“Heretical” is probably too sophisticated a term for the folks you’re talking about.
I hope so to…it isn’t likely to make him an astrophysicist, but at this point for this kid - anything that inspires a little intellectual curiosity is good.
By the way - he’s watching episode two right now (I homeschool him so he has time during the day - I haven’t prepped his Physics today, so he is doing this during his Physics time).
My 5 year-old son insists on watching the show while he has breakfast and gets dressed in the morning. 5 years old, and is asking me a flurry of questions about evolution, how some things are very very small (can we go look in the backyard for some water bears?) and others very very big, how cool the planets are and how come Titan has an atmosphere like ours when it’s just a moon, and remarking on how bad it must stink on the surface if the oceans are like gasoline. I’d say this show is doing an excellent job captivating it’s intended audience and introducing to them the universe of science and astronomy. It does not have to be completely accurate, and to be so would be doing the show a disservice.
I have to echo Dangerosa and Dorjan. My 9 and 17 year olds enjoy the show. The older one gets a chance to show off a little of what she’s learned in school, yet still learn something. And the youngest gets a fuller or alternative explanation of something she’s heard about before, but doesn’t really understand. Plus, I get a refresher course on somethings and a visual representation that makes it click a little better. I won’t pretend I’m up on the latest scientific discoveries and will admit that my memory might have gotten a bit fuzzy over years of not really using this information.
I loved the explanation that evolution takes very, very, very many generations and doesn’t always result in all the best features “winning” out. Especially since it gave me an opening to explain that creatures/genes don’t consciously decide that one feature is better than another and use it - but that it’s all chance based on mutations and that the same mutations don’t work well for all creatures.
We were THRILLED with the Halls of Extinction. My only complaint is that NdT’s voice is so low that it’s hard to hear, even with the tv cranked up.
ssss
posted this a while ago, but couldn’t find it anymore, must have made a mistake. Once again:
I saw the first Cosmos-episode on NGC in Holland. Beautiful animations, but I would have preferred a clear story of what is going on in the universe, as that is possible to tell. “Reject those ideas which fail the test” was a good statement at the beginning, but already in this episode several things were said which are not correct. I will take the 2nd important one. The term “observable universe” was used. It was said that light from objects beyond that universe-horizon didn’t have enough time (yet) in the 13.8 billion year-history of the universe to reach us. WRONG! Light from objects beyond the horizon of the visible universe will NEVER reach us. Objects beyond 14.42 billion lightyears away from earth (= beyond the radius of 1.36 * 10^23 km with the earth as the centre of a virtual sphere) will never be able to reach earth and even light emitted from those objects going exactly direction earth will never reach earth, but going further away from earth instead, so going backwards! The reason: expansion of space. At that horizon, as seen from earth, the expansion of space is equal to the speed of light. Beyond that radius this speed is higher than the speed of light. If ever a spacecraft would go beyond that point it can’t return to earth. If aliens would exist beyond that point they NEVER could meet or contact us. From another point in space it’s the same situation, only the location of the virtual sphere is different. The age and size of the universe is NOT calculable, so nobody knows. Probably infinite with no beginning. The size of the visible universe and the space expansion speed in “our sphere” can be calculated for each given distance from earth. All objects are moving away from each other because of space-expansion and ONCE all our neighboring galaxies will be forever gone beyond the horizon of our visible universe. If you want to know the moment at which a certain galaxy will go out of sight, just calculate how much time is needed for that galaxy to reach that horizon. Astronomy is such a nice hobby 
So what you’re saying is that you are not actually a snake? Color me disappointed. 
This dude is WASTED!!!
(N.dG.T in slo-mo)
It is something I can watch with my gf. She has a language degree and is pretty mathblivious, so I think she is learning at least the Fox presentation of cosmology &etc, plus Cosmos is wayyyy better than some of the worthless schlock you would never believe she wastes her time watching. Breaking Bad? ‘Too disturbing’ for her to watch. :rolleyes:
The show is a little awkward. I think even Tom Cruise is cooler than Tyson, but at least he isn’t a big klutz with a bow-tie and huge glasses. He flies around in his spaceship wonderstruck at all the cool things to point out about scientific discoveries, too amazed to present it in a more orderly fashion. Which is weird, because presumably he knows all this stuff inside and out, but of course there are Hollywood considerations. And the guy does have some TV ability.
Make-up, wardrobe, lighting and props clean up our presenter well enough, and he certainly does have a lot of interesting things to point out, even if I know these things already. The DNA duplicator nanobiomachine was pretty cool- I had never really considered how Nature goes about copying DNA. So, not worthless.
Also, I was not aware that the Big Bang was an ‘explosion’.
