I dunno, I felt like he was too consciously trying to avoid “playing” Sagan (which yes he should avoid) but OTOH I did not feel he was really showing me Tyson, let’s see that in the next episodes. ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmos-a-waste-of-spacetime/683324/91 "2014-03-12T03:44:56Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > Another minor nit: Was copying Boba Fett’s spacecraft design really the best they could come up with? Are you a retard? Because this makes you look like you’re a retard. Only a retard would think the ship looks like Boba Fetts’ spaceship. Clearly the ship is a replica of the ship from “Flight of the Navigator”. Also your grammar is shit. Shit like a retard. So you come off as a Double Dare Double Decker Retard. Fuck nose. ---
**Author:** ![SeaDragonTattoo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@SeaDragonTattoo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SeaDragonTattoo)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmos-a-waste-of-spacetime/683324/92 "2014-03-12T04:32:18Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > I need to go now, but before I go, I’d like to point out that none of the posters I’ve quoted above has made any comment on a key point I raised above in response to **MsRobyn** : _ **“And it’s not all that uncommon for the major traditional networks to air some programs with little or no commercial interruptions, so there’s really not much excuse for butchering it so.”** _ Maybe no one commented on it because it’s not true. Are you thinking of the Sunday Disney Movie from how the hell long ago? Are you thinking of one-off TV movies or mini-series, that perhaps had one major sponsor per night, which in turn dropped millions on exclusive commercial rights? Who is going to do that for a 13 episode run of _Cosmos_ which may or may not flop, and is certainly not going to draw the ratings of a summer mini-series? You sound like a very old man with a huge wedgie, shaking a myopic fist at a crowd of passers-by. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmos-a-waste-of-spacetime/683324/93 "2014-03-12T05:39:12Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > If you can’t describe the Big Bang as an “explosion”, how \*would \*you describe it? It was (as I understand it) a sudden, rapid expansion with a thermal gradient over time- how is that not best described to laymen as an explosion? > [@BlackKnight](#): > > I haven’t had a chance to watch the episode yet, but I don’t understand the problem with using the word “explosion” to describe the Big Bang. It was an explosion: It was definitely _ **NOT** _ an explosion, as I’ve explained in my OP. An explosion requires something to explode _ **into** _, and nothing existed for the Big Bang to explode into. What term would _I_ have used instead? Easy! **Inflation!** Not only is that vastly more accurate, it is just as easy for the average person to understand. But the real bonus is that using that term would have made my complaint in my OP – “NGT didn’t even _mention_ inflation!” – completely moot. ---
**Author:** ![Lobot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ce7236/32.png) [@Lobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobot)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmos-a-waste-of-spacetime/683324/94 "2014-03-12T05:50:03Z")
This is a 13 part series. There’ll be plenty of opportunities for more detailed examinations of certain topics. The point here was to orientate the viewer in time and space. The rest comes later. ---
**Author:** ![B.Serum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/b.serum/32/14266_2.png) [@B.Serum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/B.Serum)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmos-a-waste-of-spacetime/683324/95 "2014-03-12T06:06:56Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > It was definitely _ **NOT** _ an explosion, as I’ve explained in my OP. An explosion requires something to explode _ **into** _, and nothing existed for the Big Bang to explode into. > > What term would _I_ have used instead? Easy! **Inflation!** Not only is that vastly more accurate, it is just as easy for the average person to understand. But the real bonus is that using that term would have made my complaint in my OP – “NGT didn’t even _mention_ inflation!” – completely moot. Here’s a thought experiment for you, professor ambushed: Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Ann Druyan and all the producers of Cosmos… [ol] [li]honestly don’t understand that there was no space for the Big Bang to explode into.[/li][li]thought that [inflation](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyuIde09YHY) was kinda underselling to the general audience the staggeringly rapid amount of energy expelled.