Carl Sagan: Underappreciated Genius

[RidonKs]

just finished the second episode of cosmos blazed off my tree. holy fooking gawd.

i must say the entire concept of a cosmic calendar to put things into perspective is absolutely brilliant. i wonder if he was the first to use it.

YES

[Jasper]

The question ultimately becomes, 'where there ever be another?'

I'm not so sure... There are a ton of geniuses out there and we have probably reached a point well beyond the things that Sagan was discovering and teaching. His true genius was not in his discoveries, though. His genius was in how easily he was able to communicate his findings and the principles (from intermediate to complex) theories of astronomy.

Scientists tend to be a standoffish breed, in many of my encounters. While they can write a 200-page research paper on the most complex theories, they are at a loss when trying to explain what it really means to a layman.

I just feel like he was a one-of-a-kind genius that we won't see again in our lifetime. Some of his messages resonate and hit a chord that only the greatest philosophers to ever live can challenge.

He had me spellbound as a child. Now, 20 years later, I am equally spellbound and astonished by the vastness of his knowledge and the ease with which he could discuss the complexities of the universe, our place in the cosmic arena and the potential of the human mind.

I think some of our current scientists are not fully duvulging (spl.) some of their insightfullness for a couple of reasons I have been pondering about ever since the Bush administration.

I keep tab's on NASA periodically , but the assumption about why they are trying to determine the history of Mars and whats their take on exploration is not letting the public fully in on their directives.
IMO I think the Hubble has shown them that something serious is coming our way and I am not talking about the Telabon - nut cases.
I am thinking that there just might be a meteror or something that is bearing down on us , maybe in 100 years or so.
To assume they could migrate to Mars and keep our human race active is one thing , but for future generations they would seriously need to locate a planet that would be similar to our own.
When Bush stated that he wanted to use the moon as a jumping platform for scientific studies to Mars , now they are checking to see if the MOON actually has ice (H2O) there

Say for instance the planet got nuc'ed , the idea that the United Nations would not get 100% involved seems to tell me that scientists around the world were possibly hushed , about something that is coming our way.

Our world society , besides technology is in its baby steps , so if by chance they are truely aware of something cosmic , we are not being told.

[RidonKs]

I think some of our current scientists are not fully duvulging (spl.) some of their insightfullness for a couple of reasons I have been pondering about ever since the Bush administration.

I keep tab's on NASA periodically , but the assumption about why they are trying to determine the history of Mars and whats their take on exploration is not letting the public fully in on their directives.
IMO I think the Hubble has shown them that something serious is coming our way and I am not talking about the Telabon - nut cases.
I am thinking that there just might be a meteror or something that is bearing down on us , maybe in 100 years or so.
To assume they could migrate to Mars and keep our human race active is one thing , but for future generations they would seriously need to locate a planet that would be similar to our own.
When Bush stated that he wanted to use the moon as a jumping platform for scientific studies to Mars , now they are checking to see if the MOON actually has ice (H2O) there

Say for instance the planet got nuc'ed , the idea that the United Nations would not get 100% involved seems to tell me that scientists around the world were possibly hushed , about something that is coming our way.

Our world society , besides technology is in its baby steps , so if by chance they are truely aware of something cosmic , we are not being told.

there is an asteroid coming towards earth, around 300 meters wide. and according to predictions, it isn't going to pass by in a hundred years or so, it's going to pass by in twenty-seven years or so. 2036. now there remains just a fraction of a chance that it collides with the planet - according to wiki, when it was discovered in 2004 there was around a 2.7 percent chance of collision, and that number has since decreased dramatically to about 1 in 250,000. still, it's the largest observable object that has ever passed this close to earth. if there still remains a chance that the asteroid may hit our planet (however minuscule that chance may be and continue becoming), why would the scientists let that bit of info slip?

you use commas weird.

[No.45]

"Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known."

- Carl Sagan

[RidonKs]

[QUOTE=No.45]"Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there

[gigantes]

very neat. imagine how fun it would have been to see those two in their primes, sitting in armchairs and shooting the s[COLOR="Black"]h[/COLOR]it with one another. i would pay a whole hell of a lot of money to see that.

i don't think we need to. they both would have replicated huge swaths of information, just via different styles.

the fact that one remembers the other and sublimates him in his message and in his research is the way these formulas are supposed to work, have always worked, and do in fact work.

[RidonKs]

i don't think we need to. they both would have replicated huge swaths of information, just via different styles.

the fact that one remembers the other and sublimates him in his message and in his research is the way these formulas are supposed to work, have always worked, and do in fact work.

clearly. but as a fan of these two particular gentleman, i'd be thrilled to see them sit down in all of their brilliance and have a conversation about the cosmos. maybe more so even than einstein and newton - because 9/10s of what they said would go over my head. tyson and sagan can speak in laymen, and would therefore be fascinating to watch. it's similar to any basketball fan who would be thrilled to watch jordan and lebron match up one on one. it would be an absolute blast.

[gigantes]

it really wouldn't, and that's my whole point.

jordan vs. lebron would be close to a standstill. each would bring some unique skills to the table and each would negate some of the others' strength. it's only a fantasy matchup the way that kids think that fighting bugs are an interesting fantasy matchup.

the real genius and interest level is in their impact across a team.

remove yourself from the video / technology age and you have to deal with the fact that only one guru is generally available at a time. it's the universality of their message that is the whole point, and always has been.

