Just watched the first episode... think my brain melted..
Just about to watch it now.
I really enjoyed the previous series, Wonders of the Solar System (iirc). I'm hoping that this will be produced in the same way, not too dumbed down :)
It does seem a bit dumbed down, but then I guess considering the facts and figures they are dealing with on a literally cosmic scale, it's no surprise really. The thought of it all does make your brain melt.
Sadly I had to make do with standard def iPlayer to watch it :disappointed:
It is quite dumbed down sadly, but anything that gets the general public interested in science is all good as far as I'm concerned.
Yeah it was a little more dumbed down than the previous series but I still enjoyed it.
It made me realise that there is no point in working hard and trying to better myself; after all, at some point in the far flung future everyone's going to cease to exist anyway.
I'm off for booze and birds :D
::)
To be fair that is a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years away or something, it's not like you've missed the last bus home :lol:
It does make existence seem pretty bleak, but then I sit back and assume that by that time the human race will have evolved into Gods or some sort of 'Q' like entity collective. Or maybe we'll learn how to dimension hop and go some place else for bi-WINNING action when this dimension starts to lose.
Man it is all for nothing isnt it.. and the worst thing is, we wont even live to see it become worthless..
Reminds me of when Homer Simpson said "That's horrible, I won't even live to see my children die!" :lol:
I think the presenter is really good, he is really good at what he does, but I did too find that it was dumbed down quite a lot, and although he got his point across I felt that there were a few gaps
.. I'm not really sure how to explain it, it like saying ok we have a fact "A polar bear is white" then pointing to something else that is unknown, but you know it is white, and therefore coming to the conclusion that it's a polar bear...
Ok maybe that's a bit of a rubbish analogy, but does anyone kind of know what I mean?
I think it maybe that a lot of the stuff he was saying was based on "fact", which were in actually theories, not facts. Maybe I'm just being picky on how stuff is represented, and want a big disclaimer saying that these logical steps have been derived from these theories, or maybe my brain just fried and I just didn't get it properly!
Anyway if anyone wants to see "lectures" on this type of thing/pretty much everything or some of Brian Cox's short vids he has done about CERN then get yourself over to TED.com (http://www.ted.com), I have spent hours on there and there are some really interesting subjects (some are less interesting)
I know what you mean.. i think assuming that the dead cores of suns will eventually dissipate is a bit muchm.. theres not exactly much in the way of weather to wear them into nothing is there. Then again.. the time scales they are talking about are insane.
A lot of theoretical physics im sure, damn good Tv though.
I'm not sure it was even quite that, I can sort of understand the dissipation, it was more about time and why it progresses
I think my problem is, when I was a kid, I used to take apart all of my toys, as I needed to know how they worked... I couldn't just be told that they do, and see the end result..
That episode was kind of like giving me a few different toys, telling me what each of them do, but not being allowed to take them apart and understand exactly how they work?
Or was that another rubbish analogy! :D
I think making a programme of this nature much present a huge challenge. How far do you go in simplifying and attempting to explain to the layman the complex phsyics of the universe, what analogies can you use? Where do you draw the line on what needs to be explained and what can be left as a common-knowledge type concept or what should be quickly presented as fact rather than theory? It would have been very easy to make even that first episode run to two or three hours just on the subjects of time and entropy alone.
Quote from: Clock'd 0Ne on March 09, 2011, 00:10:51 AM
I think making a programme of this nature much present a huge challenge. How far do you go in simplifying and attempting to explain to the layman the complex phsyics of the universe, what analogies can you use? Where do you draw the line on what needs to be explained and what can be left as a common-knowledge type concept or what should be quickly presented as fact rather than theory? It would have been very easy to make even that first episode run to two or three hours just on the subjects of time and entropy alone.
You do indeed have a point! I'd watch it for 3 hours though :)
I think however the things that came across as being facts, should have been highlighted as theories, as that would have been quick to do, and would perhaps give the viewer more of an idea what was still theoretical, and still not a known in science.
