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 

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

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 

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!"

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, 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! 

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.