# Carl Sagan's 'Cosmos' Television Series



## Stephen Rees (Mar 15, 2014)

I remember watching these shows on the BBC when I was a kid. They were stunning. Dealing with deep and important concepts; massive spans of time; enormous distances; great history; never shying away from ethical issues; always engaging and entertaining. Great music chosen from the likes of Bach, Beethoven, Shostakovich, Vangelis to name just a few……

I saw them again recently on DVD and they have lost none of their wonder.

Anyway, I just felt motivated to encourage anyone who hasn't seen them to give them a watch. I have been so inspired by them. It is wonderful series by an extraordinary human being.

You can buy it for under a tenner here in the UK on DVD….

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Carl-Sagans-Cosmos-DVD-Sagan/dp/B0027UY8CW/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1394887295&sr=1-1 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Carl-Sagans-Cos ... 295&amp;sr=1-1)


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 15, 2014)

Fond memories from my tv-watching in the seventies. A great man.


----------



## aaronnt1 (Mar 15, 2014)

He was a great man, we need more like him. Never saw these programmes, was only a toddler at the time but will definitely check them out.


----------



## SergeD (Mar 15, 2014)

Good timing for that one too 
http://www.globaltv.com/cosmos/


----------



## Stephen Rees (Mar 15, 2014)

aaronnt1 @ Sat Mar 15 said:


> He was a great man, we need more like him. Never saw these programmes, was only a toddler at the time but will definitely check them out.



I really hope you enjoy it


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 15, 2014)

Yes. And while I find Neil Degrasse Tyson extremely impressive, the first episode of the Cosmos remake was totally naff.

(It launched last week in the US; NDT is the host.)

We're going to give it another chance, but I was really disappointed by the first episode.

And while Allan Silvestri is obviously one of the greats, the way they're using his music in this series is annoyingly intrusive. To me it's a case study in excess - everything is OTT huge.


----------



## Stephen Rees (Mar 15, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Mar 15 said:


> Yes. And while I find Neil Degrasse Tyson extremely impressive, the first episode of remade Cosmos was totally naff.
> 
> (It launched last week in the US; NDT is the host.)
> 
> We're going to give it another chance, but I was really disappointed by the first episode.



I had no idea it had been remade until Serge posted his link above. I had a little *groan* to myself. I wish the new show well, but it is quite a challenge for it to match the original. I think the original series is amongst the best television I've ever seen.


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Mar 15, 2014)

probably stating the obvious, the book is kinda must read...

http://www.amazon.com/Cosmos-Carl-Sagan/dp/0345331354


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 16, 2014)

I love both shows.
Since learning about the new James Webb Telescope that will soon replace Hubbel I have been reading up on Astronomy again.
Like Music, it attracts and unites people rather than divide them.

I really wish Herbie Hancock would have scored the new series. 
For some reason I can't get that Spacecraft/Synth/Console image of him from the album cover of Thrust out of my head when seeing Astronomy documentairies.

Hopefully many more science and engineering shows might gain steam.
Lest we be tormented by the Wives Of Nashville, or Keeping Up With The Dirtbaggians.


----------



## AC986 (Mar 16, 2014)

Watched it an hour ago.

Dumbed down and way too simplistic. For adults that may still be children.


----------



## Stephen Rees (Mar 16, 2014)

adriancook @ Sun Mar 16 said:


> Watched it an hour ago.
> 
> Dumbed down and way too simplistic. For adults that may still be children.



The original series was exactly the opposite. I watched it as a child yet it treated me like an adult.

I probably won't watch the new one. I don't have a television for a start......

It is actually a complete coincidence that the new series started just at the moment I began this thread. I had no idea the new shows had even been made, let alone that their broadcast was imminent. Spooky.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 16, 2014)

Neil Degrasse Tyson is really impressive when he's being interviewed. This is just lame writing.



> For some reason I can't get that Spacecraft/Synth/Console image of him from the album cover of Thrust out of my head when seeing Astronomy documentairies.



I never thought of that, but it sure is a great album. So is Headhunters, of course, and also those guys formed a group called Headhunters without Herbie Hancock - also great.

Herbie Hancock would have been great just because he's a great musician, but that stuff might be a little too funky for this.


----------



## AC986 (Mar 17, 2014)

Stephen Rees @ Sun Mar 16 said:


> I probably won't watch the new one. I don't have a television for a start......
> 
> It is actually a complete coincidence that the new series started just at the moment I began this thread. I had no idea the new shows had even been made, let alone that their broadcast was imminent. Spooky.