Would perhaps give the viewer an opportunity to look in to it further. Maybe I'm not the demographic they are aiming for, and my knowledge of this type science is a little more, don't get me wrong I'm no expert, not even really a novice, but the whole big bang / universe thing really interests me and leaves me in awe just thinking about it!
Quote from: XEntity on March 09, 2011, 00:46:21 AM
I think however the things that came across as being facts, should have been highlighted as theories, as that would have been quick to do, and would perhaps give the viewer more of an idea what was still theoretical, and still not a known in science
You do know in science a theory isn't some kind of guess we came up with in the pub on a Friday night? A scientific theory is our best approximation of what explains the facts. To say "that's not a fact, it's just a theory" undermines the whole concept of the scientific method and makes you sound like a creationist whining that "evolution is just a theory". A theory has undergone comprehensive testing, verification and challenge and shown to stand up and explain the observed facts.
Quote from: Goblin on March 09, 2011, 08:10:16 AM
Quote from: XEntity on March 09, 2011, 00:46:21 AM
I think however the things that came across as being facts, should have been highlighted as theories, as that would have been quick to do, and would perhaps give the viewer more of an idea what was still theoretical, and still not a known in science
You do know in science a theory isn't some kind of guess we came up with in the pub on a Friday night? A scientific theory is our best approximation of what explains the facts. To say "that's not a fact, it's just a theory" undermines the whole concept of the scientific method and makes you sound like a creationist whining that "evolution is just a theory". A theory has undergone comprehensive testing, verification and challenge and shown to stand up and explain the observed facts.
Exactly. People whining and bitching about how you need to add disclaimers stating things are only "theories" seems to have started with the recent media attention that creationist loons have been getting. Anyone who even attended school for a few science lessons and has at least one functioning brain cell should know that scientific theories like these are rigorously tested as much as possible and stand up to very careful scrutiny.
I think the point he's making is that some of the theories are in their infancy and very conceptual or have no documented proofs yet, or thee are other theoretical possibilities; we can see and observe gravity but we can't see and observe the dissipation of the universe at the end of time to present it as fact.
^^^ what he said
Quote from: Clock'd 0Ne on March 09, 2011, 10:03:31 AM
I think the point he's making is that some of the theories are in their infancy and very conceptual or have no documented proofs yet
No, no, no, no, no.
A theory that is in its infancy and has no documented evidence (proofs only exist in pure mathematics) is called a *hypothesis*, not a theory. These are well defined terms in science, lay use of the same words is irrelevant.
You're correct, but these arn't programmes aimed at scientists are they, they are aimed at the layperson and I suspect use of the word 'theory' in these contexts is in the hypothetical sense rather than the scientific sense.
No doubt I'm going to make myself look like a complete tool but there is one thing, yes just one, that is rubbing against me...
Surely the theory of evolution is in direct conflict with the 2nd law of Thermodynamics ?
Evolution describes the process by which life, a complex system, develops.
Entropy dictates that everything devolves towards it's simplest state.
So for life to evolve from a single celled organism wouldn't it have to break the 2nd law ?
I don't expect an answer but it does make me realise how much I don't understand :(
Quote from: Nimrod on March 09, 2011, 16:54:46 PM
No doubt I'm going to make myself look like a complete tool but there is one thing, yes just one, that is rubbing against me...
Surely the theory of evolution is in direct conflict with the 2nd law of Thermodynamics ?
Evolution describes the process by which life, a complex system, develops.
Entropy dictates that everything devolves towards it's simplest state.
So for life to evolve from a single celled organism wouldn't it have to break the 2nd law ?
I don't expect an answer but it does make me realise how much I don't understand :(
That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics, which describes what happens in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system, there is constant energy exchange coming from the sun and being lost from the atmosphere. The Earth is one small part of an ultimately closed system (assuming the universe is a closed system into which energy cannot enter, nor can it escape). Localised complexity is absolutely not an issue.