[/li][/ol] One of the biggest problems scientists have in communicating with the public is the kind of obsession with details that nonetheless fail to convey the implications of the mechanics in a way that average people understand. It appears to me that the producers are trying to avoid that pitfall. Feel free to be as stubborn as you like, but you are making yourself look like an out-of-touch pedant. ---
**Author:** ![Lobot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ce7236/32.png) [@Lobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobot)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmos-a-waste-of-spacetime/683324/96 "2014-03-12T06:11:11Z")
_Cosmos: A Pedantic Monologue_ hosted by Sheldon Cooper sounds like a hit to me. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmos-a-waste-of-spacetime/683324/97 "2014-03-12T06:31:27Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > Well, I watched the episode with a 13 year old girl and when the animation ended she asked" Why was the church such jerks?" So whether they intended it or not to be church-bashing, I think it came off that way to a lot of people. Also, and this is really nitpicky, but when he was tied to the stake and they thrust the crucifix in his face, he turned aside which I thought was lame and undercut the idea that you could be religious and scientific. > [@dropzone](#): > > Bruno animation sucked. Too long and too concentrated on his “astronomy” while ignoring what really got him executed–which is a flaw in nearly every popular-sciencey look at him–and too much Catholic bashing, which was a sop to the stereotypical Fox viewer, I suppose. 😉 > [@Antigen](#): > > I actually thought it was very _non_-Church-bashing… I think that showing Bruno’s idea of an infinite universe created by his infinite God was a beautiful way of making it all more accessible to those who still have a science _vs_ religion mentality… > [@monstro](#): > > … I liked the Bruno animation because it was so herky-jerky and surreal. And I loved that it was church-bashy. The church did and has always held back science. I thought the segment was a good way of showing how narrow-minded it is allow tradition to define the truth… > [@Merneith](#): > > Was the Bruno segment factually accurate? Then it’s not “bashing” when you bring it up. If the truth makes the Church look bad, well, they need to own it… The Bruno segment was _not_ factually accurate. And he was a terrible choice for inclusion, given Ann Druyan’s emphasis on promoting skepticism (as she has said in an interview). Before I go on, Tyson (or should I say “deGrasse Tyson”?) appeared on _Colbert_ the Monday night after the first airing, and when Colbert challenged him on the “Church-bashing” portion, Tyson first insisted it was no such thing because he emphasized that the Church did not actually kill Bruno, but rather the “Roman authorities” did. But a short while later, he kinda-sorta backtracked and admitted that that the Church _did_ order him to be burned at the stake, so it seems at least a bit that he wanted it both ways. So, a point or two off for disingenuousness… But back to my main thrust: Why was the Bruno segment such a terrible choice, given Sagan’s (in the original) and Druyan’s declared emphasis on including strong skepticism into the new _Cosmos_? Because Bruno was a mind-bogglingly gullible **crackpot!** An anti-scientific crackpot who would be completely at home today in the woo-filled milieu of ultra-asshole-cranks like Deepak Chopra, Fritjof Capra, Erich von Däniken, Stanislaw Burzynski, Rupert Sheldrake, Andrew Wakefield, Daryl Bem, Dean Radin, etc. etc. etc. And what’s more, everyone in his day knew that too! He was a major historical laughingstock, in large part because he not only had little or no respect for evidence, he pretty much had _contempt_ for evidence! He was pretty much making shit up or borrowing frosh-dorm bullshit from other crackpots (Oh, wow, man! I _am_ Metaluna!) Yes, Tyson said, a bit too _sotto voce_ in my opinion, that Bruno was not a scientist. So why not do some Church-bashing based on someone who _was_ a scientist, like Galileo? Probably because Galileo was only sentenced to comfortable house arrest, rather than having to undergo a death that was better suited to ludicrously over-dramatic cheap-ass cartoons! ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmos-a-waste-of-spacetime/683324/98 "2014-03-12T06:42:37Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > But back to my main thrust: Why was the Bruno segment such a terrible choice, given Sagan’s (in the original) and Druyan’s declared emphasis on including strong skepticism into the new _Cosmos_? Because Bruno was a mind-bogglingly gullible **crackpot!