Not having a TV would make it difficult Steve, Yes! :D 

Yes the old one from way back was of course also a very different time.

I'm afraid I started watching The Sky at Night in the late 1950s. Obviously much more factual. 
This new program is akin to Disney. Looks very good of course and a lot of money and time went into the visuals. It's the content that's an issue. There was a huge section dedicated to trashing the 15th & 16th century Catholic Church. What they forget is that it was a very different historical landscape where fear was a big factor in just about everything and the truth or what becomes 'a truth' in 1600 AD doesn't necessarily help anyone. It was just a rubbishy cartoon based on opinion today. Not then.


----------



## Stephen Rees (Mar 17, 2014)

adriancook @ Mon Mar 17 said:


> I'm afraid I started watching The Sky at Night in the late 1950s. Obviously much more factual.



And who would have the audacity to choose a piece of Sibelius for a theme tune these days? That was the first piece of Sibelius I ever heard. Now he's one of my favourite composers.


----------



## Darthmorphling (Mar 17, 2014)

adriancook @ Mon Mar 17 said:


> Stephen Rees @ Sun Mar 16 said:
> 
> 
> > I probably won't watch the new one. I don't have a television for a start......
> ...



Everything that was said in that segment is based on fact. The reality is that the creationists of today would love to subject the same dogma to our educational system. I agree with you that it was a different time back then, but should we ignore the fact that people were persecuted for going against the church?

Science is in a very sad state today in America. We are being overtaken by the rest of the world in producing scientifically literate citizens. The creationists are doing everything in their power to get their views taught in schools. These views are based on a book put together by a group of people long ago, who had no idea about science and the way the universe worked.

If you saw some of the twitter responses after last night's episode, you would be shocked that such ignorance is still around today.


----------



## Stephen Rees (Mar 17, 2014)

The magic of the original really revolved around Carl Sagan the human being.

The visuals were stunning for their time (and are still look good today I think); the musical choices wonderful but.....it was the script and Mr. Sagan's distinctive rhythmical delivery of it that its most powerful and moving element. The script is almost like poetry. Full of magic and wonder.

Here's a single line.....

'To make apple pie, you must first invent the universe.'


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 17, 2014)

The problem isn't that it's not Carl Sagan, it's what you said before: it's naff.

We barely made it through the first few minutes of the program last night. BORING!


----------



## Darthmorphling (Mar 17, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Mar 17 said:


> The problem isn't that it's not Carl Sagan, it's what you said before: it's naff.
> 
> We barely made it through the first few minutes of the program last night. BORING!



Then you missed out on a terrific episode. The section on the evolution of the eye was phenomental and really debunked the proponents of intelligent design that claim the eye could not have happened by accident.

Honestly, I think Neil is great, but I do believe Bill Nye would do a much better job.


----------



## choc0thrax (Mar 17, 2014)

Darthmorphling @ Mon Mar 17 said:


> If you saw some of the twitter responses after last night's episode, you would be shocked that such ignorance is still around today.



And the irony is that these people often best demonstrate how closely related we are to monkeys.

I can only imagine the responses Bill Maher must get: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-maher-a ... derer-god/


I thought last night's episode was pretty good.


----------



## aaronnt1 (Mar 18, 2014)

There's been some interesting cosmological developments over the last few days. Wonder if it will make it into the new series? http://www.theguardian.com/science/...ave-discovery-physics-bicep#start-of-comments

Sagan would be loving the last few years that's for sure, what with this and the Higgs.
Still doubt we'll get to the bottom of the ultimate noggin-slapper in my lifetime, that damn infinite regress, logically there must always be a 'before' but surely you can't keep going back infinitely.... but then surely you can't just have 'something' spontaneously burst into existence...? Aaaaahhhhhhh!


----------



## Darthmorphling (Mar 18, 2014)

aaronnt1 @ Tue Mar 18 said:


> There's been some interesting cosmological developments over the last few days. Wonder if it will make it into the new series? http://www.theguardian.com/science/...ave-discovery-physics-bicep#start-of-comments
> 
> Sagan would be loving the last few years that's for sure, what with this and the Higgs.
> Still doubt we'll get to the bottom of the ultimate noggin-slapper in my lifetime, that damn infinite regress, logically there must always be a 'before' but surely you can't keep going back infinitely.... but then surely you can't just have 'something' spontaneously burst into existence...? Aaaaahhhhhhh!