For this same reason, we get localised effects in the universe like galaxies forming. The ultimate fate may be heat death, but that is a long, long time away, somewhere in the region of 10^1000 years. Considering we're currently at around 10^10 years since the big bang, the universe is still barely getting started on its journey to maximum entropy, so blobs of low entropy are to be expected.
I typed out all the 0s in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 years and now I forgot what I was gonna say.
http://www.exitmundi.nl/exitmundi.htm
edit; oh yeah, what if the universe was artifical..
Quote from: Pete on March 09, 2011, 18:47:04 PM
I typed out all the 0s in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 years and now I forgot what I was gonna say.
http://www.exitmundi.nl/exitmundi.htm
edit; oh yeah, what if the universe was artifical..
This was covered in some depth in the Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy. I believe the conclusion was "who cares?"
Quote from: Goblin on March 09, 2011, 08:10:16 AM
Quote from: XEntity on March 09, 2011, 00:46:21 AM
I think however the things that came across as being facts, should have been highlighted as theories, as that would have been quick to do, and would perhaps give the viewer more of an idea what was still theoretical, and still not a known in science
You do know in science a theory isn't some kind of guess we came up with in the pub on a Friday night? A scientific theory is our best approximation of what explains the facts. To say "that's not a fact, it's just a theory" undermines the whole concept of the scientific method and makes you sound like a creationist whining that "evolution is just a theory". A theory has undergone comprehensive testing, verification and challenge and shown to stand up and explain the observed facts.
I think both you and Quix missed my point here entirely, I expect I'm actually rubbish at explaining what I mean (Which is fairly evident from my previous 2 posts). But I'm extremely clear on what a theory is, and have no misconception that somebody just came along and said "I think..." and I am by no means a creationist.
I'm not saying that you need a disclaimer either, I'm just saying that if you actually want a true understanding of something then knowing what is a fact and a theory gives a better grounding for your own knowledge. And if you end up basing one theory on another, where does it actually end!
Quote from: XEntity on March 09, 2011, 20:55:48 PM
I'm not saying that you need a disclaimer either, I'm just saying that if you actually want a true understanding of something then knowing what is a fact and a theory gives a better grounding for your own knowledge. And if you end up basing one theory on another, where does it actually end!
but by the scientific deffinition, just about everything is theory.
BTW, even if the Earth were a closed system (which it isn't as has already been observed), entropy and the 2nd law wouldn't preclude evolution. All the second law requires is that the total entropy of the system tends to increase, so you can have increasingly complex animals as long as they are burning sufficient energy to create a compensating increase in the entropy of their surroundings. The presence of the animals actually increases the rate of entropy increase.
Quote from: Mongoose on March 11, 2011, 11:34:31 AM
BTW, even if the Earth were a closed system (which it isn't as has already been observed), entropy and the 2nd law wouldn't preclude evolution. All the second law requires is that the total entropy of the system tends to increase, so you can have increasingly complex animals as long as they are burning sufficient energy to create a compensating increase in the entropy of their surroundings. The presence of the animals actually increases the rate of entropy increase.
I did wonder if this was would be the case. Obviously I was wrong about the Earth's closed system but doesn't this still apply given that the universe as a whole is considered a closed system ? Life is just one complex system in a sea of complex system that are aiding in the increase of entropy within the Universe ?
The more you read or watch about the structure of this universe and how it 'works' the more you think WTF? :o :panic:
God, if there is one, and nobody can prove otherwise, not only plays dice with the universe but the dice are loaded and keep changing the number of sides. Oh, they are also often thrown where we can't see them.
Quote from: Serious on March 12, 2011, 16:09:03 PM
God, if there is one, and nobody can prove otherwise
Going OT here, but that is such a stupid argument. Take something with, literally, no evidence to suggest it exists and then claim "you can't prove this thing I just made up doesn't exist". Equally, you can't prove there's not an intergalactic unicorn farting out stars, but that's no reason to start throwing around an idea that it actually exists.
gentlemen, since we all know where this road goes, shall we agree not to go down it this time?
episode 2 tonight at 9pm bbc hd (or bbc1 hd)
Quote from: Mongoose on March 13, 2011, 16:08:20 PM
gentlemen, since we all know where this road goes, shall we agree not to go down it this time?