[RidonKs]

you're absolutely chalkful of insanity. so because lebron and mike excel at providing opportunities for their teammates, watching them battle each other in a 1v1 match of the ages wouldn't be exciting? the very fact that it is a standstill makes it such an intense event to behold. two of the most explosive athletes - from any sport - going against each other with no mitigating factors. find me a fan of basketball who wouldn't LOVE to see that.

it really wouldn't, and that's my whole point.

it would be - i'm astounded that you can't grasp my point. these are two of the most communicative scientists since the dawn of the scientific era. their ability to use speech in translating complex theories of physics and biology and chemistry - to give a layman like myself (and from what i understand, you as well) a better chance at grasping significance - is not something you can discard.

i don't want to hear them have a conversation about the cosmos because they're the two most intelligent men to have ever walked the planet. but as academic heroes of mine, and as transmitters of knowledge to the general public, it would be an awesome experience to hear these two - both of the same breed and equally capable in expressing themselves - to go over the advancements of astrophysics over the past 40 years. forget that they come from different eras. i'm taking them for what they are - communicators of science to the general public - which includes me - and wishing that i could hear them talk to one another.

i don't know how i can explain it any simpler than that.

remove yourself from the video / technology age and you have to deal with the fact that only one guru is generally available at a time. it's the universality of their message that is the whole point, and always has been.

i have no idea where this came from, but i wouldn't mind hearing you elaborate.

[Ben Jordan]

wow! thanks for the hulu link. tonight is a great night to blaze and watch something like this.

[gigantes]

you're absolutely chalkful of insanity. so because lebron and mike excel...

heh... i like your "chalkful" comment. a style or two insult point there.

your basic fixation is that two interesting geniuses across history are so much better having lived in the same time and having played off of each other for the public's benefit. this has been true already in many cases already (newton vs. leibniz, davinci vs. michelangelo, even roman gladiator v/s gladiator) and can be imagined in many other cases. all i am really saying is that since we rarely get to see the direct matchup, we are left to surmise upon the clues both emit and might as well be realistic about the situation. and we are left to ponder what their individual might is versus their teaching ability. that is the whole key.

and i don't disagree with anything you've said, i just try to look at the whole situation more pragmatically.

i have no idea where this came from, but i wouldn't mind hearing you elaborate.

think about it, ridonks, and imagine how human history went. imagine how the history of teaching and betterment went and why we long-ago arrived at the jungian archetype of the teacher needing to die before the pupil can really progress. you'll find that dynamic across all cultures, all religions, all civilisations. it's the same reason why comparing players across the decades or centuries is fruitless and is left to only our childish natures.

[RidonKs]

i know what you're saying now.

ready for my rebuttal? wishing that a dead guy and an alive guy could have a cool conversation about nerdy stuff like physics isn't pragmatic. its idealistic fantasy. so looking at it on pragmatic terms? yeah, that's not going to work well. i'm aware.

my off-hand comment, which i have a feeling you read just a wee bit too far into, was that it would be fun - FUN - to conceive of a hypothetical scenario consisting of one dead guy and one living guy discussing their passions with one another in their easily accessible fashion for which they have both become so renowned. thats it. nothing else. i don't want to undo history, and i don't want to pit these two against one another to see who is really the 'better' scientist. just want to hear the conversation.

lol

think about it, ridonks, and imagine how human history went. imagine how the history of teaching and betterment went and why we long-ago arrived at the jungian archetype of the teacher needing to die before the pupil can really progress. you'll find that dynamic across all cultures, all religions, all civilisations. it's the same reason why comparing players across the decades or centuries is fruitless and is left to only our childish natures.

this makes sense. but it doesn't necessarily follow this:

remove yourself from the video / technology age and you have to deal with the fact that only one guru is generally available at a time.

which is just way too bold.

we're on the same general page though.

[gigantes]

you're a good man, understand much, and i'm someone who generally only drops by this section when i'm half-drunk, bored, and not in the mood to fully elaborate the vagaries of my ramblings, however accurate or inaccurate they may be.

if we happen to tango again across the dimension of ISH then i, for one, would not complain.

[RedBlackAttack]

Nice convo, fellas. Glad to see this thread is still alive and kicking. Good sh#t from both of you.

I sent my mom the video of Sagan's 'A Glorious Dawn' mashup and she let me know that she has the entire seven DVD set of Cosmos. I went and picked them up today... I'm about to dive into Disc 1. It has been a long time (and it isn't the same watching it streaming online when compared to watching it on a 50" plasma as much as I appreciate Hulu's efforts).

Btw, have you guys looked into the Kepler Telescope, which will scan the horizon looking at suns and planets outside of our own solar system in search of Earth-like habitats? Crazy sh#t. I can't help but to think that Carl would be all over this.

http://www.space.com/searchforlife/0...ust-cover.html

[RidonKs]

gigantes. pretty sure i've screamed at you once or twice for your condescending nature, but i'd rather deal with that than an uninformed idiot. ;)



i just finished the third episode of cosmos. i sort of wish carl hadn't dedicated a full quarter of the episode to explaining why newspaper horoscopes are phony bologna, but whatever. at least he maintained his eloquent manner. lol

i hadn't, but i just checked it out. let me see if i've got this right - they use a photometer to measure the luminosity of some 100,000 stars around the universe, at intervals of 30 minutes. as planets orbit the stars, the apparent brightness from our angle will get slightly dimmer, and that in turn will allow us to determine the size of the planet - based on the size and composition of the star. does the star appear less luminous because the planet of interest has come between us and the star, or is it some strange shadow effect that i can't wrap my head around right now?



this is a little older, but i just saw it yesterday - awesome step by step to imagining dimensions beyond ours:

Part 1
Part 2

he's got some other cool videos too. in one he compares our inability to properly envision the higher dimensions with plato's allegory of the cave.