** An anti-scientific crackpot who would be completely at home today in the woo-filled milieu of ultra-asshole-cranks like Deepak Chopra, Fritjof Capra, Erich von Däniken, Stanislaw Burzynski, Rupert Sheldrake, Andrew Wakefield, Daryl Bem, Dean Radin, etc. etc. etc. And what’s more, everyone in his day knew that too! He was a major historical laughingstock, in large part because he not only had little or no respect for evidence, he pretty much had _contempt_ for evidence! He was pretty much making shit up or borrowing frosh-dorm bullshit from other crackpots (Oh, wow, man! I _am_ Metaluna!) > > Yes, Tyson said, a bit too _sotto voce_ in my opinion, that Bruno was not a scientist. So why not do some Church-bashing based on someone who _was_ a scientist, like Galileo? Probably because Galileo was only sentenced to comfortable house arrest, rather than having to undergo a death that was better suited to ludicrously over-dramatic cheap-ass cartoons! You just don’t get it, do you? First, if you listened closely to the trial scene, you could hear the judge charge Bruno with the theological crimes he was put to death for, like denying Jesus. True Bruno was not a scientist. Science as a discipline hardly existed. What Bruno did do was push out against the limits of what was accepted then, and for what I think most today were sound theological reasons. Even the most fundamental of fundamentalists wouldn’t argue that God is limited to the sphere the Church accepted then. And Tyson clearly said that he was right because he got lucky, not from reasoning. So it is not like Cosmos is holding Bruno up as a model scientist. They are holding him up as the model of someone who, to coin a phrase, could think differently. Which anyone can do without a PhD in astrophysics. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmos-a-waste-of-spacetime/683324/99 "2014-03-12T07:06:59Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Describing the Big Bang as an “explosion,” if that is the worst mistake they made, means the show is pretty accurate, because that is not a mistake. Wrong. Emphatically _ **Wrong!** _ Here are just a few high-quality cites… From Cornell, Carl Sagan’s alma mater: [: **In fact, the Big bang was not an explosion at all** ; it was simply the very hot state of the early universe](http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=71) From Harvard: [The Big Bang was not an explosion IN space. It was a process that involved ALL of space. _ **This misconception causes more confusion than any other in cosmology** _. Unfortunately, many students, teachers, and scientists(!) mistakenly picture the “Big Bang” as an explosion that took place at some location in space, hurtling matter outward.](http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/faq.htm) […[H]ere is the shortest possible argument for why the big bang was not an explosion for anyone who needs convincing](http://www.science20.com/quantum_gravity/blog/big_bang_was_not_explosion_however_explosion_metaphor_what_big_bang_was-78575) > [@](#): > > Explosions are the free expansion of material from higher, pressure, temperature and density to lower pressure, temperature and density in a short amount of time. > > The big bang was the expansion of the space time manifold from a singular point at time equals zero to a four dimensional manifold growing with time. In the process the contents of the universe expanded to fill the new space that was created after the big bang. > > The big bang was not an explosion because no matterial was involved. None existed yet. The big bang was the sudden expansion of space-time. That is not the same as an explosion in any physical sense. From the Angry Astronomer, complaining about the enormous misrepresentation of referring to the Big Bang as an explosion: [[**Misrepresentation Number 1) The Big Bang was an explosion**](http://angryastronomer.blogspot.com/2006/07/big-bang-common-misconceptions.html) From NASA: [No, the Big Bang was not an explosion.](http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html) Can we stop being willfully **wrong** about this, please? ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmos-a-waste-of-spacetime/683324/100 "2014-03-12T07:19:37Z")
Nothing inspires the young’ns like an expansion of the space time manifold from a singular point at time equals zero to a four dimensional manifold growing with time. And lose the sound effects in space! :mad: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmos-a-waste-of-spacetime/683324.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmos-a-waste-of-spacetime/683324.md?page=6)