# Prof. Cox is back with 'Wonders of the Universe', BBC2 21:00, 6th march



## kyser_soze (Mar 2, 2011)

Following on from 'Wonders of the Solar System' where he got to fly around the world substituting actual film for CGI, Prof. Brian 'I was in D:Ream, now I work at the LHC, and my wife is well fit' Cox is taking on the whole universe in a four parter starting on Sunday the 6th, which looks at the concept of time.

Now even tho it had about 5% content that was news to me, I absolutely loved the first series of 'Wonders...' so have high hopes for this one.

I'm excited if only because it'll be, at the very least, a well produced science show with an amiable and knowledgable presenter - altho going by what he said in the '60 Seconds' column interview thing in Metro this morning (about how if he were producing his own show it'd probably be aimed too high for a primetime audience), I'm now avidly hoping that him and Jim Al-Khalili collaborate on something that _is_ aimed high, doesn't cost much, and is on BBC4 about 10pm.

Come on BBC producers!


----------



## Santino (Mar 2, 2011)

"Isn't the universe BRILLIANT?!"


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 2, 2011)

Santino said:


> "Isn't the universe BRILLIANT?!"


 


The adverts for it have put me right off watching it.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 2, 2011)

I haven't seen the adverts 

But so what - the universe _is_ brilliant.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Mar 2, 2011)

OOh, brilliant. Cox is without doubt the cutest physicist in the whole universe


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 2, 2011)

It's kind of like science porn.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Mar 2, 2011)

Dillinger4 said:


> It's kind of like science porn.


 
Yeah. Good innit


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 2, 2011)

I prefer Patrick Moore.


----------



## girasol (Mar 2, 2011)

any excuse to post this spoof, I love it: 



Looking forward to it!!!!!!!!!

Alice Roberts' programme on human evolution was interesting too.


----------



## Santino (Mar 2, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> I haven't seen the adverts
> 
> But so what - the universe _is_ brilliant.


 
Compared to what?


----------



## wayward bob (Mar 2, 2011)

he's lovely but i must have a gene missing cos i don't find him fanciable at all (and i have a _thing_ about astrophysicists), maybe cos he reminds me of my brother in law...

anyway i'm massively looking forward to this. i fucking love space, it is indeed brilliant and space programmes are my favourite of all to fall asleep to on the iplayer


----------



## editor (Mar 2, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> Following on from 'Wonders of the Solar System' where he got to fly around the world substituting actual film for CGI, Prof. Brian 'I was in D:Ream, now I work at the LHC, and my wife is well fit' Cox


Oy! She's a friend of mine!


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Mar 2, 2011)

Santino said:


> Compared to what?


 
Cress. Except if it is mixed with egg. Then it comes quite close to being as brilliant as the universe. But on its own, not a patch.


----------



## Yetman (Mar 2, 2011)

He's just this but with better hair


----------



## TitanSound (Mar 2, 2011)

Fucking ace. I loved sitting with my housemates after a Sunday roast smoking a spliff and watching Wonders of the Solar System.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 3, 2011)

Santino said:


> Compared to what?


 
You


----------



## machine cat (Mar 3, 2011)

oh snap!


----------



## Juice Terry (Mar 3, 2011)

liquid methane lakes on titan


----------



## girasol (Mar 4, 2011)

I was the Professor's birthday yesterday, he went on the One Show, got given a planet cake and was being called Professor Crox (not sure why) by that presenter who does the Pimm's adverts...

He is soooooo cool!


----------



## vauxhallmum (Mar 4, 2011)

I know he's cool and good at his job and everything but fanciable  His pinky wet lips really put me off


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (Mar 4, 2011)

Brian Cox is a total bell end


----------



## girasol (Mar 4, 2011)

vauxhallmum said:


> I know he's cool and good at his job and everything but fanciable  His pinky wet lips really put me off


 
I don't think it's about him being fanciable, but he has lots of charisma, I want to be his friend!  He's really likeable as a person.  In fact, I wish he was a woman, the he'd be perfect!  As he's be encouraging women to get into Physics.


----------



## Santino (Mar 4, 2011)

I wish the hype for programmes of this kind would stop telling us that physics will somehow tell you the meaning of life.


----------



## zoooo (Mar 4, 2011)

I don't think it does?


----------



## EastEnder (Mar 4, 2011)

His infantile enthusiasm really starts to grate after a while. I'm all in favour of popularising astronomy & cosmology, so can't really knock the man-child, no matter how annoying he his. I just wish you could press the red button and have him replaced by a grown up.


----------



## marty21 (Mar 4, 2011)

girasol said:


> I was the Professor's birthday yesterday, he went on the One Show, got given a planet cake and was being called Professor Crox (not sure why) by that presenter who does the Pimm's adverts...
> 
> He is soooooo cool!



I think a little kid asked a question and called him Professor Crox


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 4, 2011)

Santino said:


> "Isn't the universe BRILLIANT?!"


 
this.

He pisses me right off.

It's like science porn.  Specifically that polished up super artificial crap that comes out of america.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 4, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> this.
> 
> He pisses me right off.
> 
> It's like science porn.  Specifically that polished up super artificial crap that comes out of america.



I don't think it is. It has lots of science in it, which the crap from the US you refer to doesn't. Fine that you don't like his style, but there is plenty of content still.


----------



## EastEnder (Mar 4, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> this.
> 
> He pisses me right off.
> 
> It's like science porn.  Specifically that polished up super artificial crap that comes out of america.


Actually, I'd have to say that science documentaries are one of the very few areas where British TV is vastly superior to the American stuff. Even allowing for the man-child and his incessant "Look what I found mummy!!" style of presenting, the Wonders series is still better than anything the yanks can make.


----------



## girasol (Mar 4, 2011)

marty21 said:


> I think a little kid asked a question and called him Professor Crox


 
ah, I must have missed that bit, it makes sense now   He would make a great teacher, I reckon, all that enthusiasm is bound to fire the kids up (I think it has already  )


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 4, 2011)

EastEnder said:


> Actually, I'd have to say that science documentaries are one of the very few areas where British TV is vastly superior to the American stuff. Even allowing for the man-child and his incessant "Look what I found mummy!!" style of presenting, the Wonders series is still better than anything the yanks can make.


 
Yes, although the recent series 'Human Planet' is a load of content-free shit - or at least the half a show I saw was. Don't say anything a stupid person wouldn't understand.


----------



## girasol (Mar 4, 2011)

I dont' think it's a case of 'stupid person' syndrome, I think they are aiming this at children/teens too, and so keeping it simpler will keep them interested.  I'd imagine one of Brian Cox's aims is to inspire more children to study Physics (or any other scientific subject, really) when they grow up.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 4, 2011)

Human Planet was pushing a strange tone really. good visuals though

e2a

like it was trying to be dark and edgy and sex up what didn't need sexing up.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 4, 2011)

Yes, but you can do that without stripping the programme of all intelligence. David Attenborough manages it.


----------



## girasol (Mar 4, 2011)

mmm, not sure what is meant about 'stripping it of intelligence'?  I think there's a bit of snobbery going on   If we swapped Brian Cox's voiceover with David's maybe it would sound more intelligent?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 4, 2011)

girasol said:


> I'd imagine one of Brian Cox's aims is to inspire more children to study Physics (or any other scientific subject, really) when they grow up.


 
Yes, but I'm not criticising his shows. His shows are not like that. Irritating though he may be for some, he actually follows directly in the tradition of David Attenborough – explain but don't patronise, and make programmes that tell a story, that have a central thesis to them.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 4, 2011)

girasol said:


> mmm, not sure what is meant about 'stripping it of intelligence'?  I think there's a bit of snobbery going on   If we changed Brian Cox's voiceover with David's maybe it would sound more intelligent?


 
I was talking about Human Planet.


----------



## Biddlybee (Mar 4, 2011)

I only watched the first episode of _Wonders of the Solar System_ then couldn't watch any more, he was too annoying 

I love space, but I don't think I can watch this


----------



## tommers (Mar 4, 2011)

I sold him weed in about 1994.

Well, I say him, I mean D:Ream.

Well, I say D:Ream, I mean somebody on D:Ream's tour bus who was buying it for D:Ream.


----------



## girasol (Mar 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I was talking about Human Planet.


 
oh, sorry   Fair enough.  Although that had some stunning visuals!!!  I think Human Planet was all about the cinematography.  

e2a:  I completely missed one of your posts   I did watch the whole series though, it wasn't perfect, but interesting: I didn't know whole generations of people built living bridges (out of trees), for example.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 4, 2011)

I just took Human Planet as it came - a generally fascinating romp through a variety of environments where humans make their homes, coupled with flavours of the local drama & customs that make up those people's everyday lives. I looked at it as another version of Baracka and it pleased me greatly - especially the Mountains episode with the eagle hunts and the whale hunt in the Ice episode.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 4, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> I just took Human Planet as it came - a generally fascinating romp through a variety of environments where humans make their homes, coupled with flavours of the local drama & customs that make up those people's everyday lives. I looked at it as another version of Baracka and it pleased me greatly - especially the Mountains episode with the eagle hunts and the whale hunt in the Ice episode.


 
The lack of any coherent central thesis annoyed me. Everyone needs to learn from Attenborough – that's how you do it.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 4, 2011)

girasol said:


> any excuse to post this spoof, I love it:
> 
> 
> 
> Alice Roberts' programme on human evolution was interesting too.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 4, 2011)

I thought the central theme was 'Humans have adapted to all the environments on earth, and created one soley for themselves'. It stuck to that remarkably well throughout the series, I thought.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 4, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> I thought the central theme was 'Humans have adapted to all the environments on earth, and created one soley for themselves'. It stuck to that remarkably well throughout the series, I thought.


 
Ah, yes, I remember now – right at the start, 'Humans are unique in that they have adapted to all environments on Earth'. No they bloody haven't. You ever seen a human living inside a glacier or at the bottom of a deep ocean trench? That's the kind of half-true platitude you never, ever hear David A come out with.


----------



## girasol (Mar 4, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> I thought the central theme was 'Humans have adapted to all the environments on earth, and created one soley for themselves'. It stuck to that remarkably well throughout the series, I thought.


 
And it did it mostly visually - I hadn't thought of the Baraka connection, but now that you mention it, yeah!!!


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ah, yes, I remember now – right at the start, 'Humans are unique in that they have adapted to all environments on Earth'. No they bloody haven't. You ever seen a human living inside a glacier or at the bottom of a deep ocean trench? That's the kind of half-true platitude you never, ever hear David A come out with.


 
Shame you didn't stick around to watch more - the oceans episode that talked about the pacific islanders who can dive for 5 mins & have optical adaptations to help them see better underwater; the boat people who get 'land sick'; the honey-guy getting grief off his wife to go and get some honey from a bee hive at the top of a 30m tall tree; the mass fish-off in a drying lake where several villages all congregate just prior to the dry season starting to catch fish & have a final celebratory meal.