Agreed :)
I was watching the Sky at Night 700 Not Out (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00z9n1z) episode and one of the viewer questions was along the lines of "Where in the Universe is Heaven ?". Needless to say the entire panel basically said "We'll not go down that path shall we..." and then gave what their personal ideas of Heaven in the Universe are/would be. Was a great bullet dodge I thought :)
Looking forward to episode 2 tonight.
Quote from: Goblin on March 12, 2011, 19:54:50 PM
Equally, you can't prove there's not an intergalactic unicorn farting out stars, but that's no reason to start throwing around an idea that it actually exists.
Can I just say.....LOL :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Best.Rebuttal.Ever.
Quote from: Goblin on March 12, 2011, 19:54:50 PM
Quote from: Serious on March 12, 2011, 16:09:03 PM
God, if there is one, and nobody can prove otherwise
Going OT here, but that is such a stupid argument. Take something with, literally, no evidence to suggest it exists and then claim "you can't prove this thing I just made up doesn't exist". Equally, you can't prove there's not an intergalactic unicorn farting out stars, but that's no reason to start throwing around an idea that it actually exists.
But there is! you can see where it has punched it's head through the Horsehead nebula! :w00t:
It's not an argument, it's a statement of fact.
I didn't make up the idea of god, just said it was effectively unprovable either way, so don't try sticking that old stupid argument on me. Umm, what about String theory and other similar things which are presently unprovable too? There's a load of scientists effectively saying it's the way to the 'new bible' and just as many saying it's 'complete and utter heresy'. Those were just 'made up' so your argument applies equally to them. Scientists have used the same argument against tectonic plates and movement, and a load of other scientific ideas which have since been proven as fact.
All that a scientist can say is 'this is the way it looks' or 'this is how I think it works and this evidence seems to confirm that as far as I can'. There are always other people coming up with competing hypothesis and theories.
Scientists use the same old tactics the Religionists have used for hundreds of years, they are just as pig headed, selfish, possessive and downright nasty, as often to each other as well as outsiders.
I'm not saying there is a god or not, I'm saying that in any given universe there is a chance of something that might be termed god. If there is one I very much doubt if it is like the impressions any of the religions portray.
Then there is the two slot experiment, if the multiple universe idea proves wrong, who was there to observe the start of the universe?
Actually unicorns do exist, they are one horned rhinoceroses. The problem came in describing them so the adventurers used the nearest thing they knew, 'it's a bit like a horse with a horn on it's forehead.'
Quote from: Serious on March 14, 2011, 00:57:53 AM
Quote from: Goblin on March 12, 2011, 19:54:50 PM
Quote from: Serious on March 12, 2011, 16:09:03 PM
God, if there is one, and nobody can prove otherwise
Going OT here, but that is such a stupid argument. Take something with, literally, no evidence to suggest it exists and then claim "you can't prove this thing I just made up doesn't exist". Equally, you can't prove there's not an intergalactic unicorn farting out stars, but that's no reason to start throwing around an idea that it actually exists.
But there is! you can see where it has punched it's head through the Horsehead nebula! :w00t:
I didn't make up the idea of god, just said it was effectively unprovable. Umm, what about String theory and other similar things which are presently unprovable too?
All that a scientist can say is 'this is the way it looks' or 'this is how I think it works and this evidence seems to confirm that as far as I can'. There are always other people coming up with competing hypothesis and theories.
Scientists use the same old tactics the Religionists have used for hundreds of years, they are just as pig headed, selfish, possessive and downright nasty, often to each other as well as outsiders.