Lawrence Krauss explaining how there can be Something Rather than Nothing.



And the book that goes into more detail

http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/1451624468 (http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing- ... 1451624468)


----------



## aaronnt1 (Mar 18, 2014)

Thanks for the links! I believe I've seen the Krauss one or seen another of his lectures, is this the one where he basically says thee is no such thing as 'nothing' exactly, at last in the way we think of 'nothing'?


----------



## Darthmorphling (Mar 18, 2014)

aaronnt1 @ Tue Mar 18 said:


> Thanks for the links! I believe I've seen the Krauss one or seen another of his lectures, is this the one where he basically says thee is no such thing as 'nothing' exactly, at last in the way we think of 'nothing'?



That's the basic idea yes. Haven't finished the book yet. I love physics and can understand the big ideas, but it really takes a lot for me grasp what is being said. Multiple readings in small chunks.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 18, 2014)

> logically there must always be a 'before'



I'm not so sure! Stephen Hawking says "it just was."

Think of it this way: there was no time before time began. 

But the recent stuff is very interesting, especially the part about the universe being beyond the reaches of light.


----------



## AC986 (Mar 19, 2014)

It's very difficult for the human species to imagine infinity.


----------



## AC986 (Mar 19, 2014)

And beyond!! HAHAaaaaa!


----------



## aaronnt1 (Mar 19, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue 18 Mar said:


> > logically there must always be a 'before'
> 
> 
> Think of it this way: there was no time before time began.





adriancook @ Wed 19 Mar said:


> It's very difficult for the human species to imagine infinity.


True and this is what I find my brain has difficulty understanding, the idea that time just began. Surely it would have had to begin *at a certain point in time*? If not, then we've reached the 'first event' no?. What was before that?  

Oh boy, I knew I shouldn't have started down this road...now I won't sleep tonight!


----------



## AC986 (Mar 19, 2014)

aaronnt1 @ Wed Mar 19 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Tue 18 Mar said:
> 
> 
> > > logically there must always be a 'before'
> ...



When people start telling us that the Universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old, don't you start to laugh inside a little bit? I mean really! 

13.7 billion years is impossible to fathom just for a start. And does anyone really believe that scientists have got those numbers right because they believe the computers and machinery they use to come up with these numbers can't be wrong? Personally I think they pull most of these theories out of their ass.

They're telling us, mostly through funding, that we are meant to believe a number like 13.7 billion and we are supposed to buy into that. The thing about numbers is the bigger the number, the more likely people will buy into it because the numbers are then too big to argue with. If a scientist tells us the Universe is 100000 years old, he would be a laughing stock. Not a big enough number. Numbers need to huge to be believable because it gets difficult to argue with them.

Don't get me wrong, I will buy into anything, because like you and everyone else, it cannot possibly matter in the long run. Because everyone secretly knows that one day they will come out with new theories and new numbers that we can all buy into again. I always look forward to newer and bigger numbers. Redistribution of numbers is the name of the game. 

:idea: FUNDING!!! GIVE ME THAT FUCKING MONEY!!!! :D


----------



## aaronnt1 (Mar 19, 2014)

:D Ha ha!

Yeah, I often wonder what would happen if a scientist came to realise that there had been some fatal fundamental error in some of the calculations back in the early days of the enlightenment and had only now spotted it, after 200+ years of work, umpteen theories and laws and calculations and books and discourse and $ billions spent on apparatus like CERN had been built upon it. 

Though I agree there are more than likely some for whom funding and personal legacy is everything, I have a high degree of trust, from the books I've read and lectures I've watched that many scientists, perhaps even the majority are totally idealistic about the power for good inherent in the scientific endeavour and will strive for truth even if it means demolishing hundreds of years of accepted scientific discourse and causing huge embarrassment to the scientific community. Unfortunately science is like that, it's accepted knowledge and understanding can change fundamentally and _should _, if and when new evidence comes to light.


----------



## AC986 (Mar 19, 2014)

I have a 2 minute track here I can barely mix right now.

These guys are trying to mix a 13.7 billion years track. I mean honestly!


----------



## aaronnt1 (Mar 19, 2014)

:mrgreen: That's true!


----------



## SergeD (Mar 19, 2014)

Darthmorphling @ Tue Mar 18 said:


> Lawrence Krauss explaining how there can be Something Rather than Nothing.



Believing that empty space is nothing or not (1:00), is like to believe or not god exists.

