|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Science Channel | |||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 989 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
I was wondering if anyone here has the Science Channel and if they like it. Both The Discovery Channel and The Learning Channel have moved so far away from science that I rarely watch them anymore.
The few shows I've seen from the Science Channel (played on TLC) have been really interesting. Tonight I'm watching one on time travel and it's fascinating. I really liked the billiards (plural??) example explaining the theory of an infinite number of multiple universes. It's a possible way to get around creating a paradox from traveling into the past. I'm considering paying to get the Science Channel. I expect it will be another $6/month. [This message has been edited by roxrkool, 12-03-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4844 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
I had it all last summer and liked it alot, than and the National Geographic Channel. There is always something interisting on.
JustinC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
I generally like the Science Channel (formerly, Discovery: Science...there are a series of digital channels put forth by Discovery...Kids, Science, Home & Garden, Civilization, Wings, Health). While the Science channel generally stays the course to provide only programming of actual science, every now and again it strays. It isn't so much shows on UFOs and the like, but that some of the stuff is fluff science where they spend an entire half hour on a subject that is ostensibly pseudo-science, building it up, and then having only a tiny amount of counter to it near the end, and even that not that vigorous, leading to a final claim of "Is it true? Hard to say."
Actually, my biggest complaint with it is that all too often the shows aren't that interesting. I don't really get into dinosaurs or oceanography, so that removes a lot. While I like the Connections series, I've seen all of them and I think it's really more appropriate for Discovery: Civilization since it's about history, not science (though science is often a part of the history). And the astronomy programs are nice, but did they really need to buy only episodes narrated by William Shatner? I want Carl Sagan back. I want a mini-series about a subject that doesn't think the average viewer is 12 years old, that will show how the subject connects to other fields, doesn't think that spending 13 hours on it is too long, and doesn't waste half an hour going over what was already discussed in the previous episode. Cosmos on PBS was the ultimate science program I have ever seen. The Elegant Universe didn't tell me anything new until the final episode...and they only spent three hours on the whole thing. If you took out the repetitive parts, you could have reduced it to about an hour and a half. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4844 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
I'm a big Carl Sagan fan, but am a little hesitant to buy the Cosmos series because its so old. Do you think its still good enough today that its worth buying the entire series, which I think is 100+ dollars?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hi Rox: I get the Science Channel. I watch it occasionally - when I can pry the remote away from the kids (Science Channel or Digimon? Tough call...). Anyway, I agree with Rrhain that some of the programming is kind of "science light" - it is after all designed for the masses. Also, I'm not that enamored of their engineering/technology programs. OTOH, I have seen quite a few high quality shows in a number of topics (I DO like the oceanography etc shows) - in that way they beat Discovery etc all hollow. Even our very own Mammuthus starred in one excellent special (I won't say which one for privacy reasons). Anyway, if you can get it cheap, by all means do so - it's a nice change to the run-of-the-mill drek that's on most of the other "science" channels.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
It is all science lite! Some of the programs are a little informative, many have interesting visuals. But a TV show can not be made to go into any depth or it will have too small an audience to justify the cost.
I would recommend spending a 100$ on selected books rather than Cosmos. (as much as I like Sagan and did enjoy Cosmos)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Yeah, but I like the pretty pictures... Science Channel actually seems to go more in-depth (at least on some topics) than most of the others.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4844 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
I might just get it because I've never actually seen Carl talk, or move for that matter. I just see pictures and read his book.
Are there any other good science programs worth getting (that may of aired on The Science Channel
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Short Term Topics and Messages forum.
Somewhere along the line, Andya suggested that topics like this, although not literally about books, still belong in the "Book Nook" forum. I agree - Besides, the topic clearly seems worthy of "perminent" retention. Perhaps (also per Andya?) a "Book Nook" forum title modification is needed. I leave such to Percy's judgement. Cheers,Adminnemooseus [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-04-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 989 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
Thanks for the input.
I figured most of the science was light, but that's okay when they're going over physics or quantum mechanics! I do enjoy the oceanographic shows. I thought the Blue Planet: Seas of Life series was absolutely beautiful, but I am getting a little tired of all the dinosaur stuff, to be honest. They're on TV everyday! What happened to variety? I remember watching Cosmos and being fascinated with astronomy, but I was still too young to understand most of it. I haven't read the book for the same reason Justin mentioned - not sure if it's still worth a read after so many years. Thoughts? I agree, Rrhain, I would also love to see a good science show on TV these days. I can't wait till the Reality Shows have run their course and we can move onto something else. NOVA is still a decent show, but most of the time it's about something that doesn't interest me. The other night I watched an interesting show about the Anasazi Cowboy Wash pueblo where indisputable proof of cannibalism was excavated (human protein found in fossilized human feces). I believe all the victims were children. My ignorant opinion is that the cannibalism was not practiced by the Anasazi but by a different group whose purpose was to please their gods or scare the Anasazi away. I really would like to see more about that. And more on Mesoamerica. The technology/engineering shows on TDC and TLC also are of no interest to me either, Quetzal, and neither are aircrafts, wars, etc. I want SCIENCE!! Nosy, you may be right about reading a good book. The last one I read was the Da Vinci Code and I managed to squeeze it in over a weekend by staying up way too late. Oh yeah, I've seen some pretty decent science shows and interviews with prominent scientists on TechTV on occasion. Anyone else see them? [This message has been edited by roxrkool, 12-04-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7013 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
My issue is this: You can't read while you cook. You can't read while you do dishes. You can't read while you clean the house. You can't read while you're working on your computer. Etc.