What a load of crap. Despite the often poor reporting of science in the media and the fact that there are many scientists out there who aren't in it for the science there is fundamentally no comparison between scientists and "religionists".
Leaving broad sweeping generalisations aside about every scientist and "religionist" a scientist works diligently and very thoroughly to explore a hypothesis and reach a conclusion, be it experimental or theoretical. Theories are tested by the scientist to ensure that they conform to the facts known about the observed universe. The scientist is also amenable to change and is always looking to new hypothesis and ideas that help to better this understanding.
Your "religionists" base their "theories" (I use the term very loosely) on faith which by its very definition ensures that it can never be tested or explored in any way, shape or form. You mention string theory; science is always forging forward and is working to a point in the future where we can demonstrate physical actual proof. Religion actively discourages this; to question it is often wrong according to its own teachings and thus begins the perfect self perpetuating cycle of slavish adherence to faith.
Science helps us understand our place universe and the way things work and is always working to broaden our horizons. Religion appeals to the narrow minded and aims to narrow our horizons by preaching dogmatic belief in something that can never be proved nor disproved.
I was editing my post when you posted...
Quote from: Quixoticish on March 14, 2011, 01:13:09 AM
Quote from: Serious on March 14, 2011, 00:57:53 AM
Quote from: Goblin on March 12, 2011, 19:54:50 PM
Quote from: Serious on March 12, 2011, 16:09:03 PM
God, if there is one, and nobody can prove otherwise
Going OT here, but that is such a stupid argument. Take something with, literally, no evidence to suggest it exists and then claim "you can't prove this thing I just made up doesn't exist". Equally, you can't prove there's not an intergalactic unicorn farting out stars, but that's no reason to start throwing around an idea that it actually exists.
But there is! you can see where it has punched it's head through the Horsehead nebula! :w00t:
I didn't make up the idea of god, just said it was effectively unprovable. Umm, what about String theory and other similar things which are presently unprovable too?
All that a scientist can say is 'this is the way it looks' or 'this is how I think it works and this evidence seems to confirm that as far as I can'. There are always other people coming up with competing hypothesis and theories.
Scientists use the same old tactics the Religionists have used for hundreds of years, they are just as pig headed, selfish, possessive and downright nasty, often to each other as well as outsiders.
What a load of crap. Despite the often poor reporting of science in the media and the fact that there are many scientists out there who aren't in it for the science there is fundamentally no comparison between scientists and "religionists".
Really??
Quote
Leaving broad sweeping generalisations aside about every scientist and "religionist" a scientist works diligently and very thoroughly to explore a hypothesis and reach a conclusion, be it experimental or theoretical. Theories are tested by the scientist to ensure that they conform to the facts known about the observed universe. The scientist is also amenable to change and is always looking to new hypothesis and ideas that help to better this understanding.
Then all that shouting about other scientists being mad, nuts, completely bonkers, loony, etc. never happened? I think not! You obviously have no idea what goes on.
There has always been 'scientists' willing to put their own self higher than anything else, right down to forging evidence.
Scientists use every tactic available to degrade others and promote their pet theory/hypothesis above the competition, that has always happened and will never stop happening. You are talking about people here, not 'saints' (which don't exist IMHO). This whole thread proves it.
'amenable to change' grief, that made me laugh. No they aren't, they stick to their old theory because they have invested so much time and effort backing it.
Quote
Your "religionists" base their "theories" (I use the term very loosely) on faith which by its very definition ensures that it can never be tested or explored in any way, shape or form. You mention string theory; science is always forging forward and is working to a point in the future where we can demonstrate physical actual proof. Religion actively discourages this; to question it is often wrong according to its own teachings and thus begins the perfect self perpetuating cycle of slavish adherence to faith.
No, they are based on faith, belief and hypothesis, no theory there. You need at least some experimental or physical proof for theory. Of course, some would claim 'miracles' as such proof but I don't.
Quote
Science helps us understand our place universe and the way things work and is always working to broaden our horizons. Religion appeals to the narrow minded and aims to narrow our horizons by preaching dogmatic belief in something that can never be proved nor disproved.