Someday, Hubble discovered that the Universe is expanding, and scientists concluded that there must be a big bang somewhere. But in nature, many phenomena, like atmospheric circulation, are due to convection. Why not the Universe? 

I'm tired, too much for my brain...


----------



## Darthmorphling (Mar 19, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Mar 18 said:


> > logically there must always be a 'before'
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is the really interesting part. We can see the remnants of the big bang, but the edge of the known universe is about 13.8 billion light years away. It has taken that long for the light to reach us. Who knows how far it has actually traveled. An astrophysicist can probably theorize it, but it goes way beyond my understanding.

Again, I teach 5th grade so take my ideas as someone who likes to read physics, but is no where near a physicist.


----------



## Diffusor (Mar 27, 2014)

The new Cosmos is really bad imo, almost laughable. The Universe is a 100x better show in terms of writing, information and production value.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 27, 2014)

Guys, please go to YouTube and search for, say, Brian Greene. There are many others, but he's very good at explaining concepts like "multiverse" and "string theory" in ways that you and I can understand.

The science of theoretical physics is not arbitrary. Theories are based on mathematics, and then hopefully experiments confirm them. That's what happened with the Higgs boson, for example - to say nothing of quantum field theory in general.

And that's exactly what this outrageously fantastic discovery is - confirmation of theory. Gravitational wave patterns in the background radiation, left over from the first trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the expansion started. It proves a few things along the way, including the idea that gravity works at the quantum level.

No offense, but this level of sophistication puts armchair ideas like Serge's into perspective! And Adrian, do you really believe that this is just pure crap intended to create jobs for physicists?

I didn't understand this well enough, so I did some reading. All I can do is marvel. It's just remarkable.


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 27, 2014)

adriancook @ Wed Mar 19 said:


> When people start telling us that the Universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old, don't you start to laugh inside a little bit? I mean really!
> 
> 13.7 billion years is impossible to fathom just for a start. And does anyone really believe that scientists have got those numbers right because they believe the computers and machinery they use to come up with these numbers can't be wrong? Personally I think they pull most of these theories out of their ass.



Hahah yeh, I think alike! Everytime someone records someone throwing a stone into the water and measures the waves drawn in the water and thinks he then can exactly pinpoint the moment on when the stone has been thrown into the water by analyzing other waves ... just ridiculous!

Irony mode off!

Seriously, if you believe that these numbers have been drawn out of their ass, then this is really disrespectful towards a whole class of a skilled scientists. It is almost as clever to say, the C major scale is made up and is not true. They just took some random notes and named it C major scale!


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 27, 2014)

adriancook @ Sun Mar 16 said:


> Watched it an hour ago.
> 
> Dumbed down and way too simplistic. For adults that may still be children.



... and I think this is exactly the purpose. If you want to learn about hardcore universe astrophysics, check out research papers! My guess would be that this series is aimed to people who want to understand having no background or are just interested in getting into this kind of topic!


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 27, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Mar 18 said:


> > logically there must always be a 'before'
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just by the way: I am pretty sure you did that already but check out Through the Wormholes episode "Is the universe alive" (or something, I just know the german title). They go into the topic of the "before" and personally this makes lots of sense to me. That the question should be if it was a beginning, but just another rebounce


----------



## AC986 (Mar 27, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Mar 27 said:


> Guys, please go to YouTube and search for, say, Brian Greene. There are many others, but he's very good at explaining concepts like "multiverse" and "string theory" in ways that you and I can understand.



So can I but but unfortunately my concepts are regarded as crap and therefore funding is hard to come by.


----------



## AC986 (Mar 27, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Mar 27 said:


> And Adrian, do you really believe that this is just pure crap intended to create jobs for physicists?



Ummmm no. 

They do a wonderful job and come up with tremendous ideas and theories that every now again turn into something that is actually useful and a practical aid to the human condition.

Incidentally, in this country, and no disrespect to him at all ( way over my head) but Hawking is regarded by 'other' British scientists as being 2nd or 3rd string.

What does that mean? Don't really know except you're then getting into some really fucking big numbers at that point and some serious funding. :lol:


----------



## AC986 (Mar 27, 2014)

Waywyn @ Thu Mar 27 said:


> adriancook @ Wed Mar 19 said:
> 
> 
> > It is almost as clever to say, the C major scale is made up and is not true. They just took some random notes and named it C major scale!



I don't think it's clever. But I think you may have point with the C major scale. It could well be random notes and someone named it C Major!!!!! My God! Eureka! You could be the new age Archimedes of Western scale modes!