Chock-full of amazing human stories, showing how the extraordinary is also the everyday, and vice versa.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 4, 2011)

If you have amazing stories to tell, there's no need to sell it with lies, though. Rigour and watchability are not mutually exclusive. Maybe I'll give it another go when it's on again.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 4, 2011)

EastEnder said:


> Actually, I'd have to say that science documentaries are one of the very few areas where British TV is vastly superior to the American stuff. Even allowing for the man-child and his incessant "Look what I found mummy!!" style of presenting, the Wonders series is still better than anything the yanks can make.


 
true, but this is pop imo

Which is probably good for the less 'sciency' but annoying for me


----------



## Crispy (Mar 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If you have amazing stories to tell, there's no need to sell it with lies, though. Rigour and watchability are not mutually exclusive. Maybe I'll give it another go when it's on again.


 
Maybe watch it with the sound down and put some brian eno on the stereo?


----------



## Santino (Mar 4, 2011)

I just saw Brian Cox.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 4, 2011)

That 'wonderment' tone of voice is doing my head it now. If he's still there kick him in the nuts for me.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 4, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Maybe watch it with the sound down and put some brian eno on the stereo?


 
Or just ignore that one line in the V/O


----------



## Santino (Mar 4, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> That 'wonderment' tone of voice is doing my head it now. If he's still there kick him in the nuts for me.


 
There were too many people around. I would have had to do a Jack Ruby.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 6, 2011)

Well this is utter dreck. Very expensive dreck by the looks of it.


----------



## Espresso (Mar 6, 2011)

It's not grabbing me. But by God, I bet he's got some airmiles, Prof. Cox.


----------



## Pingu (Mar 6, 2011)

am liking it so far.

2nd law of thermodynamics rocks


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 6, 2011)

Is it true that the BBC are currently shooting a new series with Professor Cox and Dr. Alice Roberts called, Dirty Drug-Fuelled Monkey Sex and the Origins of the Universe?


----------



## Pingu (Mar 6, 2011)

hope so. would be epic saturday prime time viewing


----------



## invisibleplanet (Mar 6, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Maybe watch it with the sound down and put some brian eno on the stereo?


 
That's not a bad idea, actually


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 6, 2011)

too much of Brian being epic science god against skyline or gazing philosophically into distance


----------



## weltweit (Mar 6, 2011)

I found it all a bit depressing, almost nihilistic, everything is going to die, all life will die, all stars will die, made me want to go out and rape and pillage I mean there is obviously no future so why not! 

And he could have found wrecked ships on the Gower, no need to go to Namibia for that!


----------



## joustmaster (Mar 6, 2011)

it made me think of issac asimov's the last question


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 6, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I found it all a bit depressing, almost nihilistic, everything is going to die, all life will die, all stars will die, made me want to go out and rape and pillage I mean there is obviously no future so why not!


 
I am sure there's not a court in the land that would disagree with you.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 6, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> I am sure there's not a court in the land that would disagree with you.


 
 

What was required immediately after this defeatist nihilistic nonsense from Professor doom and gloom was a good episode of Madagasgar with David Attenborough. 

There will be life for millions of millions of years, and it is good and it is varied and it is wholly wonderful!


----------



## weltweit (Mar 6, 2011)

And if that is what the second law of thermodynamics means - I for one refuse to obey it!! 

Damn you entrophy! Damn you to hell..


----------



## Steel Icarus (Mar 6, 2011)

Needed less posing like a rock star and lingering, pretentious shots of sand & water, and more science. And the dialogue needed less navel-gazing & more star-gazing.

That said, there were some good bits.

He nicked a line straight out of "Cosmos", though, without acknowledging it, re: the sun expanding. Cosmos had a picture and mentioned "one last perfect day".


----------



## weltweit (Mar 6, 2011)

What was the globetrotting costs of the program? The carbon footprint if you will .. 

I think there was - *Costa Rica* for the turtles, *Namibia* for the wrecked ship, *Patagonia* for the glacier, was there anywhere else I don't remember... ?

Seems like a lot of travelling and quite a lot of helicopters..


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 6, 2011)

Any chance we can have an hour of science please BBC?

Rather than 10 minutes of content and 50 of pointless arty bullshit?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 6, 2011)

I liked it. I thought it was a very good first programme, in fact. Nicely judged to go right up from our time scales right into the deepest of deep time. He didn't go into how the low entropy of the start of the universe came about, but I'm guessing he'll tackle that in a later episode.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 6, 2011)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Any chance we can have an hour of science please BBC?
> 
> Rather than 10 minutes of content and 50 of pointless arty bullshit?


 
What do you expect, though. This is a subject I know a bit about, so there was nothing new for me in it, but I still found it watchable and engaging, and it wasn't patronising. I thought the sandcastle explanation of entropy was good, for instance.

What he could have done, which I suppose is what you would have wanted, is to go into detail about how we know that heat death is the future of the universe, for instance. Perhaps. But it's a show that assumes no prior science knowledge, which does limit what he can do.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 6, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What he could have done, which I suppose is what you would have wanted, is to go into detail about how we know that heat death is the future of the universe, for instance. Perhaps. But it's a show that assumes no prior science knowledge, which does limit what he can do.


 
I get that, (I think) no problem, fires go out when they have used their fuel etc .... But what created the conditions for the stars in the first place, he didn't go there at all. 

Entrophy I think he could have explained better but I think I get it.


----------



## rover07 (Mar 6, 2011)

The universe fading to nothing? Bollocks to that.

In a few million years we will be able to manipulate matter/energy to form new stars.

I found his lack of imagination annoying.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 6, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What do you expect, though. This is a subject I know a bit about, so there was nothing new for me in it, but I still found it watchable and engaging, and it wasn't patronising. I thought the sandcastle explanation of entropy was good, for instance.
> 
> What he could have done, which I suppose is what you would have wanted, is to go into detail about how we know that heat death is the future of the universe, for instance. Perhaps. But it's a show that assumes no prior science knowledge, which does limit what he can do.


 
I want a show that's full of science, at whatever level they choose to pitch it, not 50 minutes of arty shots of glaciers and mountains with a shit soundtrack.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 6, 2011)

rover07 said:


> The universe fading to nothing? Bollocks to that.
> 
> In a few million years we will be able to manipulate matter/energy to form new stars.
> 
> I found his lack of imagination annoying.


 
I agree, the human spirit will prevail !! how dare he be so nihilistic about the future...


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 6, 2011)

He's back, Sky at Night on BBC1. Patrick Moore will slap him into shape.


----------



## joustmaster (Mar 6, 2011)

i think the point is in the end we will run out of energy


rover07 said:


> The universe fading to nothing? Bollocks to that.
> 
> In a few million years we will be able to manipulate matter/energy to form new stars.
> 
> I found his lack of imagination annoying.


----------



## Cid (Mar 6, 2011)

rover07 said:


> The universe fading to nothing? Bollocks to that.
> 
> In a few million years we will be able to manipulate matter/energy to form new stars.
> 
> I found his lack of imagination annoying.



Creating a star would be roughly equivalent to adding a grain of sand to the earth.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 6, 2011)

entropy


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 7, 2011)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I want a show that's full of science, at whatever level they choose to pitch it, not 50 minutes of arty shots of glaciers and mountains with a shit soundtrack.


 
Fair enough. I quite liked the long shots and the music. It was contemplative. 

*hippy*


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 7, 2011)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I want a show that's full of science, at whatever level they choose to pitch it, not 50 minutes of arty shots of glaciers and mountains with a shit soundtrack.



Yeh, that is the kind of program I want to see as well. Proper science.


----------



## EastEnder (Mar 7, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I found it all a bit depressing, almost nihilistic, everything is going to die, all life will die, all stars will die, made me want to go out and rape and pillage I mean there is obviously no future so why not!


On the plus side, at least Brian Cox will definitely die! 

Every cloud has a silver lining.


----------



## Garek (Mar 7, 2011)

Turned off after 20 mins. Found it dull and boring. Was hoping for some science.


----------



## girasol (Mar 7, 2011)

weltweit said:


> What was required immediately after this defeatist nihilistic nonsense from Professor doom and gloom was a good episode of Madagasgar with David Attenborough.
> 
> There will be life for millions of millions of years, and it is good and it is varied and it is wholly wonderful!


 
Yes, I think he made that quite clear, i.e. that this is very far into the future.  However he was pondering about what will happen eventually.  Why do people find it depressing?  I don't get it.  But they do, Brian Cox even addressed this at the end, because it seems this does actually freak some people out 

The likelihood that humanity will still exist when the sun dies is so small, in fact, I think it's almost non existent.  But it's not depressing, it's just what it is.  We all die, why wouldn't the universe?  In fact why would humans be any different from any other life form?  Humanity needs to accept that our life as a species is not eternal, and that we don't get to live forever.  I think it was rather beautiful when he pointed out how special this moment in the universe's life actually is, when there is life.

The lingering shots after Brian Cox made his points were annoying, and it could have done with a slightly better soundtrack (although some of it was good), nonetheless, I think he clearly illustrated what happens to stars and how this will ultimately lead to time itself stopping.

What is worrying is that some people, after watching it, may ask 'what is the point'? - I wonder what people who believe in  life after death make of that, for example.  And also, people who may think what is the point of looking after the environment if it's all going to end.  That kind of stupid reasoning is what worries me.

And I know what you say here is a joke (well, I assume it is, I could be wrong), but this is what I meant...  


weltweit said:


> I found it all a bit depressing, almost nihilistic, everything is going to die, all life will die, all stars will die, made me want to go out and rape and pillage I mean there is obviously no future so why not!


----------



## girasol (Mar 7, 2011)

rover07 said:


> The universe fading to nothing? Bollocks to that.
> 
> In a few million years we will be able to manipulate matter/energy to form new stars.
> 
> I found his lack of imagination annoying.



The universe continuing to expand and then running out of fuel eventually is one of the accepted outcomes in the scientific community.  There are other possibilities.  However, thinking about the laws of physics, the possibility of contraction doesn't make sense, after an explosion, things don't 'de-explode' again.  So unless the laws of physics in the universe are different from the laws of physics on Earth, I don't see how that would happen?

As for paralell universes, well, to me that just sounds like it was written by theoretical physicists who read too much science fiction  (yes, I do know about Schrödinger's cat)


----------



## Hollis (Mar 7, 2011)

I reluctantly quite enjoyed it.  It did seem like a pop promo video some times, however all the dead time allowed us to absorb the science stuff..   There were some bad parts to the script - he started going on about photons and black holes without explaining what they were.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What do you expect, though. This is a subject I know a bit about, so there was nothing new for me in it, but I still found it watchable and engaging, and it wasn't patronising. I thought the sandcastle explanation of entropy was good, for instance.
> 
> What he could have done, which I suppose is what you would have wanted, is to go into detail about how we know that heat death is the future of the universe, for instance. Perhaps. But it's a show that assumes no prior science knowledge, which does limit what he can do.


