This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Quite an interesting episode this evening. And one which has made my brain hurt.
In reply to The Lemming:
Be comforted that somewhere there's a universe where you understood it all effortlessly.
I thought it was OK, with more than the usual content of interesting ideas but so slow. Not as bad as the Horizon the other night about dark flow (where the entire new information content was in the last 3 minutes) but some of the links to the visually interesting place he happened to be standing were painfully tenuous.
Notable lack of whizzy CGI and I get that there's a deliberate focus on the human, but all a bit literal and often not a great deal of help in understanding big concepts.
> Quite an interesting episode this evening. And one which has made my brain hurt.
Be comforted that somewhere there's a universe where you understood it all effortlessly.
I thought it was OK, with more than the usual content of interesting ideas but so slow. Not as bad as the Horizon the other night about dark flow (where the entire new information content was in the last 3 minutes) but some of the links to the visually interesting place he happened to be standing were painfully tenuous.
Notable lack of whizzy CGI and I get that there's a deliberate focus on the human, but all a bit literal and often not a great deal of help in understanding big concepts.
In reply to The Lemming:
"It turns out if the speed of light was a bit slower, there'd be no carbon, if it was a bit faster, there'd be no oxygen" then he carried on without explaining this point at all - a bit annoying really given the ponderous pace for most of the of the programme.
"It turns out if the speed of light was a bit slower, there'd be no carbon, if it was a bit faster, there'd be no oxygen" then he carried on without explaining this point at all - a bit annoying really given the ponderous pace for most of the of the programme.
In reply to The Lemming:
I found the first one so slow that I stopped watching after ten minutes. I agree with 999thAndy that he labours for ages over trivial points and then just tosses something interesting in with no elaboration - very irritating.
I found the first one so slow that I stopped watching after ten minutes. I agree with 999thAndy that he labours for ages over trivial points and then just tosses something interesting in with no elaboration - very irritating.
In reply to The Lemming:
Can't stomach Cox. Just don't find him enjoyable to watch or listen to, which is a shame seeing as his subject area is a highly interesting one.
Can't stomach Cox. Just don't find him enjoyable to watch or listen to, which is a shame seeing as his subject area is a highly interesting one.
2
In reply to The Lemming:
he made his view on religion and gods known,but then again he is intelligent so there is only one option.
he made his view on religion and gods known,but then again he is intelligent so there is only one option.
In reply to mark s:
Step away from the blatant 'flaming'
I have no wish to turn this into a 'god bashing' thread please.
> he made his view on religion and gods known,but then again he is intelligent so there is only one option.
Step away from the blatant 'flaming'
I have no wish to turn this into a 'god bashing' thread please.
In reply to 999thAndy:
This has relations to constants of nature (speed of light, Plancks etc) and more particularly to the dimentionless "fine-structure" constant.
Changing the fine-structure constant by around 4% would be sufficient to prevent stars being able to sustain the nuclear reactions that synthesises carbon and oxygen. -4% = no carbon, +4% = no oxygen
It has been around a while (multi-dimensions, string theory etc.).
> "It turns out if the speed of light was a bit slower, there'd be no carbon, if it was a bit faster, there'd be no oxygen" then he carried on without explaining this point at all - a bit annoying really given the ponderous pace for most of the of the programme.
This has relations to constants of nature (speed of light, Plancks etc) and more particularly to the dimentionless "fine-structure" constant.
Changing the fine-structure constant by around 4% would be sufficient to prevent stars being able to sustain the nuclear reactions that synthesises carbon and oxygen. -4% = no carbon, +4% = no oxygen
It has been around a while (multi-dimensions, string theory etc.).
Post edited at 11:59
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:
It would be fair to say I'm still no wiser for reading your reply (although thanks for trying) I think ol' Coxy could've spent 5 or 10 minutes on it though (which he could do if he just got to the points a bit quicker in the rest of the show)
It would be fair to say I'm still no wiser for reading your reply (although thanks for trying) I think ol' Coxy could've spent 5 or 10 minutes on it though (which he could do if he just got to the points a bit quicker in the rest of the show)
In reply to 999thAndy:
If you are interested in this sort of thing I'd strongly recommend you watch the Storyville film 'Particle Fever' shown on BBC4 last night. It's on iPlayer for the next 4 weeks.