I seem to remember for a very long time scientists complaining about people being told about science, exclaiming 'they won't be able to understand any of it!' Seems your experience of them is different to mine.
If you want to look at science gone wrong just look at the present situation medicine is in, at least one big company under investigation. Then there was that Korean dog cloning scandal. Lots of others too, right back to Piltdown man and beyond.
You're making tremendously broad generalisations about every scientist and the state of science as a whole and cherry picking occasional negative occurrences to reinforce your own warped negative point of view.
Henceforth your argument is rendered invalid. Have a nice day.
Last I heard there is "discs" of several universes ( which always existed ! ) and if they "touch" it will seem like a "big bang".
Wow, from scientific discussion to religious debate in three easy steps. Just to drag the thread down another notch, "It's only gay if two universes are touching"
Quote from: Clock'd 0Ne on March 14, 2011, 09:46:56 AM
Wow, from scientific discussion to religious debate in three easy steps. Just to drag the thread down another notch, "It's only gay if two universes are touching"
Almost actually PMSL, and what did I start :)
Well I thought episode 2 was great and its almost like Brian anticipated what everyone said in the thread as this time he pointed out quite clearly what was proven fact (as well as mentioning and then quickly moving on from religion) :thumbup:
I think he explains it to the layperson extremely well, but without dumbing it down too much. It's definitely a gift to be able to explain complex theories quite easily, so I don't think that it's a negative thing, in fact I think it's great.
The first episode left me feeling extremely nihilistic, the fact that nothing at all will survive.
It is rubbish.
He opens with a 5 min carrot on a stick, this is what this show is about. It's about this. We're gonna talk about this. This thing is the subject of this show. I'll talk about this amazing thing.
Ok so... interest piqued, right?
Then he spends 55 minutes talking about one thing. One little thing. 55 minutes. His use of language is awful too but let's not dwell on that.
Let's instead recreate the show in text-form:
Right, we're all made of atoms, just like everything else is in the universe, as far as we can tell. We're pretty sure all these atoms were made in the following manner:
step 1) All the squiggly bits left over from the big bang formed into protons and neutrons after a few seconds.
step 2) These hooked up to become hydrogen atoms.
step 3) As everything expands away from a central point, some atoms locally pull together to form clumps.
step 4) The clumps get bigger and ignite into stars. Here are some pretty pictures.
step 5) The processes that happen within the life and death of stars create heavier atoms. These are spread around when the star dies. Look, here's a pretty rainbow.
step 6) These heavy atoms fly around clumping into asteroids, planets, and whatever else.
step 7) end credits
Boiled down like that it's about a minute's worth of informative dialogue?
Once again, the BBC have excelled in taking a fascinating subject and making a horrendously dull show out of it.
epic point recognition fail
Quote from: Pete on March 16, 2011, 11:50:28 AM
It is rubbish.
He opens with a 5 min carrot on a stick, this is what this show is about. It's about this. We're gonna talk about this. This thing is the subject of this show. I'll talk about this amazing thing.
Ok so... interest piqued, right?
Then he spends 55 minutes talking about one thing. One little thing. 55 minutes. His use of language is awful too but let's not dwell on that.
Let's instead recreate the show in text-form:
Right, we're all made of atoms, just like everything else is in the universe, as far as we can tell. We're pretty sure all these atoms were made in the following manner:
step 1) All the squiggly bits left over from the big bang formed into protons and neutrons after a few seconds.
step 2) These hooked up to become hydrogen atoms.
step 3) As everything expands away from a central point, some atoms locally pull together to form clumps.
step 4) The clumps get bigger and ignite into stars. Here are some pretty pictures.
step 5) The processes that happen within the life and death of stars create heavier atoms. These are spread around when the star dies. Look, here's a pretty rainbow.
step 6) These heavy atoms fly around clumping into asteroids, planets, and whatever else.
step 7) end credits
Boiled down like that it's about a minute's worth of informative dialogue?