For this reason, I like having these channels. I just accept having to get frustrated and change the channel when they go into a pseudoscience program (like last night, when they tried to portray the exodus as actually having archaeological evidence toward it). ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
JustinCy:
I bought Cosmos on DVD when it finally came out and I still love it. I only wish I had it when I was still in grad school. In one of the required courses was a book called Art and Physics. The book seeks to trace the history of art and the history of science, showing how developments in one seem to mimic developments in the other. I was seething on almost every page as the author kept getting the physics wrong and the thesis of his book was, essentially, artists actually have "vision" and manage to see the world through new eyes that eventually scientists figure out is actually how the world works. As an example, at about the time that the major developments in relativity and quantum mechanics were being developed, the Modern Art movement was taking off with paintings such as "Nude Descending a Staircase": Notice the fracturing of time, how the person has been "smeared" across the staircase, she doesn't really exist in one place at any one time. Just like QM describes the electron. And the colors! They're browns and beiges. Previous art had used intense colors, but Modern Art had monotones, concentrated in the muddying effects of colors like brown and grey. And here's the kicker: Just like relativity. See, when you move at the speed of light, the way you see color is affects as the photons are subject to distortion effects as we see in red-shift. It gets compressed...and as we all know, when you mix all the colors together, you get a muddy, brown mixture. So the Modern Artists had "predicted" the findings of the physicists. In this painting of a time-dilated image, of course it's in browns. I think I was the first person who actually had any science training to take this class. What?!? Doesn't this guy know the difference between an additive color model and a subtractive one? Yes, when you mix pigments together, you get black...and since most pigments are impure, you actually get a muddy, brownish mess because of those impurities. But when you mix light together, you get white! And even then, that's completely irrelevant because when you move nearly the speed of light, you see a prismatic effect due to the distortion effects of your motion. The photons at the center of your vision are being compressed while the photons at the periphery of your vision are being stretched. Yes, your visual field is being distorted and compressed, too, but the photons aren't being mixed at all. Cosmos had a beautiful model of this effect. As someone was riding along, he sped up and they introduced the special effects with the (if I recall the colors correctly), blue tinge in the center leading to the red tinge at the periphery, and then the introduction of the fish-eye lens showing the visual distortion. I have my graduate degree in Theatre, so the class was all theatre majors...they were all so happy to feel that they were "more advanced" than the scientists...their creative visions would eventually be shown to be physically real. I did everything I could to burst their bubble. All the physics was wrong. And the author clearly didn't understand the way science works: Papers take years to develop. Yeah, Einstein published his work on general relativity in 1916, but he was working on it for years before that and in reality, work on relativity goes all the way back to Galileo. This isn't to say that scientists are telling artists what to paint (though that does happen...artists take discoveries in science and events in the news and use them as inspiration for their art), it does mean that artists are not "predicting" science. So yes, I would say that Cosmos is still very good today. It was grand in scope and concerned itself not just with nitty-gritty science but placed the science in its historical context and showed how it related to, well, life, the universe, and everything. The DVD version includes a feature that will show updated information during the narration. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Waysurfer Inactive Member |
Ah, "reading" has an expanded definition in my vocabulary thanks to books on tape (or CD). Most of my "reading" is while I drive--some have proposed this to be unsafe...maybe so. But that topic is for another place and time. If you have a well stocked public library, there may be hundreds of unabridged fiction and non-fiction titles for your enjoyment. I've read many over the years and have developed a greater degree of patience on the road. Strap on a walkman or discman and your options are expanded.
Happy reading. Dave
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Hey Rhain,
Do you have any comment's on Gould's use of ART while discussing that Paley was not a "perfectionist" that any Artist such as Balzac would have been?? I saw Sagan's COSMOS in NJ and was impressed that the table of elements presented an image that was not on any "table" (projected) from the screen into the living room or anywhere else for that matter. I guess later I thought this was only an elevator but still the techology that would be in Gould's idea of creationists seems frozen in A SAGANesque landscape at least as I later found less to like of Sagan hearing him get miffed when molecules were briskly passed by as the subject in a discussion at the A D WHITE house on Cornell Campus where Humanities rule...??? I was impressed with Balzac when I came across the author on my own in the Graduate library at CU but no one cares anymore for this stuff. Is Gould to go the way of Sagan??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6475 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: Well, they are both dead so I guess the answer is yes.
quote: Usually when I "briskly pass molecules" I point to the guy next to me.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024