As well as explaining the implications of the value of the cosmological constant, and the supersymmetry vs multiverses arguments far better than the Human Universe programme did, it's a cracking story that was filmed during construction of the LHC and follows some key characters right through to the 5 sigma Higg's mass anouncement (complete with Peter Higgs having to wipe his eyes in the audience).
If you don't know why the alternate proposed masses for the Higg's boson of 115 and 140 GeV were so important and why the apparent real answer is so scary, you should watch! Absolutely brilliant.
If you are interested in this sort of thing I'd strongly recommend you watch the Storyville film 'Particle Fever' shown on BBC4 last night. It's on iPlayer for the next 4 weeks.
As well as explaining the implications of the value of the cosmological constant, and the supersymmetry vs multiverses arguments far better than the Human Universe programme did, it's a cracking story that was filmed during construction of the LHC and follows some key characters right through to the 5 sigma Higg's mass anouncement (complete with Peter Higgs having to wipe his eyes in the audience).
If you don't know why the alternate proposed masses for the Higg's boson of 115 and 140 GeV were so important and why the apparent real answer is so scary, you should watch! Absolutely brilliant.
Post edited at 09:21
In reply to The Lemming:
I have just watched both these programs on iplayer, after reading your thread, and thought they were quite good - the need to bring images into a video can be forgiven I think as that's what the media's all about - but concerning the contents all was fine for me except the last few minutes which left me puzzled, to say the least. The "explanation", as presented, doesn't seem much more of an answer than saying it is as it it is, full stop. Perhaps a third program is planned?
I have just watched both these programs on iplayer, after reading your thread, and thought they were quite good - the need to bring images into a video can be forgiven I think as that's what the media's all about - but concerning the contents all was fine for me except the last few minutes which left me puzzled, to say the least. The "explanation", as presented, doesn't seem much more of an answer than saying it is as it it is, full stop. Perhaps a third program is planned?
In reply to 999thAndy:
Sorry, think of the nuclear reaction in the star being a petrol engine with oxygen and carbon emissions.
Changing the fine-structure constant -4% would mean the fuel for the nuclear reaction engine would be diesel.
Changing the fine-structure constant +4% would mean the fuel for the nuclear reaction engine would be LPG.
Neither would sustain the engine so there would be no carbon and oxygen emissions.
Not the best analogy
Sorry, think of the nuclear reaction in the star being a petrol engine with oxygen and carbon emissions.
Changing the fine-structure constant -4% would mean the fuel for the nuclear reaction engine would be diesel.
Changing the fine-structure constant +4% would mean the fuel for the nuclear reaction engine would be LPG.
Neither would sustain the engine so there would be no carbon and oxygen emissions.
Not the best analogy
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:
OK so going off your analogy of the nuclear reaction engine producing LPG.
Neither would produce carbon or oxygen. But wouldn't they produce two different elements which given enough time would allow something completely different to evolve?
I'm sure that the Cricket Book rules would be ripped up, but wouldn't a new rule book be written for the universe to play by?
OK so going off your analogy of the nuclear reaction engine producing LPG.
Neither would produce carbon or oxygen. But wouldn't they produce two different elements which given enough time would allow something completely different to evolve?
I'm sure that the Cricket Book rules would be ripped up, but wouldn't a new rule book be written for the universe to play by?
In reply to The Lemming:
I saw this the other night - it's the first time I've seen a Brian Cox programme. I thought the cinematography was great, but it didn't feel clear to me why he was scooting round the world to explain all these things, it was all very slow, and he seems to be permanently smirking, which combine to not make me want to watch more.
I saw this the other night - it's the first time I've seen a Brian Cox programme. I thought the cinematography was great, but it didn't feel clear to me why he was scooting round the world to explain all these things, it was all very slow, and he seems to be permanently smirking, which combine to not make me want to watch more.
In reply to Tall Clare:
Its one of best examples of holidays on license payers fees television. Top Gear being the low brow epitome, there's plenty of others, posh bloke in insert mildly interesting or edgy location. Simon something or other. Toilet.