Once again, the BBC have excelled in taking a fascinating subject and making a horrendously dull show out of it.
I got bored reading your version before step 4...
I thought he trod the line between too complex so you lose the audience and seeming dumbed down very well. The processes by which stars do what they do are b****y complicated (at least, they seemed so to me as a meer 3rd year Physics undergraduate), but this show went deeper than the standard "stars form, magic happens, elements are produced" without totally breaking the minds of the uninitiated.
Honestly, I used to actively avoid programs presented by Brian Cox, but he's really grown on me since the stargazing live show. I don't know if he's got better or I've just grown more tolerant of him, but I'm actually getting to quite like the man. He's still no Richard P. Feynman, but then, who is?
Can I just say we need to get the 'quote from' bit changed from yellow to something more readable.
Quote from: Quixoticish on March 14, 2011, 08:13:54 AM
You're making tremendously broad generalisations about every scientist and the state of science as a whole and cherry picking occasional negative occurrences to reinforce your own warped negative point of view.
Henceforth your argument is rendered invalid. Have a nice day.
Your argument is pointless and admits you have no idea.
Obviously you didn't have a hope of discussing it in a reasonable manner then, like a scientist in your description might. Then again, there are very few scientists like those.
Truth is I have watched these people go at each other, it's like a no holds barred verbal battle between Christians and Satanists. It's always the same, they have to win. I sometimes wonder if half of them were molested by priests in their youth, they are so blatantly against any option that even slightly goes against their point of view.
Science has a cloud of paranoia over it, just like religion does. Note that I don't exclude either side here I just can't exclude a possibility, neither can science, but some people think they can just by denial.
Quote from: Mark on March 17, 2011, 00:02:59 AM
Can I just say we need to get the 'quote from' bit changed from yellow to something more readable.
Yes please, it's the only bit of the new forum scheme that needs a bit of tweaking, it's hard to see what's going on when a quote is embedded in another quote.
Quote from: Quixoticish on March 17, 2011, 09:45:14 AM
Quote from: Mark on March 17, 2011, 00:02:59 AM
Can I just say we need to get the 'quote from' bit changed from yellow to something more readable.
Yes please, it's the only bit of the new forum scheme that needs a bit of tweaking, it's hard to see what's going on when a quote is embedded in another quote.
I think it's on the to-do list, it was certainly mentioned, but just think Nexus is quite busy at the moment :)
Final part of the series I think this weekend.
Quote from: Professor Brian Cox link=topic=18260.msg184200#msg184200
Hi, I'm Professor Brian Cox, I'm one of the Wonders of the Universe. Here I am, on top of a mountain, triumphant in outdoor clothing. Why are we here? Where do we come from? These are the most enduring of questions. And why is it that you are a little bit ...in love with me? Is it my enormous mind? Or my boyish good looks, the NME hair, the expansive wardrobe coupled with exotic locations, the soft modest enthusiasm with just a hint of Lancashire, the winning smile . . . this winning smile – ah, that's got you, hasn't it? Look how proudly I stand, while the helicopter circles. I've conquered this mountain, just as I'm conquering your heart. Now I'm somewhere else, in a cream-coloured safari anorak and stonewashed jeans, in front of the sun, bathed in light and glory. I am the golden boy, the sun god, I am the sun. Now I'm staring out to sea, in an aubergine T-shirt, thinking big thoughts. And very big numbers. A billion billion billion billion billion billion. That big. Look, I'll write it in the sand, to show you how massive my number is. It's all about the vast sweep of cosmic time and astrophysics. And turtles. As the story of time unfolds, a fundamental truth is revealed: nothing lasts for ever. Now I'm back in Gore-Tex, by Berghaus, with a Patagonian glacier as backdrop. And posing next to a picture of the death of a star. The death of one star, the birth of another – that's me. Because time goes only one way, the arrow of time says the future, like my clothes, will always be different. The second law of thermodynamics demonstrates everything that is profound and powerful and beautiful about me, and physics too. It explains why I'm so hot, but also why time goes forward and why there's a past and a future. Entropy – that's something as well, a gradual decline to disorder, like my hair in the wind. I'm now in the Namibian desert, wearing an apple-green T-shirt. And some kind of technical neoprene hoodie. For a moment, you thought you understood what I was talking about didn't you; you thought, you got it? Maybe you did, or perhaps you just got me, you'd fallen under my spell. Here's another enormous number, even bigger this time. A billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion. Amazing, isn't it? It won't last, nothing does. Things Can Only Get Better, someone once sang, naively. Because things can only get worse. The most profound consequence of the arrow of time will be when the cosmos cannot get any more disorderly, it will eventually fade and die. Nothing will happen, and it will keep on (not) happening, for ever. A final thought: here's me, on the beach, at sunset.