It wasn’t. It just sounded like one.
No it didn’t.
All the cool kids did.
Wow, that last question is very impressive from a 5-year-old. Cosmos or no Cosmos, congrats on doing something right.
As for the early universe, did it sag, like a heavy load? Or what?
I was trying to figure out if ambushed could possibly come across as a bigger snobbish, retarded fucktwad - you know, one of those so-called self-described ‘smart’ people that are real-life dumb fuck full-of-shit assholes.
But my head exploded thinking about it so I gave up.
My kids are too young to understand what’s going on, but after watching the show, my 4yr old grabbed my hand and pulled me outside, and we stood out there for almost an hour, looking at the night sky. I’d call that a win.
I’ll admit it can be very confusing, but you’ve fallen into the trap of several common misconceptions and they are actually more right than you: galaxies are constantly entering the so-called particle horizon which defines the observable Universe. Or in other words it is possible in theory in future to see some galaxies that are not even in principle observable at the present time.
This is again not correct, several well-know and signifcant radii (in proper distance) are:
The Hubble radius (the radius at which objects now have a recession velocity equal to c): ~14 billion ly N.B this not simply the age of the Universe multiplied by c, it is slightly larger
The cosmic event horizon (the radius at which beyond which light emitted now by objects will never reach us): ~15 billion ly
The particle horizon (the radius which defines our observable Universe and for objects lying beyond now we cannot currently receive any light from): ~47 billion ly
The ‘final’ horizon (I’ve invented this name, because I’m not sure there is a standard name and if there is I don’t know, but this is the radius beyond which for objects lying beyond now we will never see any light from at any point in the past or the present): ~60 billion ly
All four ‘horizons’ get larger as the Universe gets larger. The first two horizons asymptotically approach ~16 billion ly as the age of the Universe goes to infinity, whereas the 2nd two both go to infinity as the age of the Universe goes to infinity.
The Hubble sphere is actually not that physically significant and the particle horizon recedes from us at several times c.
The age, if not necessarily the size, of the Universe is calculable in the standard cosmological model and is ~13.8 billion ly. As I noted earlier, galaxies actually enter rather than leave the observable Universe.
btw the particle horizon can only exist when the age of the Universe is finite (or more specifically when the conformal age of the Universe is finite)
I’ve heard it both ways.
Much like the Big Bang!
Usually when I hear about explosions going both ways, it’s one of the offspring talking about burping and farting at the same time. In those situations it’s not hearing it that’s problematic.
Dear Asympotically fat, thanks for your reaction! We agree on the Hubble radius as the point where objects gain the recession speed of light. Beyond the sphere with that virtual radius objects move faster away from us than the speed of light. So how could you reason objects are constantly entering? That radius is only defined by the Hubble constant H0 which was measured long ago already to be about 70. Previous year the most accurate value ever was measured to be 67.80 km/sec/Mpc. That value determines at which distance from earth the recession speed is equal to C. So far it is very difficult to decide if that value is going down over time because of less accurate measurements in the past. If it would go down (expansion rate going down) the radius would increase. At H0= 70 the radius is 4283, at 67.80 it’s 4422, at 65 it’s 4612 Mpc. When distances among all objects increase and that radius stays what it is now, we “loose” the sight on galaxies from earth in the very long run.
Please check my calculation example in which I use 4 moments:
Given: redshift measurement, due to recession speed only, = 1
T1 = 8.65 billion years before now – the photons which will be measured later, leave object – distance object earth is 2653 Mpc – recession speed object compared to earth is 0.60C
T2 = now (redshift measurement) – distance 4021 Mpc – speed 0.91C
T3 = 1.98 billion years from now – the last photons ever able to arrive earth leave the object – distance 4422 Mpc – speed 1C
T4 = 16.4 billion years from now – distance 8843 Mpc – speed 2C – the last photons from the object arrive on earth
About the big bang: If there would have been a big bang, then looking in the direction of the centre of the explosion, one would see much less mass density (mass per cubic km) and in the direction away from the centre the mass density would decrease with the squared value of the distance. Both are NOT the case. The mass distribution in the visible universe is equal everywhere, in all directions, at least in our visible sphere. Besides as we all know, according to many many redshift values, all objects are moving away from each other with the same speed, except of course if an object has a speed of its own. That speed increases with distance, if watched from one point like the earth. This makes the example of the balloon with dots a nonsense story. The universe has NO centre. At the visible horizon exactly the same will be seen. On infinite distances from earth it probably will be the same story. Why would it be different at places very far away? For me this is an indication the universe must be infinite, though it can’t be proved.
But as I am an amateur I would like to read your reaction if you find the time. Greetings!