 
This is why Cosmos is still king.
Here is some basic science, illustrated with everyday concepts and experiences.
Here is the story of how these things were discovered, to show how science is a human struggle undertaken by people like  you and me.
Here is how this knowledge has been built upon and expanded into the wider universe.
Isn't it _amazing?_

These days, they just go straight for the "amazing!" bit and substitute soft focus shots of waves on a beach for the rest.


----------



## girasol (Mar 7, 2011)

Hollis said:


> I reluctantly quite enjoyed it.  It did seem like a pop promo video some times, however all the dead time allowed us to absorb the science stuff..   There were some bad parts to the script - he started going on about photons and black holes without explaining what they were.


 
Maybe they chose to assume we knew what they were...  It's such a vast subject, I can just imagine the difficulty in deciding on content for the programme.  Keep it basic and explain everything or assume some prior knowledge?  Tricky...  There's no way they can cover everything, takes years to learn it!  If they explain the basic stuff, there's no time for other stuff.


----------



## Santino (Mar 7, 2011)

I suppose after the eventual destruction of the sun, the extinction of humanity, and the ultimate heat death of the universe things can only get better.


----------



## yield (Mar 7, 2011)

rover07 said:


> The universe fading to nothing? Bollocks to that.
> 
> In a few million years we will be able to manipulate matter/energy to form new stars.
> 
> I found his lack of imagination annoying.



If something can come from nothing once it can happen again.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fair enough. I quite liked the long shots and the music. It was contemplative.


 
I found myself contemplating the great question of what exactly had happened to the last hour of my life.

And could he not have given that poor turtle some fucking privacy?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 7, 2011)

girasol said:


> However, thinking about the laws of physics, the possibility of contraction doesn't make sense, after an explosion, things don't 'de-explode' again.



Stars do, in some cases. On account of gravity and such.


----------



## girasol (Mar 7, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> Stars do, in some cases. On account of gravity and such.


 
Given how far and how fast the universe is expanding, I think it unlikely for it to contract again.  We'll never know what happens though.



Santino said:


> I suppose after the eventual destruction of the sun, the extinction of humanity, and the ultimate heat death of the universe things can only get better.


 


Also he does mention how we could end up living around a red dwarf in the far future...  Thus giving people some hope.  Although I don't know why people are so bothered about mankind living for such a long time.


----------



## gabi (Mar 7, 2011)

really good. im sure theres loadsa the usual urban geekwallahs who'll be bitching further up the thread about 'dumbing down' and suchlike, but fuck it. hes charismatic and has a way of making science understandable to the average chump such as me. more please.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 7, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> I found myself contemplating the great question of what exactly had happened to the last hour of my life.
> 
> And could he not have given that poor turtle some fucking privacy?


 
I must say, the turtle bit was really quite irrelevant to anything. At least he managed to tie the glacier into his explanation of entropy.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 7, 2011)

Garek said:


> Turned off after 20 mins. Found it dull and boring. Was hoping for some science.


 
Yeah, on reflection, I agree with this.  Programme was very much Brian as epic science god dispensing wisdom from on high.  How about showing your audience _how_ and _why_ we know these things?  Credit us with some brians, Brain!


----------



## Hollis (Mar 7, 2011)

girasol said:


> Maybe they chose to assume we knew what they were...  It's such a vast subject, I can just imagine the difficulty in deciding on content for the programme.  Keep it basic and explain everything or assume some prior knowledge?  Tricky...  There's no way they can cover everything, takes years to learn it!  If they explain the basic stuff, there's no time for other stuff.



If you're gonna start talking about 'photons' then you need to explain the term - otherwise you shouldn't include it.  The programme was clearly aimed at the general public, who aint' gonna have a clue what a 'photon' is.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 7, 2011)

Monotone I thought, not just in delllllllliveryyyyy.

Not much you couldn't learn from a couple of lines of Woodstock by Joni Mitchell.

/stardust, man


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 7, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Yeah, on reflection, I agree with this.  Programme was very much Brian as epic science god dispensing wisdom from on high.  How about showing your audience _how_ and _why_ we know these things?  Credit us with some brians, Brain!


 
This was lacking, that is true. Perhaps in later shows.


----------



## rorymac (Mar 7, 2011)

You might think he's a right cissy but that's all an act. I got blathered with him a few times and I couldn't keep up. He totally knows his stuff as well. I didn't think anyone knew more about centrifugal and centripedal forces spefically in relation to machine tool conn rod design but he made me look like a bit of a flute in a nice way like. He went into one about the moon landings at my mate Shaky.
'Don't be fucking daft' .. he said. 'If you tried to go to the moon for real you'd end up like a fucking pork scratching'.
'I fucking knew it .. I always suspected that Bri' said Shaky 
He came up to Ponders End once for afters and fell asleep on the 149 bus and got locked in the depot and came out next morning looking immaculate. He reckoned I looked like a befuddled old tramp. 
Top man imo


----------



## girasol (Mar 7, 2011)

Hollis said:


> If you're gonna start talking about 'photons' then you need to explain the term - otherwise you shouldn't include it.  The programme was clearly aimed at the general public, who aint' gonna have a clue what a 'photon' is.


 
Everyone learns about photons in school, the 12 year old at home covered it in science recently.  They have to assume people have some knowledge otherwise the programme would be about the basic principles, and there would be time for nothing else.  Now, if people don't remember learning about them, that's a different issue!


----------



## mentalchik (Mar 7, 2011)

girasol said:


> Everyone learns about photons in school, the 12 year old at home covered it in science recently.  They have to assume people have some knowledge otherwise the programme would be about the basic principles, and there would be time for nothing else.  Now, if people don't remember learning about them, that's a different issue!


 
There's some big assumptions ^^^^

i didn't learn about photons at school for instance and i'll bet huge numbers of the general public won't know either............


----------



## girasol (Mar 7, 2011)

mentalchik said:


> There's some big assumptions ^^^^
> 
> i didn't learn about photons at school for instance and i'll bet huge numbers of the general public won't know either............


 
yes, but my point is, if a 12 year old boy who is going to a bog standard comp is learning about it, then it must be part of the national curriculum.  When thinking of the content from the programme, they must think about what people learn in school and what level of knowledge they are likely to have.  

So, maybe some adults won't know about it, but the younger audience will very likely do so, as it's now part of the national curriculum...  It's a delicate balance, and not everyone will know everthing, it's just impossible to please and reach everyone.  

I think I knew most of the content, but it was presented from a different angle, the angle of time, which still made it interesting.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 7, 2011)

girasol said:


> However, thinking about the laws of physics, the possibility of contraction doesn't make sense, after an explosion, things don't 'de-explode' again.  So unless the laws of physics in the universe are different from the laws of physics on Earth, I don't see how that would happen?


 
The idea is that gravity eventually slows the expansion, then the universe plunges back in on itself. It all depends on the density of the universe. If it is above a certain figure, you'll get a Big Crunch. If it's below that figure, you get Heat Death as described last night. 

Estimates of the density of the universe put it at pretty close to the critical density that separates Big Crunch from heat death, but observation shows that the universe is in fact expanding at an ever-increasing rate. This is explained by the fudge that is 'dark energy', but given that nobody knows what dark energy is, firm conclusions about it are hard to come to. 

The programme could have gone into this quite a bit more – Heat Death is the favoured scenario now, but it isn't a nailed-on certainty, and thinking about it, it would have been good to have heard his take on it.


----------



## Hollis (Mar 7, 2011)

I learnt about protons, neutrons and electons, but not photons.  Had they been discovered in 1981?


----------



## girasol (Mar 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The idea is that gravity eventually slows the expansion, then the universe plunges back in on itself. It all depends on the density of the universe. If it is above a certain figure, you'll get a Big Crunch. If it's below that figure, you get Heat Death as described last night.
> 
> Estimates of the density of the universe put it at pretty close to the critical density that separates Big Crunch from heat death, but observation shows that the universe is in fact expanding at an ever-increasing rate. This is explained by the fudge that is 'dark energy', but given that nobody knows what dark energy is, firm conclusions about it are hard to come to.
> 
> The programme could have gone into this quite a bit more – Heat Death is the favoured scenario now, but it isn't a nailed-on certainty, and thinking about it, it would have been good to have heard his take on it.


 
 yep, I wonder if he'll cover that, and others, or maybe that's just his favoured theory?

Anyway, there was a programme a few months ago on the BBC which covered all the current theories, so I hope he doesn't go over it again!


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 7, 2011)

photons are the light thingys in star trek missiles.

HTH


----------



## girasol (Mar 7, 2011)

Hollis said:


> I learnt about protons, neutrons and electons, but not photons.  Had they been discovered in 1981?


 
it's an elementary particle, kids learn about elementary particles in year 7 these days (nothing too deep, mostly their names/sizes).  But like I said, most will probably forget about them if they're not interested in physics 

Didn't Eistein theorize photons, and then later on experiments proved their existence? (memory is a bit rusty)

This programme is good: http://www.myspace.com/asad1618/videos/video/4526010
(BBC Horizon's Super-String Theory M-Theory Origin of the Universe)  Not great quality but it's not available on iplayer...


----------



## invisibleplanet (Mar 7, 2011)

I like his gentle presenting style and his slightly self-conscious camera style. 
But I didn't much enjoy the style of the programme itself - as others have already said, it wasn't technical enough.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 7, 2011)

In summary, long sweeping shots of exotic locations, lingering shots of Brian Cox to give everybody a stonk, and some vague science without any explanation.

Science porn.


----------



## Santino (Mar 7, 2011)

I think there was a bit in his first series when he rather bizarrely used a old scrap of paper to write an important equation down, as if to say 'Yeah, I'll just use this old scrap of paper that I happen to have found to help illustrate my point, I don't need any fancy graphics'.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 7, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> I like his gentle presenting style and his slightly self-conscious camera style.
> But I didn't much enjoy the style of the programme itself - as others have already said, it wasn't technical enough.


 
Doesn't even have to be technical, just explanatory and explanations of WHY as well as WHAT we know. Science is a process and is so often presented as a series of facts.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 7, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Doesn't even have to be technical, just explanatory and explanations of WHY as well as WHAT we know. Science is a process and is so often presented as a series of facts.


 
The explanation has always been the most interesting bit. 

This is science-lite, so people can just go "wowwwww the universe is so mental" and then not really think about it again. When its the process of thinking about the questions, rather than the answers, that is truly fascinating.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Mar 7, 2011)

Fuck sake. It was a prime time bbc2 doc not open university. My dad liked it, my mum watched it without going to bed. I rather think they may be the intended audience rather than a load of people wanting deep level quantum theory and explanations of heat death tbh


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 7, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Fuck sake. It was a prime time bbc2 doc not open university. My dad liked it, my mum watched it without going to bed. I rather think they may be the intended audience rather than a load of people wanting deep level quantum theory and explanations of heat death tbh


 
It doesn't have to be deep level quantum theory or complex mathematics though. 

