Soulless Astronomy x Soulful Astronomy, the future of S@N

[Scosmico]

The death of Sir Patrick Moore opened a new battleground.

The battle between Soulless Astronomy and Soulful Astronomy has began.

On the left is Prof. Cox the new prophet of a kind of Astronomy that I call Soulless.

Soulless Astronomy is beautifully technical, rational to the core. Where emotions are counted no felt. Physical/Chemical reactions.You see the results of researches. They are connect to the Astronomical dimension and tell you how it is.

On the right corner is(was) Sir Patrick Moore. Symbol of a kind of Astronomy that I call Soulful.

Soulful Astronomy is passion. It doesn't need to be explained technically, but fundamentally needs to be felt, experienced. They show how they did but you have to do it for yourself.

I don't see right or wrong here, just a kind of Ying Young.

Intrinsically, one has got each other.

Dr Chris Lintott was, lets say, Skyatnight's dot of Young in its Ying. In the same way I see Mark Thompson or Dara O'Brian in the Stargazing live team.

To hold the balance in the Universe, in my opinion I would like to see Pete, Brian or Paul on the lead of S@N.

Soulful Astronomer.

[John]

Chris Lintott is a member of this forum I believe.

Can we keep the discussion respectful please ?.

Thanks

[Astro_Gaz]

Si Patrick Moore was a massive inspiration in my life, he got me into gaming (games master) along with star gazing. I do enjoy watching Brian Cox & co I think they are making science cool for the masses

[Astro_Gaz]

I think it would be difficult for anyone to take over sir Patrick Moore

[Alastair Rae]

Bit of a false dichotomy, I think. All the folk you mention have demonstrated their own personal passion for things astronomical. A scientific bent does not make you soulless.

[ronin]

Isn't it the Chinese philosophy Yin and Yang ?

Not Ying and Young.

There are posts elsewhere about the on-going future of S@N.

Seems it is.

[Astro_Gaz]

Isn't it the Chinese philosophy Yin and Yang ?

Not Ying and Young.

There are posts elsewhere about the on-going future of S@N.

Seems it is.

Good point

[Andy McK]

I found the last episode of S@N very similar to all the other, recent, episodes. (besides the obvious)

I still enjoyed the "passion" that all the presenters seemed to posses.

Sir Patrick's chair is still warm, so give the team a chance to settle in.

I think the best time to discuss this topic, will be next January.

Andy

[nightfisher]

I watched this months episode today on catch up, and really enjoyed it, I would be more than happy for any of the current presenters to continue where sir patrick bowed out

[jabberwocky]

Bearing in mind Brian cox is an amateur astronomer like us personally I think he is great on stargazing live, even better on the after show when he is released from the tight constraints of a rigid script, he is chomping at the bit to just let his enthusiasm flood out, anything but souless!

[knobby]

I like B.C.... He's young enough to relate to youngsters and clued up enough to relate to us oldies.

he definitely knows his stuff and oozes enthusiasm

Just my opinion, but he has grown on me over the last few months.

I'm sure Sir Patrick wouldn't mind us discussing the future of S@N, I believe he would be happy that it will go on to inspire more into our hobby...

I'm rambling now

[Ant]

How anyone can call Brian Cox soulless is beyond me.

I quite like Professor Cox, and in a lot of ways he reminds me of Patrick Moore. They are both amateur astronomers, they both love talking and teaching astronomy, and they are both really passionate about it.

I really saddens me that every time this subject comes up it seems that you cannot discuss it without insulting Brian Cox or Chris Linnot. I am not Patrick Moore's greatest fan, but he did have an infectious enthusiasm and I do think that he astronomy community will miss him greatly.

The biggest mistake that anyone will make is trying to replace Patrick, it is not possible! If you try to replace Patrick you will fail - that is not to say that you cannot find someone equally as good, dare I say it even better... But not the same.

So lets show some respect for people, and remember that it's not black and white. You can like and miss Patrick Moore without slagging of other people.

Ant

[JimFR]

Hear Hear, Well spoken, Bruce !

[Cath]

Anyone that tries to open peoples minds beyond eastenders and such like and brings science to the general public is fine by me !!

[Star Gazer]

Cath, you are spot on.

[Extreme Fencer]

I felt the last S&N program was fresh but still came across as the Original program perhaps even more similar to when Sir Patrick was younger and able to travel. Yes the younger members of the team reported from overseas and around the country but to see the whole team plus guests remorting from Greenich was great especially as it included real folk like us getting tips on their own gear.

Paul Abbell is also a member of this forum if you read this Paul please pass on my thanks to the team.

Keep it up I say. Well done

[Treeden]

The death of Sir Patrick Moore opened a new battleground...