D
Its one of best examples of holidays on license payers fees television. Top Gear being the low brow epitome, there's plenty of others, posh bloke in insert mildly interesting or edgy location. Simon something or other. Toilet.
D
In reply to Tall Clare:
I've watched most of his stuff. Even though I find it very entertaining and informative I don't think that I've actually learnt anything. I find it a bit like watching a comedian performing a perfect show which you find enjoyable from start to finish, however come the next morning you don't remember what was discussed.
Its light entertainment, and I too am getting tired of seeing Coxy looking wistfully towards the horizon.
> I saw this the other night - it's the first time I've seen a Brian Cox programme.
I've watched most of his stuff. Even though I find it very entertaining and informative I don't think that I've actually learnt anything. I find it a bit like watching a comedian performing a perfect show which you find enjoyable from start to finish, however come the next morning you don't remember what was discussed.
Its light entertainment, and I too am getting tired of seeing Coxy looking wistfully towards the horizon.
In reply to The Lemming:
Watch the LHC film. It's the antidote to all that and will teach you more science and show you more about the lives of real scientists than Cox's programmes ever will. (Despite the fact that he worked at CERN, it's not really his fault, it's how the programmes are written and directed).
Watch the LHC film. It's the antidote to all that and will teach you more science and show you more about the lives of real scientists than Cox's programmes ever will. (Despite the fact that he worked at CERN, it's not really his fault, it's how the programmes are written and directed).
In reply to Dave Garnett:
I'll be honest, I've seen most of the LHC film and most of it went way over my head. However there was one point that I could not help notice, the show was mostly made up of 'talking heads' discussing stuff far beyond my grasp. And what was worse, from my perspective, it wasn't all that entertaining. The huge disco/party was very entertaining to see 'brain-boxes' off their tits partying.
Some how the Human Universe series, for me has some how jumped the gap from 'talking heads' to dumbing down science to my level while making each episode entertaining enough to make me want to rush home from work to watch them.
In fact, I have found the last two episodes exceptionally interesting and thought provoking as to my place within the universe and why I am here.
Do I believe in a god?
Yes.
Do I believe that there are other planets out there that can support life?
Yes
Do I believe that we are alone?
Probably, yes.
Excellent series and I look forward to the final episode next week.
> Watch the LHC film.
I'll be honest, I've seen most of the LHC film and most of it went way over my head. However there was one point that I could not help notice, the show was mostly made up of 'talking heads' discussing stuff far beyond my grasp. And what was worse, from my perspective, it wasn't all that entertaining. The huge disco/party was very entertaining to see 'brain-boxes' off their tits partying.
Some how the Human Universe series, for me has some how jumped the gap from 'talking heads' to dumbing down science to my level while making each episode entertaining enough to make me want to rush home from work to watch them.
In fact, I have found the last two episodes exceptionally interesting and thought provoking as to my place within the universe and why I am here.
Do I believe in a god?
Yes.
Do I believe that there are other planets out there that can support life?
Yes
Do I believe that we are alone?
Probably, yes.
Excellent series and I look forward to the final episode next week.
In reply to The Lemming:
OK, fair enough. I guess I liked it because I could identify with the enthusiasm of the team working on the project. I was a biologist, so we tended not to have quite such big toys, but I remember (with some nostalgia) the fun of being in an exciting and fast-moving research area and working in the village atmosphere of a research institution.
I thought the rapping was pretty good. I've been to worse departmental
parties. Much worse!
I get the Drake arguments but most of the values for the terms in the equation are complete guesses. The estimated time required for multicellular life to evolve is based on a single data point (us), and we don't even have that as an indication for how long a civilised species survives on average. I suspect that's a pretty multi-modal distribution and will depend on whether it's technologically possible for species to become space-faring and to colonise other planets.
All I can say is that every time we've decided we really do occupy a unique postion in the universe we've been proved wrong.
> (In reply to Dave Garnett)
>
> [...]
>
> I'll be honest, I've seen most of the LHC film and most of it went way over my head. However there was one point that I could not help notice, the show was mostly made up of 'talking heads' discussing stuff far beyond my grasp.
>
> [...]
>
> I'll be honest, I've seen most of the LHC film and most of it went way over my head. However there was one point that I could not help notice, the show was mostly made up of 'talking heads' discussing stuff far beyond my grasp.