There are plenty of other science programs that manage to do it. It's all a bit insulting to the audience I reckon.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 7, 2011)

Doesn't have to be deep!

Like I said, Sagan did this sort of things far far better. Watch Cosmos and you'll find no equations, no unintelligable jargon, just clear explanations of the WHY WHO and HOW of science. Cox just gives us the WHAT. If you can identify with scientists and the science they do, it ceases to be mystical wowness dispensed from on high, but an integral part of everybody's world.


----------



## Hollis (Mar 7, 2011)

Weren't enough jokes in it either:

Two atoms were walking up a hill, one says to the other “I think I just lost an electron!” The other atom then replies, “are you sure?” Then the first atom says, “yes, I’m positive!”


----------



## weltweit (Mar 7, 2011)

girasol said:


> And I know what you say here is a joke (well, I assume it is, I could be wrong), but this is what I meant...


 
Well it wasn't really wholly a joke, the idea that everything is going to die, inevitably, is pretty depressing, so why stick to the rules, rules that we hold because things have consequences over time, but we are all going to die anyhow so no rules need apply. 

Nihilistic, however, Cox did not go into the idea of what created the cosmos and he did not explain why it cannot happen again. 

My belief is that after the big expansion there may be a big contraction and a crunch and time will revert to day one again at which time a great explosion may take place creating the cosmos again from scratch as if it never happenned before. 

And then there is human ingenuety, by the time entrophy happens we will be considerably more developed than we are today and who knows what will be possible. 

Anyhow Professor Brian Cox, if the next programs are going to be equally depressing you just lost one viewer!


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 7, 2011)

if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 7, 2011)

Yeah, Crispy's dead right about Sagan.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 7, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Well it wasn't really wholly a joke, the idea that everything is going to die, inevitably, is pretty depressing, so why stick to the rules, rules that we hold because things have consequences over time, but we are all going to die anyhow so no rules need apply.
> 
> Nihilistic, however, Cox did not go into the idea of what created the cosmos and he did not explain why it cannot happen again.
> 
> ...


 
fuck me.

I think _you_ are the intended audience.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 7, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> fuck me.
> 
> I think _you_ are the intended audience.


 
Well that is a shame for Coxy because I nearly turned it off last time!


----------



## girasol (Mar 7, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Well it wasn't really wholly a joke, the idea that everything is going to die, inevitably, is pretty depressing, so why stick to the rules, rules that we hold because things have consequences over time, but we are all going to die anyhow so no rules need apply.
> 
> Nihilistic, however, Cox did not go into the idea of what created the cosmos and he did not explain why it cannot happen again.
> 
> ...


 
Yes, it's possible we may last that long due to our 'ingenuity', and it's possible we may not, does it really matter though?  Is that what life is about to you, whether we'll still be around in a billion trillion years?  Is that what is required for some people to live a decent life and not self destruct and stick to the rules? 

The other thing is, given M-theory (which I'm not entirely convinced by and confuses the heck out of me), big bangs happen many times, not just once, and so there are many universes being created all the time...  Which means there may always be life somewhere.  But once again, why would that affect our behaviour right now?

Everytime I think about it, it occurs to me we may never really 'get it', we may never really understand all of it...  So much of it is still speculation and leaps of imagination.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 7, 2011)

girasol said:


> Yes, it's possible we may last that long due to our 'ingenuity', and it's possible we may not, does it really matter though?  Is that what life is about to you, whether we'll still be around in a billion trillion years?  Is that what is required for some people to live a decent life and not self destruct and stick to the rules?



I don't like to think of humans not existing in the future. Evolution is probably still continuing so it is likely that humans in a billion years may only resemble us today but there is no certainty in my mind that we will not exist that far into the future. 



girasol said:


> The other thing is, given M-theory (which I'm not entirely convinced by and confuses the heck out of me), big bangs happen many times, not just once, and so there are many universes being created all the time...  Which means there may always be life somewhere.



This agrees with my pet theory of time, a lot of which I forget.  

Anyhow I agree that there may be lots of big bangs and variety in eventual outcomes from various billions of solar systems. 

I think it is almost inevitable that there is other life out there somewhere.



girasol said:


> Everytime I think about it, it occurs to me we may never really 'get it', we may never really understand all of it...  So much of it is still speculation and leaps of imagination.


 
Indeed, science is progressing but it always has and rules that were once thought permanent have been superceded by later rules. Once it was thought that the world was flat, how we have advanced since those days.


----------



## girasol (Mar 7, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I don't like to think of humans not existing in the future. Evolution is probably still continuing so it is likely that humans in a billion years may only resemble us today but there is no certainty in my mind that we will not exist that far into the future.



I think it's quite liberating once you accept we won't be around forever, just like it is accepting that there's no life after death.  Maybe that's the next belief people need to let go of, that we'll be around for a long time.  So what if we won't?  It really doesn't matter, as it's so far in the future.


----------



## zenie (Mar 7, 2011)

I wish I hadn't just read he was married


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 7, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Once it was thought that the world was flat


 
Arrrrrgh, why do people keep saying this bollocks?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth


----------



## weltweit (Mar 7, 2011)

girasol said:


> I think it's quite liberating once you accept we won't be around forever, just like it is accepting that there's no life after death.  Maybe that's the next belief people need to let go of, that we'll be around for a long time.  So what if we won't?  It really doesn't matter, as it's so far in the future.


 
I am only just getting used to the idea that I personally won't be around for ever!! 

You know that feeling when you were a teenager, that you would be there for ever? well I am 46 and I am only just growing out of it!!


----------



## weltweit (Mar 7, 2011)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Arrrrrgh, why do people keep saying this bollocks?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth



From that page: 




			
				wikipedia said:
			
		

> Flat-Earth models were in fact held at earlier (pre-Medieval) times, before the spherical model became commonly accepted in Hellenistic astronomy.[3]
> 
> However, among Medieval artists, depictions of a flat earth remained common.[citation needed] The exterior of the famous triptych The Garden of Earthly Delights by Hieronymus Bosch is a Renaissance example in which a disc-shaped earth is shown floating inside a transparent sphere.[4]


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 7, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Doesn't have to be deep!
> 
> Like I said, Sagan did this sort of things far far better. Watch Cosmos and you'll find no equations, no unintelligable jargon, just clear explanations of the WHY WHO and HOW of science. Cox just gives us the WHAT. If you can identify with scientists and the science they do, it ceases to be mystical wowness dispensed from on high, but an integral part of everybody's world.



Yeah, Cosmos was ace.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 7, 2011)

A couple of my friends are in Cox's department at the university of Manchester. They fucking hate him.

Manchester has form for shit 'celebrity' scientists mind you. My sister's psychology tutor was that bloke who always showed up as token psychobabble purveyor on big brother and various shit daytime tv shows. He marked all the stastical analysis on her dissertation as being wrong when I know for a fact it wasn't because it was all done by me


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 7, 2011)

Hmmm. Didn't the University of Manchester have Martin Amis as a lecturer for a while, on stupid money for taking one course?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 7, 2011)

during his beef with eagleton over amis being an islamaphobe as well, which must have made for some awkward moments in the corridor


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 7, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> He marked all the stastical analysis on her dissertation as being wrong when I know for a fact it wasn't because it was all done by me


She shouldn't be cheating then.

WotU is perfectly fine introductory fare, so far.   It needs to be general, simple to catch the interest.   It can get more...have more depth later on.

I watched Cosmos when I was younger and it was pretty much similar to this content wise (allowing for advances in science) the main difference being the current presentation style a la Neil Oliver.

And Cox looks like a dolphin with a mop top.


----------



## miss minnie (Mar 7, 2011)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I want a show that's full of science, at whatever level they choose to pitch it, not 50 minutes of arty shots of glaciers and mountains with a shit soundtrack.


This.

Don't care how cute the smile/haircut/accent is. In fact less cute the better, its distracting.

Don't fancy Patrick Moore, in fact can't stand him on many levels but he presents a decent science-based show.


----------



## Ich bin ein Mod (Mar 7, 2011)

From a purely selfish perspective, as a physics teacher I can't get enough Brian Cox on the telly. Simple, engaging, and gets the kids talking and thinking about science.


----------



## stavros (Mar 7, 2011)

Even if you didn't enjoy the first show, at least in a series _Things Can Only Get Better_.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 7, 2011)

*preview of next episode*


----------



## invisibleplanet (Mar 7, 2011)

girasol said:


> I think it's quite liberating once you accept we won't be around forever, just like it is accepting that there's no life after death.  Maybe that's the next belief people need to let go of, that we'll be around for a long time.  So what if we won't?  It really doesn't matter, as it's so far in the future.


 This is exactly how my father (also a scientist-of-sorts) thinks. Science fiction is his favourite genre and he's also read all the science greats (Sagan, Asimov),  etc.


----------



## Maggot (Mar 7, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> A couple of my friends are in Cox's department at the university of Manchester. They fucking hate him.


 Why do they hate him?  Jealousy?


----------



## girasol (Mar 7, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> WotU is perfectly fine introductory fare, so far.   It needs to be general, simple to catch the interest.   It can get more...have more depth later on.
> 
> I watched Cosmos when I was younger and it was pretty much similar to this content wise (allowing for advances in science) the main difference being the current presentation style a la Neil Oliver.
> 
> And Cox looks like a dolphin with a mop top.


 
I can see many similarities!  



The reason people love Cosmos so much was that they watched it as children/teens, in a few years people will feel the same way about Brian Cox's programmes.  Interesting to see how the use of language has changed.


----------



## girasol (Mar 7, 2011)

Maggot said:


> Why do they hate him?  Jealousy?


 
words, mouth


----------



## EastEnder (Mar 7, 2011)

Ich bin ein Mod said:


> From a purely selfish perspective, as a physics teacher I can't get enough Brian Cox on the telly. Simple, engaging, and gets the kids talking and thinking about science.


I tend to agree. Personally, I find him quite irritating and yearn for science documentaries that actually cover new ground and don't treat the audience like wide eyed, awestruck simpletons. But stuff like this isn't really aimed at me, and it would be arrogant to assume that everyone else should share my interest in science. If programs like this result in more people becoming interested in astronomy, cosmology, even physics, then it can only be a good thing. Given the amount of utter crap on the telly - football, reality TV, soap operas, strictly come fucking dancing, etc - even questionable, mass market science programs are a huge step in the right direction.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 7, 2011)

girasol said:


> I can see many similarities!
> 
> 
> 
> The reason people love Cosmos so much was that they watched it as children/teens, in a few years people will feel the same way about Brian Cox's programmes.  Interesting to see how the use of language has changed.




I did watch it as a child and I still have the book, probably my favourite ever science book.  Precisely because it covers science and the history of knowledge.