Have tried for funding to explore this possibility?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 27, 2014)

> 13.7 billion years is impossible to fathom just for a start. And does anyone really believe that scientists have got those numbers right because they believe the computers and machinery they use to come up with these numbers can't be wrong? Personally I think they pull most of these theories out of their ass.



That's only because you don't understand the Hubble constant.



> They do a wonderful job and come up with tremendous ideas and theories that every now again turn into something that is actually useful and a practical aid to the human condition.



Curious thing for a musician to say!

To me, working to answer questions is an end in itself. Life would be pretty dismal if the only things we investigated were "practical."



> in this country, and no disrespect to him at all ( way over my head) but Hawking is regarded by 'other' British scientists as being 2nd or 3rd string



Oh come on. Do you really believe that?

Hawking radiation alone is a major discovery, and that was in the '70s.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 27, 2014)

Alex, what show is the Wormholes episode? Not Carl Sagan, right?


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 28, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Mar 28 said:


> Alex, what show is the Wormholes episode? Not Carl Sagan, right?



Ah, forgot to mention. It is the one hosted by Morgan Freeman!


----------



## Stephen Rees (Mar 28, 2014)

*whispers* Anyone reading this - watch the original series with Carl Sagan. It isn't really about the science in itself. It is about what it is to be a human being, written and presented by one of the finest human beings we've had.


----------



## AC986 (Mar 28, 2014)

Stephen Rees @ Fri Mar 28 said:


> It is about what it is to be a human being,



You can't tell Nick that Steve! Whatever has got into you? 

:mrgreen:

Did you ever watch Jacob Bronowski's The Ascent of Man. Very good.


----------



## AC986 (Mar 28, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Mar 27 said:


> Oh come on. Do you really believe that?
> 
> Hawking radiation alone is a major discovery, and that was in the '70s.



How the fuck do I know? I'm only telling you what THEY think. 

I said it was over my head didn't I? :roll: :roll: :roll: 

:mrgreen:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 28, 2014)

The details are over your head - and certainly mine - but the general concepts aren't.

And "they" don't think that.

I mean, people say anything. There are people who think the Beatles had no talent. But that doesn't mean they're not jealous buffoons.



> Morgan Freeman



Right, in fact I still have it on my DVR - I didn't erase it.


----------



## AC986 (Mar 28, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Mar 28 said:


> I mean, people say anything. There are people who think the Beatles had no talent. But that doesn't mean they're not jealous buffoons.



I think they were very talented, but that still doesn't stop me from being a jealous buffoon. 

And they do think that. And not only do they think it. they actually say it quite often. These aren't just people. These are people way over our heads.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 28, 2014)

And other people way over our heads say otherwise - including Leonard Susskind, who had an intense 25-year debate with him over information getting lost in black holes (it doesn't).

(I read Susskind's book about that, and it's incredible.)

People dis everyone. Screw them.


----------



## Vin (Apr 6, 2014)

Fantastic series and music by maestro Silvestri. Can't wait for the next episode.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 1, 2014)

While many of us who are already fairly educated on this topic from Sagans series and loved it, I thought his wife wanted a re make to entice much younger people who probably never had a class dedicated to astronomy, but I am grateful for this as my son bought a telescope and while working a 58 hour a week gig for the IBEW wants to get a house and car, rent the house and go to a college to learn more as he is spiritual somewhat, and scientific, this has made me very happy as he will have appreciated a few years from 18 to 21 on how to make major bank with the option of returning, but I would be most honored to have a son studying Science and motivated/fascinated by it.
I sure hope inner city kids who can't get vouchers and are stuck in the urban Union shitholes get a program like Rahm Emanuel is doing with private investors, or at least see this show and be fascinated, as it's really dumbed down with CD and SFX just enough to catch a kids attention.

In my eyes if this attracts more kids, it's a huge success in my book.

She had the right idea... o-[][]-o


----------



## G.E. (Jun 2, 2014)

I haven't seen Carl Sagan's Cosmos but the new one is pretty good.I think it's great at getting people interested in science since it's very entertaining.Though I can't say I was surprised by the protesting creationists who want to censor it.That stuff pisses me off but I won't get into that now.
I love Alan Silvestri's score too.I bought the soundtrack and it's some of the freshest thing from Silvestri in years.I especially love volume 3.
This is my favorite piece from the show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bj8szlZAR4


----------