OK, fair enough. I guess I liked it because I could identify with the enthusiasm of the team working on the project. I was a biologist, so we tended not to have quite such big toys, but I remember (with some nostalgia) the fun of being in an exciting and fast-moving research area and working in the village atmosphere of a research institution.
> The huge disco/party was very entertaining to see 'brain-boxes' off their tits partying.
I thought the rapping was pretty good. I've been to worse departmental
parties. Much worse!
>
> Do I believe that we are alone?
> Probably, yes.
>
> Do I believe that we are alone?
> Probably, yes.
>
I get the Drake arguments but most of the values for the terms in the equation are complete guesses. The estimated time required for multicellular life to evolve is based on a single data point (us), and we don't even have that as an indication for how long a civilised species survives on average. I suspect that's a pretty multi-modal distribution and will depend on whether it's technologically possible for species to become space-faring and to colonise other planets.
All I can say is that every time we've decided we really do occupy a unique postion in the universe we've been proved wrong.
In reply to The Lemming:
Just caught up on the last episode of this series, and I have to say that this has been the most entertaining and informative thing that I have seen on the telly, ever.
Some of the facts bandied about during the last episode were mind boggling yet I was left with a feeling of hope that the world can come together for the future of our species. It was most definitely worth every penny of my TV licence fee.
It may have been dumbed down for this pleb, but I liked it.
Just caught up on the last episode of this series, and I have to say that this has been the most entertaining and informative thing that I have seen on the telly, ever.
Some of the facts bandied about during the last episode were mind boggling yet I was left with a feeling of hope that the world can come together for the future of our species. It was most definitely worth every penny of my TV licence fee.
It may have been dumbed down for this pleb, but I liked it.
In reply to The Lemming:
And to think we get Life Story thrown in as well - pity the BBC-less rest-of-the-world
> It was most definitely worth every penny of my TV licence fee.
And to think we get Life Story thrown in as well - pity the BBC-less rest-of-the-world
In reply to The Lemming:
I am not sure what happened in the episodes following the one re: ball/feather. But Lemming, given you mention liking mind boggling facts... you may find the following well known snippet quite interesting:
If the history of the universe were crammed in to one year with the big bang happening at 00:00 on January 1st, then the 5th of December was 1 billion years ago and humans didn't appear until eight minutes to midnight on December the 31st.
More can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Calendar
I am not sure what happened in the episodes following the one re: ball/feather. But Lemming, given you mention liking mind boggling facts... you may find the following well known snippet quite interesting:
If the history of the universe were crammed in to one year with the big bang happening at 00:00 on January 1st, then the 5th of December was 1 billion years ago and humans didn't appear until eight minutes to midnight on December the 31st.
More can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Calendar
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
Some of the amazing facts related to the Saturn 5 rocket and how much energy was needed to get to the moon, which got me doing a bit of googling.
https://aparanjape.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/10-fascinating-factoids-about-t...
http://www.apollosaturn.com/facts_figs.htm
> But Lemming, given you mention liking mind boggling facts...
Some of the amazing facts related to the Saturn 5 rocket and how much energy was needed to get to the moon, which got me doing a bit of googling.
https://aparanjape.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/10-fascinating-factoids-about-t...
http://www.apollosaturn.com/facts_figs.htm
In reply to The Lemming:
Did not get the bit about fusion.
Those little pellets might be able to power your house for a day, but what about the 21 massive lasers required to make them? No power saved there and plenty of emissions created...
Did not get the bit about fusion.
Those little pellets might be able to power your house for a day, but what about the 21 massive lasers required to make them? No power saved there and plenty of emissions created...
In reply to rubbercrumb:
But as technology advances, doesn't stuff get smaller and more energy efficient?
> Did not get the bit about fusion.
> Those little pellets might be able to power your house for a day, but what about the 21 massive lasers required to make them? No power saved there and plenty of emissions created...
But as technology advances, doesn't stuff get smaller and more energy efficient?
1
In reply to The Lemming:
Possibly, but he rather glossed over the how before announcing its potential to save human civilisation, it seemed to me.
Possibly, but he rather glossed over the how before announcing its potential to save human civilisation, it seemed to me.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...