----------



## nadia (Mar 7, 2011)

I feel quite sorry for him hand obviously quite a bright bloke but having to churn out the dumbed down stuff he does must be soul destroying. It makes me cringe when I hear people think they understand physics and think they are clever because they understand this when there is really very little science in it what so ever. On a different note years ago I worked in tv post production science documentaries were made by outside contractors a bbc version would be made and a version dumbed down for discovery/American market was made at the same time


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 7, 2011)

girasol said:


> I can see many similarities!
> 
> [nosatalgia]
> 
> The reason people love Cosmos so much was that they watched it as children/teens, in a few years people will feel the same way about Brian Cox's programmes.  Interesting to see how the use of language has changed.



Exactly


----------



## invisibleplanet (Mar 7, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Yeah, Cosmos was ace.



It was, but I watched it again last Autumn and it seemed stylistically dated. Not the actual dialogue itself, mainly the soundtrack  Electronic music has come a long way since the 80s.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Mar 7, 2011)

Hollis said:


> Weren't enough jokes in it either:
> 
> Two atoms were walking up a hill, one says to the other “I think I just lost an electron!” The other atom then replies, “are you sure?” Then the first atom says, “yes, I’m positive!”


yes indeed


----------



## Hollis (Mar 7, 2011)

You like the joke!


----------



## invisibleplanet (Mar 7, 2011)

Hollis said:


> You like the joke!


 
I did too. I sent it to my dad and my son


----------



## ferrelhadley (Mar 7, 2011)

Cosmos was 13 hour long episodes. It was broadcast less than 8 years since a man had walked on the moon, just a couple of years since the Viking mission to Mars and while the Pioneer and Voyager missions were creating the greatest revoultion in planatery science since Galelio. Also at the time of the new Shuttles were getting ready to launch and when space rivalry with the Soviet Union was still a very live issue.

Cox's show is 4 hour long episodes aimed at a public largely disengaged from physics and astronomy. Its aim seems to be far more to present science as interesting for people who are only marginally interested. Reading through this thread though the BBC seems to be missing all the amazing writing talent that could have done it better if it werent being wasted on this thread.


----------



## girasol (Mar 8, 2011)

Hollis said:


> I learnt about protons, neutrons and electons, but not photons.  Had they been discovered in 1981?


 
I retreat my assumption that all kids learn about photons in school, at least not in year 7.  They only learn about some elementary particles (as Hollis said electrons/neutrons/protons), but not photons (I checked my son's science book).  He only knew about photons because of other programmes we watched.  I myself remember learning about them when I was 14, but I went to school in a different country!  It's odd but I still remember the lesson when the Rutherford experiment was described to us 

I feel a bit like Stephen Hawkings now, when he took his u-turn on the black hole information paradox...


----------



## sim667 (Mar 8, 2011)

Well I watched the first one last night, very well explained, although being told that the world would end and all life with it isnt that brill when you're feeling a bit down in the first place


----------



## Crispy (Mar 8, 2011)

girasol said:


> I can see many similarities!
> 
> 
> 
> The reason people love Cosmos so much was that they watched it as children/teens, in a few years people will feel the same way about Brian Cox's programmes.  Interesting to see how the use of language has changed.




I only watched it for the first time last year, so my opinion comes from a proper adult appraisal of the matter.

Sagan had a grand overarching theme for Cosmos: Science is a candle in the dark and a struggle against superstition, fear and hate. The quest for knowledge, understanding and discovery is part of the human spirit and can drive people to do extraordinary things. Having climbed this enormous mountain of knowledge, we have now revealed almost infinite heights beyond. _Here are the things we're discovering, isn't it amazing?_

Cox does that last bit just fine, but the program lacks the writing and cohesive theme to make it actually mean anything. The parodies are all too accurate.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 8, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Cox does that last bit just fine, but the program lacks the writing and cohesive theme to make it actually mean anything. The parodies are all too accurate.


 
I get the feeling he's being held back/controlled far too much by the BBC, becuase his book "Why Does E=MC2" is fantastic. Explains using nothing more than Pythagoras why, errrr, E=MC2


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 8, 2011)

Once I'd realised he was going to spend the episode basically trying to get people to understand that time, when measured cosmologically, is something humans are barely, if at all, able to comprehend, I got on with it's lack of discussion about Time, IYSWIM.

The turtles were edited into the wrong bit. He should've had them in before talking about the glacier - the reason it seemed weird is cos it looked like he was creating a chronology - human life=200K years, turtles=100mn, this rock =4bn and so on, attempting to provide an ever-growing perspective of 'deep time'.

His explanation of entropy was fantastic tho - very simply constructed, good examples given, altho given some of the replies on this thread _it still wasn't pitched low enough_. So if it had been, you can imagine what some of the replies on this thread would be!

I will confess that while _any_ end-of-universe scenario (from heat death to destruction by van-neumann machines) tends to bring out a weird existential dread, heat-death for me is particularly depressing - at least with a Big Crunch it all ends with a bang, not the whimper of the heat death. I think it might be because the heat-death offers no return, no possiblility of something new coming from it - no redemption, no resurrection, no chance of anything ever happening again, ever. Just a never ending stillness. I find that quite depressing in a real emotional sense, which is weird because generally stuff that's as abstract (from a human perspective it's moot - even if our descendents are around for it, it's non-applicable to us in any meaningful way) as this (like say a GRB frying all life on the planet forever) doesn't play on me emotionally.

So, not too bad on the whole. I reckon that the forthcoming eps should be more interesting tho.

WRT to Cosmos; I too watched it all recently, and while it scores on content (it has truly vaulting ambition, something WotU either lacks from the word go, or isn't allowed to have from a BBC corporate perspective about accesibility), I can't get past the fact _I find Carl Sagan's voice annoying yet soporific_. His mild-mannered delivery manages, for me, to wreck Cosmos as a series (I read the book when I was a nipper, not watch the TV show).


----------



## girasol (Mar 8, 2011)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I get the feeling he's being held back/controlled far too much by the BBC, becuase his book "Why Does E=MC2" is fantastic. Explains using nothing more than Pythagoras why, errrr, E=MC2


 
Yep, good book that   And yes, just four programmes isn't enough to cover it all, it's such a vast subject, which can be explored from many different perspectives...  But, having said that, four is better than nada!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 8, 2011)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I get the feeling he's being held back/controlled far too much by the BBC, becuase his book "Why Does E=MC2" is fantastic. Explains using nothing more than Pythagoras why, errrr, E=MC2


 
I found that book really irritating. Ten pages to explain something that a couple of lines of relatively simple maths could have explained. To me, that's the worst kind of dumbing down. 

I actually didn't think this programme was dumbed down too much at all. I understand why people wanted more content, but the content that was there was ok, I thought.


----------



## girasol (Mar 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I found that book really irritating. Ten pages to explain something that a couple of lines of relatively simple maths could have explained. To me, that's the worst kind of dumbing down.



How do you mean? I think they (let's not forget there were two of them) were trying to avoid the maths (although there is some, but you could skip if you wanted) - maybe it was too basic for you, but for me it was just at the right level.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 8, 2011)

I only read parts of it. It was partly their style that annoyed me, the constant apologising for including anything remotely challenging. Good that you liked it, though.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Mar 8, 2011)

Robert Burns, 1794 CE


> Till a’ the seas gang dry, my dear,
> And the rocks melt wi’ the sun:


----------



## girasol (Mar 9, 2011)

This was on last night, Brian Cox was there too, amongst others

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00z9n1z/The_Sky_at_Night_700_Not_Out/



(Viewers were asking questions to the panel of experts and the programme was celebrating its 700th episode)



> Sir Patrick Moore celebrates the 700th episode of The Sky at Night at his home in Sussex, with the help of guests Brian Cox, Jon Culshaw and the Astronomer Royal.



"Which planet would heaven be on?" by 11 year old - everyone gasps and avoids the theological aspect of the question   I agree with one of the panelists, Earth is where heaven should be!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 9, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I found that book really irritating. Ten pages to explain something that a couple of lines of relatively simple maths could have explained. To me, that's the worst kind of dumbing down.


 
I think the whole point of the book was to avoid the maths as much as possible, in order to bring the concepts to people who might otherwise be put off. 

That's not dumbing down, that's good teaching.


----------



## Santino (Mar 13, 2011)

He's using spray paint to write element symbols, just like a graffiti artist would! That really makes me think that this science stuff is cool!


----------



## magneze (Mar 13, 2011)

Word.


----------



## Santino (Mar 13, 2011)

I hope he does a rap about the lifecycle of a star.


----------



## magneze (Mar 13, 2011)

Whilst playing piano.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 13, 2011)

If it feels like it is dumbed down, there is a very simple reason.

This is not a purely BBC production. It is a co-production with National Geographic. This means that the level of understanding is aimed at your average American, without anything to tricky or controversial. 

National Geographic are the same people who refuse to mention evolution iirc, for fear of offending creationists. And are reluctant to show death or sex of animals, because it will hurt their viewing figures.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 13, 2011)

I was trying to spice it up for my mum who kept going 'yep' whenever he mentioned that we are all made of the same stuff as stars (Christian woman- dust to dust) by explaining (badly) some of the freakier aspects of relativity. I've still yet to find someone who was as gobsmacked as me to find that travelling close to _c_ means time affects you slower. I recon people think I am chatting shit.

Once again Prof Cox made me fall asleep during an explanation of something because he is always on too late, never says anything knotty enough to keep me awake and has a soothing cadence that could describe the formation of the alien missile to my house so lovingly I would just zone out.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Mar 13, 2011)

We watched Dino-Croc vs Super-_Gator on movies 24 instead.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Mar 13, 2011)

Dillinger4 said:


> If it feels like it is dumbed down, there is a very simple reason.
> 
> This is not a purely BBC production. It is a co-production with National Geographic. This means that the level of understanding is aimed at your average American, without anything to tricky or controversial.
> 
> National Geographic are the same people who refuse to mention evolution iirc, for fear of offending creationists. And are reluctant to show death or sex of animals, because it will hurt their viewing figures.


 
I've noticed this is an increasing trend with the Beeb, styling things for an American/international audience, and therefore sounding slightly tone-deaf from a British audience perspective as a result. Very depressing.

As for the rest - anyone who  gets existentially bothered by the concept of the end of the universe is either excessively egotistical, or depressingly small-minded. IMO. Why does everything have to be about us?!


----------



## zoooo (Mar 14, 2011)

gabi said:


> really good. im sure theres loadsa the usual urban geekwallahs who'll be bitching further up the thread about 'dumbing down' and suchlike, but fuck it. hes charismatic and has a way of making science understandable to the average chump such as me. more please.



Agreed.
This thread is reet full of cynical, pooh-poohing bastards. 

I am loving this series.


----------



## girasol (Mar 14, 2011)

Brian Cox on radio 4 now, talking about the show 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00zdbhz

Brian Greene also on, talking about quilted multiverse/brane etc


----------



## Steel Icarus (Mar 14, 2011)

Too much science last night. Almost bobbed off during protons & neurons & whatnot.