:lol:
Quote from: Clock'd 0Ne on March 23, 2011, 12:47:20 PM
Final part of the series I think this weekend.
Quote from: Professor Brian Cox link=topic=18260.msg184200#msg184200
Hi, I'm Professor Brian Cox, I'm one of the Wonders of the Universe. Here I am, on top of a mountain, triumphant in outdoor clothing. Why are we here? Where do we come from? These are the most enduring of questions. And why is it that you are a little bit ...in love with me? Is it my enormous mind? Or my boyish good looks, the NME hair, the expansive wardrobe coupled with exotic locations, the soft modest enthusiasm with just a hint of Lancashire, the winning smile . . . this winning smile – ah, that's got you, hasn't it? Look how proudly I stand, while the helicopter circles. I've conquered this mountain, just as I'm conquering your heart. Now I'm somewhere else, in a cream-coloured safari anorak and stonewashed jeans, in front of the sun, bathed in light and glory. I am the golden boy, the sun god, I am the sun. Now I'm staring out to sea, in an aubergine T-shirt, thinking big thoughts. And very big numbers. A billion billion billion billion billion billion. That big. Look, I'll write it in the sand, to show you how massive my number is. It's all about the vast sweep of cosmic time and astrophysics. And turtles. As the story of time unfolds, a fundamental truth is revealed: nothing lasts for ever. Now I'm back in Gore-Tex, by Berghaus, with a Patagonian glacier as backdrop. And posing next to a picture of the death of a star. The death of one star, the birth of another – that's me. Because time goes only one way, the arrow of time says the future, like my clothes, will always be different. The second law of thermodynamics demonstrates everything that is profound and powerful and beautiful about me, and physics too. It explains why I'm so hot, but also why time goes forward and why there's a past and a future. Entropy – that's something as well, a gradual decline to disorder, like my hair in the wind. I'm now in the Namibian desert, wearing an apple-green T-shirt. And some kind of technical neoprene hoodie. For a moment, you thought you understood what I was talking about didn't you; you thought, you got it? Maybe you did, or perhaps you just got me, you'd fallen under my spell. Here's another enormous number, even bigger this time. A billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion. Amazing, isn't it? It won't last, nothing does. Things Can Only Get Better, someone once sang, naively. Because things can only get worse. The most profound consequence of the arrow of time will be when the cosmos cannot get any more disorderly, it will eventually fade and die. Nothing will happen, and it will keep on (not) happening, for ever. A final thought: here's me, on the beach, at sunset.
:lol:
YES!! Absolutely love this!
Carl Sagan COSMOS (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Carl+Sagan+COSMOS&num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&biw=1020&bih=611&prmd=ivnsob&source=univ&tbs=vid:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=2qeKTaDlKo24hAfg26yoDg&ved=0CEgQqwQ)He did this kinda thing in the late seventies. Rocked then. Still rocks now. Some of his "hypotheses" even came true. Talk about a 'benchmark' scientist.
BBC version = amateur piffle.
Just watch the last part and found the series as a whole very interesting :)