And maybe if you actively search for a 'battleground' you may just convince yourself that you've found one? Personally, I don't believe one exists at all, but I do think topics like this are negative and can be devisive.

Perhaps more importantly, just how many topics do we now have that cover the subject of SPM's passing, and the future of 'The Sky At Night' tv programme? It must be at least a dozen by now if not more? Maybe it would be better if we chose one and made it a sticky, then restricted posts to that one topic? Just about everything that can be said has been said, so why not encourage people to read what has already been said first, then respond in one place?

Sorry for the negativity, but we seem to be repeating ourselves here.

[TheMightyKong]

They'll all different to SPM. SPM was the best precisely for his enthusiasm but I feel he had difficulty conveying that enthusiasm in this last programs under the burden of age, infirmity and illness. I think Brian Cox is pretty good and will expand the appeal of the program to other demographics. He does have that stylistic tic of saying everything is amazing and staring off into the distance; but I can forgive him for that.

Kermode does Cox

[SniffTheGlove]

I wonder where the current S@N team will broadcast from in future episodes?

It does not matter who really presents S@N as even in Patrick's Autobiography he says that it is the subject matter and not the presenter. The current team are great and if they continue down the same vein of getting great guests onboard then it will stay the same great show like Patrick wants.

[fredster]

I don't care who leads the way on S@N just as long as Lucie Green becomes a permanent fixture She's brill!!!!!

And Prof Brian Cox is great too. He has his own style and long may he keep it.

All that matters at the end of the day is we have decent astronomy related programs on the TV. Why does there need to be a battle or slagging off match?

[Mik3]

I also like Brian Cox, he has a real passion for astronomy and shows it in every series he does and always has a constant smile.

[astro mick]

The current team are exerllent,and will do Patrick proud.I really cant fault any of them,and they gel perfectly.

Loved Patrick immensely,as we all did,but his Legacy and programme will go on.(Magic).

Mick.

[Scosmico]

All people mentioned are good professionals that bring good entertainment to my home, and I didn't call anyone soulless.

That said, the dichotomy mentioned is related to the Astronomy made in laboratories represented by Brian Cox. And Amateur Astronomy that Sir Patrick Moore represented really well.

Stargazing is the soul of Astronomy.

There is no problem bringing science to the general public. But It does not reach my heart. I don't see my love to Astronomy reflected in a cascade of scientific data.

It is Astronomy with love that I miss. And I don't want to lose the only program that I consider made by Amateur Astronomers to Amateur Astronomers. Sky at Night.

I value the scientific data that is brought into the program and the magazine by Chris. Without the "Astro- labs" I would not know the ephemerides of asteroid Vesta to enjoy it. I hope the S@N team doesn't let it to become another stargazing live without stargazing. It would be even worse, as the program is recorded.

I agree that the team made an enjoyable the first S@N without Sir Patrick. I loved to see people setting up their telescopes, being told how to use their telescopes etc. However, why the planetarium, that we see on the magazine's CD, not covered in the program? There is a lot of topics out there like occultations, how to make a Bathinov mask etc, things that Amateurs are willing to see and learn.

*This post is not about the TV presenters but what they are delivering.*

[knobby]

Its nice to see this thread heading in an positive direction

[fredster]

All people mentioned are good professionals that bring good entertainment to my home, and I didn't call anyone soulless.

That said, the dichotomy mentioned is related to the Astronomy made in laboratories represented by Brian Cox. And Amateur Astronomy that Sir Patrick Moore represented really well.

Stargazing is the soul of Astronomy.

There is no problem bringing science to the general public. But It does not reach my heart. I don't see my love to Astronomy reflected in a cascade of scientific data.

It is Astronomy with love that I miss. And I don't want to lose the only program that I consider made by Amateur Astronomers to Amateur Astronomers. Sky at Night.

I value the scientific data that is brought into the program and the magazine by Chris. Without the "Astro- labs" I would not know the ephemerides of asteroid Vesta to enjoy it. I hope the S@N team doesn't let it to become another stargazing live without stargazing. It would be even worse, as the program is recorded.

I agree that the team made an enjoyable the first S@N without Sir Patrick. I loved to see people setting up their telescopes, being told how to use their telescopes etc. However, why the planetarium, that we see on the magazine's CD, not covered in the program? There is a lot of topics out there like occultations, how to make a Bathinov mask etc, things that Amateurs are willing to see and learn.

*This post is not about the TV presenters but what they are delivering.*

I see where you are coming from now, it wasn't completely clear in your first post. Too many big words for me to understand. But i agree, Sky @ Night is a programme for stargazers and Stargazing Live has little to do with Stargazing but both are very enjoyable in their own way.