Annoyed Mrs. S☼I by shouting "pathetic fallacy" at the telly when he described a star as doing something "desperately".

Lovely to look at though (the locations, not him & his plastic hands so much).


----------



## girasol (Mar 14, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Annoyed Mrs. S☼I by shouting "pathetic fallacy" at the telly when he described a star as doing something "desperately".



The Mrs. had a point, as that made my eye twitch!!!!


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 14, 2011)

Much better episode. One thing I do like (which some probably don't), and I only really noticed last night, is his effort to imbue a sense of the 'spiritual' in what he's explaining, neatly sidestepping all those who complain that material science is only reductive and has no 'soul' or wonder.


----------



## Santino (Mar 14, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> Much better episode. One thing I do like (which some probably don't), and I only really noticed last night, is his effort to imbue a sense of the 'spiritual' in what he's explaining, neatly sidestepping all those who complain that material science is only reductive and has no 'soul' or wonder.


 
Appeasement.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 14, 2011)

Or showing people that you don't have to have mystical faith reasons to understand that we belong to something bigger & older, and that we're innately linked to the rest of the universe.


----------



## Santino (Mar 14, 2011)

Maybe if we keep pandering to the scientifically illiterate, eventually they'll come round to our way of thinking.


----------



## girasol (Mar 14, 2011)

that's the whole point, in the radio show this morning he explained the reasoning behind the programme's content/level...

he also points out that you can't call yourself educated these days if you aren't science literate!


----------



## stavros (Mar 14, 2011)

I've read Brief History of Time and am reading Cox's one on E=mc^2 at the moment, but I genuinely didn't know about the light spectrum-elements thing, so I feel better for that.

Good to see Professor Cox, second from the right, still has something to fall back on though if the TV thing falls through;


----------



## Espresso (Mar 14, 2011)

stavros said:


> I've read Brief History of Time and am reading Cox's one on E=mc^2 at the moment, but I genuinely didn't know about the light spectrum-elements thing, so I feel better for that.
> 
> Good to see Professor Cox, second from the right, still has something to fall back on though if the TV thing falls through;



He was plugging the new D:Ream album on Somethng for the Weekend on Sunday morning, too.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 14, 2011)

stavros said:


> I've read Brief History of Time and am reading Cox's one on E=mc^2 at the moment, but I genuinely didn't know about the light spectrum-elements thing, so I feel better for that.
> 
> Good to see Professor Cox, second from the right, still has something to fall back on though if the TV thing falls through;


 
Gay porn?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 14, 2011)

I watched a great science program on bbc4 before. It was called around the world in 60 minutes, it was about life on the ISS, and about its orbit around earth.


----------



## Gingerman (Mar 14, 2011)

Hes gettin the air miles in


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Mar 15, 2011)

Dillinger4 said:


> I watched a great science program on bbc4 before. It was called around the world in 60 minutes, it was about life on the ISS, and about its orbit around earth.



I recorded that 



kyser_soze said:


> Or showing people that you don't have to have mystical faith reasons to understand that we belong to something bigger & older, and that we're innately linked to the rest of the universe.



I really enjoyed Sunday's programme and just want to echo what kyser says above. Good stuff!


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 15, 2011)

QueenOfGoths said:


> I recorded that
> 
> 
> 
> I really enjoyed Sunday's programme and just want to echo what kyser says above. Good stuff!


 
It's an excellent program


----------



## discokermit (Mar 15, 2011)

when will brian may get to do a programme like this? i want to see him looking windswept on the edge of a cliff from a helicopter. grrr.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Mar 15, 2011)

discokermit said:


> when will brian may get to do a programme like this? i want to see him looking windswept on the edge of a cliff from a helicopter. grrr.


 
That's just weird


----------



## discokermit (Mar 16, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> That's just weird


 
with a guitar, guitaring out space facts.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 16, 2011)

I'm actually surprised Mr Giant Hair hasn't at least done a one-off special about something space-sciency - shit, he could base it around him and his missus haircuts, using them as a metaphor for storng theory or summat.

I don't think he'd be great tho - whenever he's been on TSaN he's not been the most involved of comentators, despite his obvious expertise.

Jim Al-Khalili is the gold standard science presenter for me at the moment.


----------



## fen_boy (Mar 16, 2011)

stavros said:


> I've read Brief History of Time and am reading Cox's one on E=mc^2 at the moment, but I genuinely didn't know about the light spectrum-elements thing, so I feel better for that.
> 
> Good to see Professor Cox, second from the right, still has something to fall back on though if the TV thing falls through;



Am I missing a joke here? That's not him, it's Take That.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 16, 2011)

The very best science program I have seen on television for a long time is _The Secret Lives of Waves._

It exceeded all my expectations of what a program about science and philosophy can achieve on television. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00y5jhx


----------



## Santino (Mar 16, 2011)

fen_boy said:


> Am I missing a joke here? That's not him, it's Take That.


 
Eh? I can see a picture of Brian Cox and two other blokes.


----------



## fen_boy (Mar 16, 2011)

Santino said:


> Eh? I can see a picture of Brian Cox and two other blokes.



It's Take That on my screen. Image url is http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/dynamic/00481/take-that_481383s.jpg


----------



## Santino (Mar 16, 2011)

This is what it looks like on my screen, which I think you'll agree is Brian Cox and two other men. It looks like some sort of book signing.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Mar 16, 2011)

Santino said:


> This is what it looks like on my screen, which I think you'll agree is Brian Cox and two other men. It looks like some sort of book signing.


 
It's Take That (including Robbie).....though they look a bit like Take That's older brothers now.

has moomoo stolen your log-in!


----------



## maldwyn (Mar 16, 2011)

Dillinger4 said:


> Gay porn?


You're joking, right? They missed that bus years ago.


----------



## fen_boy (Mar 16, 2011)

It's take that accepting an award. Try refreshing the page with ctrl+f5


----------



## fen_boy (Mar 16, 2011)

Hang on, this isn't some sort of hilarious wind up is it?


----------



## Santino (Mar 16, 2011)

fen_boy said:


> Hang on, this isn't some sort of hilarious wind up is it?


 
I wouldn't say hilarious.


----------



## Espresso (Mar 16, 2011)

maldwyn said:


> You're joking, right? They missed that bus years ago.


 
Missed it? Surely they were driving it.


----------



## maldwyn (Mar 16, 2011)

Espresso said:


> Missed it? Surely they were driving it.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 16, 2011)

gosh.


----------



## Espresso (Mar 16, 2011)

In that photo why are all of them - except the starry arsed shorty in the middle -holding their arms across their boobs? 
Seems a weird thing for men to do.


----------



## Santino (Mar 16, 2011)

Espresso said:


> In that photo why are all of them - except the starry arsed shorty in the middle -holding their arms across their boobs?
> Seems a weird thing for men to do.



What else could they do with their arms? Just let them hang by their sides?


----------



## Espresso (Mar 16, 2011)

Santino said:


> What else could they do with their arms? Just let them hang by their sides?


 
I haven't got that far. Too busy looking at the bums. 
Just seemed odd to me that men would do such a "I'm a busty Carry on girl, me" sort of pose.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Mar 16, 2011)

Joni Mitchell said:
			
		

> We are stardust, we are golden,
> We are billion year old carbon,
> And we got to get ourselves back to the garden.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 17, 2011)

Espresso said:


> I haven't got that far. Too busy looking at the bums.
> Just seemed odd to me that men would do such a "I'm a busty Carry on girl, me" sort of pose.


 
They're being posed like female swimsuit/underwear models, hence the 'crossed arms over boobs' pose.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Mar 17, 2011)

That Take That picture has disturbed me....and not in a good way


----------



## skyscraper101 (Mar 17, 2011)

Wonders Of The Universe Soundtrack available on Amazon

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wonders-Uni...RDMO/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1300358768&sr=1-2


----------



## invisibleplanet (Mar 17, 2011)

QueenOfGoths said:


> That Take That picture has disturbed me....and not in a good way


 
I know exactly what you mean. I felt like that too


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 17, 2011)

My poor thread. Gone from talking about lifty subjects, to pictures of Take That in thongs


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 17, 2011)

from science porn to porn.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Mar 17, 2011)

Porn- the building block of the universe


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 17, 2011)

maldwyn said:


>


 
Brian Cox has a nice arse, I'll give him that.


----------



## Chz (Mar 17, 2011)

I've managed to catch up on this, finally.

It is a great show, first of all, so I don't want to take away from that. Buuuut...

I know he admits the man is his hero and all that, but there is some *serious* beyond the grave channelling of Dr. Sagan in those episodes. Never mind that there are a few lines lifted directly out of Cosmos (which is fair enough, I think), but he's adopted a couple of Carl's mannerisms too. It's a bit creepy.


----------



## maldwyn (Mar 17, 2011)

My local library had a new copy of Cosmos Dr. Carl Sagan [DVD], so perhaps that's thanks to Cox.


----------



## stavros (Mar 19, 2011)

Sorry to have derailed the thread. All I was saying in my first post is that Prof. Cox looks more than a little like Mark Owen.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 20, 2011)

I thought it was quite good tonight


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 20, 2011)

Enjoyed it...not sure he explained gravity though.


----------



## wayward bob (Mar 21, 2011)

he tried to explain general relativity without a trampoline and failed.


----------



## magneze (Mar 21, 2011)

Very interesting tonight wasn't it? Especially the stuff about everything is continually falling and bending space and time.


----------



## EastEnder (Mar 21, 2011)

I thought the bit when he was describing the gravity well of a black hole by standing near the edge of that waterfall was rubbish. There must've been at least a dozen film crew with him, and not one of them tried to push him in?!?!


----------



## Santino (Mar 21, 2011)

EastEnder said:


> I thought the bit when he was describing the gravity well of a black hole by standing near the edge of that waterfall was rubbish. There must've been at least a dozen film crew with him, and not one of them tried to push him in?!?!


 
That was an excellent use of the licence fee.

Perhaps if they hadn't gone on that trip, we could have had CGI for explaining the orbit of Mercury instead of a couple of pebbles on a flat rock.


----------



## Fruitloop (Mar 21, 2011)

wayward bob said:


> he tried to explain general relativity without a trampoline and failed.


 
Ha ha, I thought exactly that. Had to recite the trampoline explanation for the missus.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Mar 21, 2011)

i thought last nigh's episode wasn't bad, better now that the music has been dampened (although this does also accentuate the filler nature of some of the programme making e.g. make a statement, follow it up with some landscapes and muzak, then give a retort and repeat, before finally getting going with the explanation proper, before jetting off to next location on another continent).


----------



## Steel Icarus (Mar 21, 2011)

I enjoyed last night's much more. Although it has to be said I was falling asleep towards the end - will watch the last bit tonight. Silly boy, with late nights Fri and Sat. 

