Bad Universe on the Discovery Channel

[Jeff Corey]

Phil Plait's show "Bad Universe" next Sunday on the Discovery Channel. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/b...verse-coming-to-a-discovery-channel-near-you/

 

[Illustronic]

I've read Phil's Bad Astronomy blog many times and like his easy to understand straightforward debunking of junk astronomy. That said I was a bit taken by the angle he's using for (finally) his new show but I suppose you have to make some kind of a splash to have enough shock value to entice viewership. His little Sneak Peek comes off as mirroring the guys on Mythbusters with all of the pyrotechnics. Now that said I hope it's just for the shock value to get people to watch, and eventually he may go into explaining some of the misunderstood cosmos.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Cool! That's sooner than I thought.

 

[Puppycow]

Carl Sagan didn't need shock value or pyrotechnics.

 

[Jeff Corey]

I would guess that it's like a movie trailer, in that they cherry pick the attention getting scenes. Let's wait for the whole show. Maybe he will say, "Billions and billions".*
























* Yeah, I know that Carl Sagan didn't. Well, only once.
"I never said it. Honest. Oh, I said there are maybe 100 billion galaxies and 10 billion trillion stars. It's hard to talk about the Cosmos without using big numbers. I said 'billion' many times on the Cosmos television series, which was seen by a great many people. But I never said 'billions and billions.' For one thing, it's imprecise. How many billions are 'billions and billions'? A few billion? Twenty billion? A hundred billion? 'Billions and billions' is pretty vague... For a while, out of childish pique, I wouldn't utter the phrase, even when asked to. But I've gotten over that. So, for the record, here it goes: 'Billions and billions.' " (1997)

 

[KingMerv00]

Carl Sagan didn't need shock value or pyrotechnics.

Phil doesn't need it either. That doesn't mean it's automatically a bad idea.

 

[foosnut]

Phil doesn't need it either. That doesn't mean it's automatically a bad idea.

Carl Sagan and Phil might not need it,

but the great masses of TV viewers do.

 

[Chucky]

Carl Sagan didn't need shock value or pyrotechnics.

You greatly underestimate the attention span of the average American...

 

[Dinwar]

"Not needed" and "not a good idea" are not the same thing, no matter what my wife tells you.

I can't wait. I just hope my wife is gone when it's on air--she studied physics and remote sensing in school, so shows for the lay person bore her to tears. So I don't get to watch them.

* Yeah, I know that Carl Sagan didn't. Well, only once.

He said it twice. Gotta read carefully.

But I never said 'billions and billions.'

So, for the record, here it goes: 'Billions and billions.'

 

[KingMerv00]

Carl Sagan and Phil might not need it,

but the great masses of TV viewers do.

Why is that sad? I could listen to Phil lecture all day long but it is a bit self-centered to think that everyone finds "dry" science interesting. Everyone has different tastes. There is no objective way to say one method of presentation is "better" than another.

If it takes explosions for people to learn, I'm all for it. Besides, explosions are cool in their own right.

 

[dasmiller]

You greatly underestimate the attention span of the average American...

Hey, what are you implying? I'm an American, and I can assure you that this slur-

Oooh, shiny!

Hah! I saw a dime and actually typed "shiny."

My ear itches.

Howcome they call them "chopsticks" when you don't chop things with them?

wait, why was I typing again?

 

[aggle-rithm]

"I never said it. Honest. Oh, I said there are maybe 100 billion galaxies and 10 billion trillion stars. It's hard to talk about the Cosmos without using big numbers. I said 'billion' many times on the Cosmos television series, which was seen by a great many people. But I never said 'billions and billions.' For one thing, it's imprecise. How many billions are 'billions and billions'? A few billion? Twenty billion? A hundred billion? 'Billions and billions' is pretty vague... For a while, out of childish pique, I wouldn't utter the phrase, even when asked to. But I've gotten over that. So, for the record, here it goes: 'Billions and billions.' " (1997)

Then he dropped dead.

 

[Dragonrock]

I just hope my wife is gone when it's on air--she studied physics and remote sensing in school, so shows for the lay person bore her to tears. So I don't get to watch them.

What's "remote sensing"?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Isn't this show about the many ways in which the universe can kill us? A lot of those ways involve blasting us to smithereens, cooking us, irradiating us etc.

 

[ttoyooka]

What's "remote sensing"?

Remote sensing, not to be confused with "remote viewing," is about cameras, radar, or other devices, used to take pictures of a distant object (usually the earth, from an airplane or satellite).

I've done some work with remote sensing radar, myself.

 

[Dinwar]

Remote sensing, not to be confused with "remote viewing," is about cameras, radar, or other devices, used to take pictures of a distant object (usually the earth, from an airplane or satellite).

This.

She looked at various wavelengths of reflected light in Northwest Ohio to determine where potentially uncapped/nearly uncapped abandoned oil wells were located ("nearly uncapped" meaning that it was capped, but the cap had broken to the point where seapagew as occuring). Well, she did a lot more than that, but that was her favorite project. You can also do stuff with gravity, magnetics, etc. There's actually a big stink about this in geology--a LOT of our remote sensing satelights are old, and nearing the end of their useful/usable span. We've already got data gaps, and it's going to get worse, because no one's putting new satelights up in the air. Stupid, considering the power of the pictures these provide.

I could listen to Phil lecture all day long but it is a bit self-centered to think that everyone finds "dry" science interesting. Everyone has different tastes.

Not just that, but Dr. Plait isn't directing this at scientists. It's directed at people who are going to watch this for the "Hey look at that" factor. In other words, they'll never need to understand relativity in any depth. What the show is trying to do (at least, from my understanding) is instil a love of science, which is completely different from educating about science. Both need science, but the emphasis is different.

 

[ttoyooka]

Going slightly off-topic, but hey...

She looked at various wavelengths of reflected light in Northwest Ohio to determine where potentially uncapped/nearly uncapped abandoned oil wells were located...

Cool. My prior work was related to synthetic aperture radar satellites. One of the many uses for SAR data was to keep track of iceberg hazards in the north atlantic, and I felt rather proud that my work was going towards a good cause.

We've already got data gaps, and it's going to get worse, because no one's putting new satelights up in the air. Stupid, considering the power of the pictures these provide.

A few years back, Canada launched a new remote sensing satellite called RadarSat II, and it had a high enough resolution that it caused some concern among U.S. military types. And I thought we were friends.

 

[Hellbound]

A few years back, Canada launched a new remote sensing satellite called RadarSat II, and it had a high enough resolution that it caused some concern among U.S. military types. And I thought we were friends.

Yeah, but wouldn't you get nervous if you saw your friend outside your bathroom window with a camera?

 

[Dragonrock]

Remote sensing, not to be confused with "remote viewing," is about cameras, radar, or other devices, used to take pictures of a distant object (usually the earth, from an airplane or satellite).

I've done some work with remote sensing radar, myself.

Thanks, my brain is bigger now.

 

[ttoyooka]

Thanks, my brain is bigger now.

Hey, now, that's been debunked.