The missus says Cox is annoyed they turned the music down - the programmes were supposed to be complete works of art and his vision was tampered with by people who wanted to make it more informative. Apparently. 

Who now wants a go in the vomit comet?
And who wants a go in the g machine? Mad what it did to his face.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 21, 2011)

It is getting better as series goes on. Still not a patch on Cosmos though, which I've been re-watching.


----------



## cliche guevara (Mar 21, 2011)

I was a little disappointed at the lack of explanations on last nights episode, I'm hoping he comes back to general relativity in a future episode as I really felt it was skipped over. Also, more time could've been spent on black holes and in particular the event horizon, he explained that the gravity is so strong that nothing can escape but not really why this is the case, or how space becomes so curved that every direction ends up pointing towards the core.


----------



## EastEnder (Mar 21, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> The missus says Cox is annoyed they turned the music down


I was hoping they'd turn Cox down and the music up.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Mar 21, 2011)

If nothing else last night reminded me to call my brother and arrange to go and pick up all my mum's books - including Cosmos, which Coxy was holding up and going on about last night, cos the book meant a lot to me when I was a kid, I regularly got lost in it.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Mar 21, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Who now wants a go in the vomit comet?
> And who wants a go in the g machine? Mad what it did to his face.


The former, oh yes, that looked brilliant. 

The latter, not a fucking chance, I thought his face was going to drop off his skull.


----------



## EastEnder (Mar 21, 2011)

cliche guevara said:


> I was a little disappointed at the lack of explanations on last nights episode, I'm hoping he comes back to general relativity in a future episode as I really felt it was skipped over. Also, more time could've been spent on black holes and in particular the event horizon, he explained that the gravity is so strong that nothing can escape but not really why this is the case, or how space becomes so curved that every direction ends up pointing towards the core.


It's really quite simple - anything with mass distorts spacetime, manifested by the force of gravity, the strength of gravity is proportional to the amount of mass & the density of the object. To escape an object's gravity well you need to travel at, or above, its escape velocity. More mass / higher density results in increased distortion of spacetime, stronger gravitational pull and a correspondingly higher escape velocity. When the mass density is high enough, the escape velocity within a certain distance from the centre of gravity (bounded by the event horizon) exceeds the speed of light, so anything passing that point - even light - can never get back out again.

Strictly speaking that's not entirely true - all black holes eventually evaporate due to Hawking radiation, so you might be able to get back out, although you'd be in for a bit of a wait.


----------



## rorymac (Mar 21, 2011)

I wish EastEnder presented this programme so I could watch it. I just can't take professer Brian seriously when he's talking about the universe. He aint got a fackin clue .. he told me that himself when he was high on summink. I asked him if he believed in God and he went in to one about moon buildings and litmus paper .. 'It wasn't fucking blue' he said 'it was like deep fucking red ha ha ha' 
I don't reckon he's all there !!


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 22, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> The former, oh yes, that looked brilliant.
> 
> The latter, not a fucking chance, I thought his face was going to drop off his skull.


 
Heh - one of my mates got a pic of me on Rita at Alton Towers which accelerates at about 4gs, and that was mad enough in terms of how heavy your chest gets immediately & stuff...still, I wouldn't mind a crack on the centrifuge.

I really liked that ep, and I will swim against the tide and say that his explanation of spacetime without the trampoline made more sense to me than with it - for me it was a simple change of thinking that, rather than the galaxies flying away from each other, it's the surface they rest on getting bigger. I realise that for some this is an obvious point and one I should've got _years_ ago, but he explained it in a way that I clearly understood.

The highlight for me, and one I wished he'd spent more time on, was the neutron star. Leaving aside the truly awesome piece of CGI & the Chandra m-wave picture of the neutron star at the heart of the Crab Nebula, I reckon neutron stars are more interesting than black holes...

So, did anyone wath Jim Al-Khailili's 'Everything and Nothing' on BBC4 last night? Made my head hurt as much as reading the reporting about Weilr & Cho's idea that the LHC could be a time machine of sorts.


----------



## El Sueno (Mar 22, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> And who wants a go in the g machine? Mad what it did to his face.



I thought I was tripping for a second when his face started melting off his skull. Fucking hell, don't think I've ever seen anything quite so odd. It was like some 'see how you'll look in 50 years' CGI.


----------



## girasol (Mar 22, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> If nothing else last night reminded me to call my brother and arrange to go and pick up all my mum's books - including Cosmos, which Coxy was holding up and going on about last night, cos the book meant a lot to me when I was a kid, I regularly got lost in it.


 
I'd like to buy it for my son, but wonder if it's up to date?  I can only find used to ones on the internet, so some of the information might not apply anymore...

found a 2002 edition, for £26...


----------



## Steel Icarus (Mar 22, 2011)

El Sueno said:


> I thought I was tripping for a second when his face started melting off his skull. Fucking hell, don't think I've ever seen anything quite so odd. It was like some 'see how you'll look in 50 years' CGI.



It was horrible but brilliant. I've got a mate who looks a bit like he's under a few g of force. Not a man to toke with, really, let alone anything else.

And to see Cox's face returning to normal. The only reason I'd have a go in that is to see that my face looked like. Not so fussed about feeling heavy and passing out and all that.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Mar 22, 2011)

girasol said:


> I'd like to buy it for my son, but wonder if it's up to date?  I can only find used to ones on the internet, so some of the information might not apply anymore...



Hell of a lot of it will be. And the sense of wonder will be intact, which is the overriding thing I remember about it.


----------



## wayward bob (Mar 22, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> So, did anyone wath Jim Al-Khailili's 'Everything and Nothing' on BBC4 last night? Made my head hurt as much as reading the reporting about Weilr & Cho's idea that the LHC could be a time machine of sorts.



i did and enjoyed it, don't remember there being anything particularly brain bending in it. although tbf i mostly watch this kind of stuff to get to sleep. for some reason i find it intensely comforting as well as soporific 

there's a good one on the radio player as well atm about richard feynman, archive hour i think it is. i can't get on with feynman's lectures at all, i find him too annoying, but in short doses he's okay and it sounds like he was a bone fide genius. i liked hearing his students talking about him, one was saying that it was funny how when he was talking you'd follow and understand him, but afterwards you just couldn't put the pieces back together again.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 22, 2011)

I dled a load of Feynman lectures, and have found the 'Character of Physical Law' to be the most accessible, altho all of them are generally pitched _way_ over my head - I can pick out bits, but when he starts talking about set transformations and other higher maths stuff I'm floundering.

Re: Everything & Nothing - anything that involves having to think about interstellar and inter-galactic distances makes my head hurt.


----------



## wayward bob (Mar 22, 2011)

re sephid variables or however you spell it, what i wanted to know is _how_ she knew the brightness related to the rate they flash at?


----------



## magneze (Mar 22, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> So, did anyone wath Jim Al-Khailili's 'Everything and Nothing' on BBC4 last night? Made my head hurt as much as reading the reporting about Weilr & Cho's idea that the LHC could be a time machine of sorts.


No, but that sounds like my lunchtime viewing for today is sorted. Cheers.


----------



## Gingerman (Mar 22, 2011)

If anyone's interested Amazon are selling the Cosmos box set for £18 fuckin bargain,how long before we see Cox's presenting style being parodied


----------



## EastEnder (Mar 22, 2011)

wayward bob said:


> re sephid variables or however you spell it, what i wanted to know is _how_ she knew the brightness related to the rate they flash at?


She observed a bunch of stars (all of which were assumed to be roughly the same distance away), measured their apparent luminosity and period of pulsation, then plotted the results on a graph.


----------



## wayward bob (Mar 22, 2011)

how did she come to that assumption though?


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 22, 2011)

A secret masonic method, involving pyramids & the Eye of Horus.


----------



## EastEnder (Mar 22, 2011)

wayward bob said:


> how did she come to that assumption though?


She was looking at stars in the Magellanic Clouds - dwarf galaxies that orbit the Milky Way. You can get a rough idea of whether a bunch of stars are at a similar distance from us by using other techniques, such as measuring parallax shift (although that only works for stars that are relatively nearby). You wouldn't know for certain that a bunch of stars were definitely neighbours, but as long as your sample size is large enough it's then just a question of statistics. You might well measure a few stars that are actually nowhere near each other, but overall the results would average out.


----------



## wayward bob (Mar 22, 2011)

thanks  (normally mr bob answers this kind of stuff but for me he wasn't around last night)


----------



## gosub (Mar 22, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> If anyone's interested Amazon are selling the Cosmos box set for £18 fuckin bargain,how long before we see Cox's presenting style being parodied



Already been done





Prof Jim Al-Khalili for the win


----------



## invisibleplanet (Mar 22, 2011)

Professor Brian's face during his G-journey to other planets ... reminded me of how I felt during the last few months of my finals


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 22, 2011)

Just watched that Jim Al-Khalili programme.

How fucking good is science?


----------



## nick h. (Mar 22, 2011)

His mission to educate is a load of cock. How can you take yourself seriously as an educator when you drip feed the information so slowly and drown it in silly musical histrionics? The end result is just unwatchable drivel. I can't take more than 5 minutes of it without getting a headache. I'd much rather go back to school and have a decent physics lesson. And all this guff about the fish-lipped wonder being a sex symbol means we'll have ten more years of him. You can't avoid him by not watching his stuff because of the wall to wall trailers. I'd rather have more fucking Go Compare ads.


----------



## Disjecta Membra (Mar 22, 2011)

My 2 cents. 

He is bloody boring, slow and typically for documentaries repeates himself like an old todger remembering some fanciful memory concocted by a brain lost in time. I was looking forward to catching up and relaxing to some dumbed down pop science(the rest strains my brain after a while) but sadly the series is about as inspiring as a typical monday morning.


----------



## Disjecta Membra (Mar 22, 2011)

My 2 cents. 

I find him bloody boring, slow and typically for documentaries repeates himself like an old codger remembering some fanciful memory concocted by a brain lost in time. I was looking forward to catching up and relaxing to some dumbed down pop science(the rest strains my brain after a while) but sadly the series is about as inspiring as a typical monday morning.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 22, 2011)

So good you said it twice.


----------



## Disjecta Membra (Mar 22, 2011)

So good you said it twice. 

Did I ? there's an echo in here...here.....her.....he....h


----------



## Crispy (Mar 22, 2011)

girasol said:


> I'd like to buy it for my son, but wonder if it's up to date?  I can only find used to ones on the internet, so some of the information might not apply anymore...
> 
> found a 2002 edition, for £26...


 
Cosmos was updated in the nineties with new effects sequences and an aftwerword for each episode where an older Sagan tells you whats been discovered since the original broadcast. There are no glaring errors in the science, although he says a lot of "we think there may" about things that "we now know definitely"

It's still an excellent science primer that comes at things from all angles - theres something in each episode for everyone no matter their interests or previous knowledge.


----------



## Cid (Mar 22, 2011)

Listened to an R4 prog on Feynman presented by him (archive on 4), he pretty much admits there are flaws in his way of describing things...


----------



## magneze (Mar 23, 2011)

Dillinger4 said:


> Just watched that Jim Al-Khalili programme.
> 
> How fucking good is science?


We watched it last night. Absolutely brilliant.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Mar 23, 2011)

gosub said:


> Already been done
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_The universe is amazing. You are amazing. I am amazing. For we are all one. Everything we are, everything that's ever been and everything that will ever be was all forged in the same moment of creation 13.7bn years ago from an unimaginably hot and dense volume of matter less than the size of an atom. And that is amazing. What happened before then in the Planck epoch is a matter of conjecture; we lack a theory of quantum gravity, though some believe the universe was formed from a collision of two pieces of space and time floating forever in an infinite space, but I feel I'm losing you at this point, which isn't so amazing_ 

Read it and weep (with laughter) Digested read: Wonders of the Universe by Brian Cox


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 23, 2011)

Ok, Ok, if we're going on presenting tics...

Prof Jim - 'what XXX discovered was to revolutionise the world, nothing would ever be the same again.'

'What he discovered in his lab was to revolutionise the world, leaving nothing the same as it was before.

'He revolutionised the world. Nothing would be the same.'

He will use the words 'revolutinise' and the phrase 'nothing was the same again' at least 5 times in any of the episodes of his shows.

That Scots bloke who does all the geology shows:

'What you really get here is a sense of the time it took to change the place'

'There's a real sense of time here in these rocks - how long it took them to change to create this amazing landscape'

'This amazing landscape took huge amounts of time to form and create'

I actually find Mr Geologist the most annoying - he seems to have about 15 sentences he uses to describe everything about rocks. I mean I applaud his conciseness in reducing geology into 15 key phrases, but srsly...


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 23, 2011)

I've been toying with the idea of reading Lydell's Principles of Geology for a while - kyser's post has made me think I really should.


----------



## FunkyUK (Mar 23, 2011)

Only say this yesterday, apols if it's old...


----------



## wayward bob (Mar 27, 2011)

hang on, is that it? was this only 3 episodes? 

eta: heh. i was on the wrong channel  phew


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 27, 2011)

4/4


----------



## stavros (Mar 28, 2011)

He really did like standing on that rock peering into the middle distance, didn't he?


----------



## gosub (Mar 28, 2011)

Nothing on the telly in a minute


----------



## maldwyn (Mar 29, 2011)

It's like having a teacher at school who puts himself in every power-point slide.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 29, 2011)

gosub said:


> Nothing on the telly in a minute


 
Nutsacks - missed Prof Jim! Will have to iPLayer it...


----------



## wayward bob (Mar 29, 2011)

what i saw of nothing was very good (fell asleep half way in, which was entirely the plan). didn't enjoy the last coxy one though, i was quite pissed, but i've found this whole series really hard to follow. i think it's been paced too slow, i've spent the first 10 minutes or so twiddling my thumbs trying to work out where he's headed. shame, cos i loved the wonders of the solar system, have watched those over and over, but wouldn't bother rewatching this series.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 1, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> Nutsacks - missed Prof Jim! Will have to iPLayer it...


 
Just watched 'nothing'. Missed 'Everything'. 

Very good. I like Prof Jim a lot. But, he leaves us with the conundrum without pointing out that it is a conundrum. Why was one particle of matter left for every billion that annihilated with antimatter at the start of the universe? Nobody knows. I'd have liked him to have left us with that mystery to mull over.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Apr 1, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Just watched 'nothing'. Missed 'Everything'.
> 
> Very good. I like Prof Jim a lot. But, he leaves us with the conundrum without pointing out that it is a conundrum. Why was one particle of matter left for every billion that annihilated with antimatter at the start of the universe? Nobody knows. I'd have liked him to have left us with that mystery to mull over.


 
Even science has its mysteries.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 1, 2011)

Also, I know science shows are terrified about talking about maths, but I'd have liked him at least to have said what each symbol in the Dirac equation represents. 

As it was, it was presented as some kind of exotic artefact.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Apr 1, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> I actually find Mr Geologist the most annoying - he seems to have about 15 sentences he uses to describe everything about rocks. I mean I applaud his conciseness in reducing geology into 15 key phrases, but srsly...


 I can do it in three words 

"Mhmmmmmmmmmmmn. Deep Time"


----------



## kyser_soze (Apr 1, 2011)

stavros said:


> He really did like standing on that rock peering into the middle distance, didn't he?


 
Funnily enough he didn't. In the G2 & Q&A he did with the Grauniad he makes it pretty clear that he's not a fan of those shots and would rather be mugging to camera with a rock in his hand, but he made reference to 'other places' the show goes out that require dramtic camerawork in their science doccos. I wonder where he could be referring to.


----------



## girasol (Apr 1, 2011)

Yeah, Jim Al-Khailili's 'Everything and Nothing' is really good, and was made at a fraction of the price.  Great to be able to watch both    (that's what the BBC is for!)

I watched his series on chemistry, and the science and Islam series too, he's as carismatic and likeable as Brian Cox, IMO.  I think that if you love the subject it just shines through.


----------



## kyser_soze (Apr 1, 2011)

Have you seen _Atom_, girasol? I rate it as the best thing Prof Jim has made.


----------



## Santino (Apr 1, 2011)

I particularly disliked the oh-so-subtle references to various science fiction works that some wanker probably thought would delight science fiction fans.

edit: This was in Wonders of the Universe


----------



## girasol (Apr 1, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> Have you seen _Atom_, girasol? I rate it as the best thing Prof Jim has made.



Don't think so, not ringing any bells...  Will check it out, should be easy enough to find it


----------



## Crispy (Apr 1, 2011)

Atom is really good. The history of the science and scientists involved. Complex topic explained well. Lots of clever analogies and examples. My kind of science TV


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 1, 2011)

Yes, I thought of you when I was watching Nothing last night. You would have approved of the way he led us through the history. I have a few little problems with the way he still seemed fearful of talking about anything really challenging. He talked about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle without even mentioning Planck time/length, for instance. But you can't expect too much, I suppose. 

It's the difference between BBC2 and BBC4 now. BBC2 isn't the BBC2 of old. That role is now played by BBC4.


----------



## kained&able (Apr 1, 2011)

I watched one of these for the first time on sunday. Interesting programme, but is the whole jim morrison/waynes world spoof thing really necessary?

Kite flying on a desert. Really? Really?

tit.


dave


----------



## kyser_soze (Apr 1, 2011)

@ lbj: Time constraints on the show? How would you write a explanation of both that was quick, fitted the narrative & was accesible to people without the math background.

From what I recall of an unfortunate turn of events on a thread some time ago, this area is something of a speciality of yours? If I could find a director, would you be up for penning an accesible science show? I've been thinking about the whole 'Local TV' push that Hunt the Culture secretary reckons there's a massive market for (in fact I reckon that you could build a whole U75 TV around the idea - could be brilliant on analysing stuff like Libya, and massively show up the 'proper' journos & telly channels) and what would be cool content, and since there are literally 00s of talented TV writers on Urban (well to judge from some people's criticisms (not yours BTW, this sarcasm is aimed elsewhere )) it offers a potential for a flowering of creatiivty. 

If it's true, as some are saying on this thread, that all you need is a camera, a good script and some props (and I'm sure that there's enough CGI-designing talent around here to throw some of that in too), why not give it a shot?

I'm about 80% serious about this BTW.


----------



## kained&able (Apr 1, 2011)

dunno, im neither a tv writer nor an expert on space/the universe.

I thought that way was just pompus, overblown and silly though. I got told of for this opinion by everyone on the room who think he is some sort of scott parker like deity.

dave


----------



## Crispy (Apr 1, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> @ lbj: Time constraints on the show? How would you write a explanation of both that was quick, fitted the narrative & was accesible to people without the math background.
> 
> From what I recall of an unfortunate turn of events on a thread some time ago, this area is something of a speciality of yours? If I could find a director, would you be up for penning an accesible science show? I've been thinking about the whole 'Local TV' push that Hunt the Culture secretary reckons there's a massive market for (in fact I reckon that you could build a whole U75 TV around the idea - could be brilliant on analysing stuff like Libya, and massively show up the 'proper' journos & telly channels) and what would be cool content, and since there are literally 00s of talented TV writers on Urban (well to judge from some people's criticisms (not yours BTW, this sarcasm is aimed elsewhere )) it offers a potential for a flowering of creatiivty.
> 
> ...


 
Screw your 80%, I am 100% well up for this

The crucial ingredient is a telegenic, well-spoken presenter.


----------



## kyser_soze (Apr 1, 2011)

Srsly? Cool as fuck mate. I'll start asking a few director-type peeps I know for some ideas & if they'd be prepared to do a few days work for nothing.

BTW, was that just the science show, or the wider idea?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 1, 2011)

Would I be up for writing an accessible science show? 

Yes I would! 

I'm not a professional scientist, though. I've written science books for kids, but I've also missed out on other books because they wanted a specialist to write them rather than someone who is good at explaining things (which is a category I would not so humbly put myself in). Realistically, for such a thing to be taken seriously, there would need to be a specialist consultant to check everything. I think that is often the best way to do things anyway – my experience of editing (rewriting!) specialists' attempts to explain science to a lay audience has taught me that it is the ability to be clear that is paramount, not the credentials of the author.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 1, 2011)

Srsly. I love explaining things and making complex ideas sound simple.
Just the science show really - don't want get out of my comfort zone


----------



## Santino (Apr 1, 2011)

I've got a great idea for a new take on Batman.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Apr 1, 2011)

Santino said:


> I've got a great idea for a new take on Batman.


----------



## Santino (Apr 1, 2011)

Dillinger4 said:


>


 
I have!

I've got five seasons of story arc plotted out.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 1, 2011)

Santino said:


> I've got a great idea for a new take on Batman.


 
Call it _The Joker_ - A tragically lonely clown tries to cheer up Gotham City with some light hearted pranks, but is foiled by a predatory maniac who goes around at night breaking things. Things come to a head when the corrupt Comissioner of police takes bribes from the evil capitalist Bruce Wayne and makes public displays of clownery illegal. Forced underground, The Joker must clear his name and expose the shocking collaboration between a corrupt city and a mercenary thug.


----------



## Santino (Apr 1, 2011)

I have a title thankyouverymuch.




			
				Dillinger4 said:
			
		

> Does it involve time travel?


 
No.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Apr 1, 2011)

Santino said:


> I have!
> 
> I've got five seasons of story arc plotted out.


 
Does it involve time travel?


----------



## Santino (Apr 1, 2011)

It is set in the 1940s though.


----------



## sparkling (Apr 12, 2011)

Just watched last episode and all in all I enjoyed the series.  The graphics were mesmerising and he was pretty to watch.  I found his genuine enthusiasm inspiring and as a totally non scientific person this programme has made me a little more interested in finding out more and that can't be a totally bad thing.


----------

