mjmooney Posted October 30, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted October 30, 2013 My daughter (mid-20s) loves science documentaries - so I lent her Cosmos, Life on Earth and The Ascent of Man. She considered them (the Attenborough especially) to be head and shoulders better than the current crop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 (edited) I tried to watch 'Cosmose' but it seemed really dated and I couldn't get in to it. It didn't help that Sagan sounds like an American version of Trevor Francis. It definitely is dated but it is just unimaginable that they could produce anything as good these days. TV science documentaries are just too slow these days and for every bit of information offered, the viewer has to be given fifteen minutes of fancy graphics to flatter their latest TV purchase. Horizon is completely unwatchable these days. One of the paradoxes of the age is that we have a more educated population than at any other time in history but the media is pitched at a population of morons. I thought (our Brians) wonders of the universe was better, simply more up to date. Not wishing to write off Brian Cox too prematurely, I decided to take a look at him doing lectures. Without doubt this is my preferred format and at least he has the good grace to take the piss out of the crass production values of his Wonders series. So today the mundanity has been relieved by thoughts about the implications of Pauli's exclusion principle, calculating the age of the universe from Hubble's constant and diamonds 1.4 times the mass of our sun. Which is nice! Edited October 31, 2013 by MakemineVanilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Cox's book 'The Quantum Universe' is very good (although, I'm not a physicist, so it could be rubbish, but for a 'pop' science book I thought it was rather illuminating). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Cox's book 'The Quantum Universe' is very good (although, I'm not a physicist, so it could be rubbish, but for a 'pop' science book I thought it was rather illuminating). Simplification is a good and necessary starting point. Look up 'Pauli's exclusion principle' and it looks impenetrable but when Cox explains that no two identical electrons can occupy the same energy state it makes sense, as to why molecules can be stable. But Cox's point is really to demonstrate the ability of quantum physics to predict theoretically what later is proven to be true, or what Feynman would call the greatest of certainty. That is a decent starting point and the questions begin to multiply from then on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted October 31, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted October 31, 2013 Cox's book 'The Quantum Universe' is very good (although, I'm not a physicist, so it could be rubbish, but for a 'pop' science book I thought it was rather illuminating). Simplification is a good and necessary starting point. Agreed its difficult to understand a lot of the principles behind modern physics, but its harder still to translate to layman's terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Cox's book 'The Quantum Universe' is very good (although, I'm not a physicist, so it could be rubbish, but for a 'pop' science book I thought it was rather illuminating). Simplification is a good and necessary starting point. Look up 'Pauli's exclusion principle' and it looks impenetrable but when Cox explains that no two identical electrons can occupy the same energy state it makes sense, as to why molecules can be stable. But Cox's point is really to demonstrate the ability of quantum physics to predict theoretically what later is proven to be true, or what Feynman would call the greatest of certainty. That is a decent starting point and the questions begin to multiply from then on. I was interested to find out today that there has been some serious controversy about Cox's claims about electron energy-levels and Pauli's exclusion principle. In his determination to keep it simple he had stated that if an electron's energy level is changed in a substance on earth all identical electrons in the universe would change accordingly. This inspired every Pantheist to conclude that their beliefs are true and that instantaneous communication across the universe is possible. It is definitely the assumption that I made. So in his effort to simplify Cox led the audience astray. And my plan to communicate with alien life-forms over light-years, has had to be scrapped. Things can only get better, as someone once sang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted November 1, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted November 1, 2013 (edited) Wounder when that happens, had you built the machine? Edited November 1, 2013 by Nigel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Wounder when that happens, had you built the machine? It was still in the prototype stage, which was basically me saying, 'Ommmmmmmmmmm' with a crystal balanced on my head. I could only get an engaged tone and the operator said my chakras were out of sync. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted November 2, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted November 2, 2013 I've built a working time machine. I'll demonstrate it to you all at 3.00 pm yesterday. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted November 4, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted November 4, 2013 I've built a working time machine. I'll demonstrate it to you all at 3.00 pm yesterday.if you could just remind us all not to bother with the west ham game it would be much appreciated! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Ikantcpell Posted November 9, 2013 Popular Post Share Posted November 9, 2013 This is brilliant. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 This is brilliant. Really good until the music started. Music like religion tries to articulate the ineffable, which can't be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted November 9, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted November 9, 2013 (edited) Music does it pretty well, IMO. Unlike religion. For me there are those which are sad by association (Nat King Cole singing Stardust) and those which just wreck me from sheer truth and beauty (the opening to Sibelius's symphony number 2). Truth and beauty seem like pretty ineffable things to be articulated by music. Edited November 9, 2013 by mjmooney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 Music does it pretty well, IMO. Unlike religion. For me there are those which are sad by association (Nat King Cole singing Stardust) and those which just wreck me from sheer truth and beauty (the opening to Sibelius's symphony number 2). Truth and beauty seem like pretty ineffable things to be articulated by music. I would say that although the Sceptics' school of philosophy would say that we can never grasp the truth, I think it is likely that we can get nearer to knowing truth on a human scale than understanding the scale and the forces active in the universe. That is until they actually build the Total Perspective Vortex. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/multimedia/jpl/pia17172.html New photo of earth from NASA, there it is, just behind Saturn... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 Centre of the Milky Way. There is a supermassive black hole in there, called 'Sagittarius A'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 For anyone who likes the universe () and hasn't seen this series, it's utterly brilliant: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tegis Posted November 29, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted November 29, 2013 There is a supermassive black hole in there, called 'Sagittarius A'. Lies! I cant see it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted November 29, 2013 Moderator Share Posted November 29, 2013 On the subject of black holes. I watched Prof. Brian Cox's presentation on the 'science behind Doctor Who' the other night. He explained how light slows down getting back to your point of view as something gets closer to a black hole and it eventually stops at the point of the event horizon. So you see a 'still image' of the thing at the exact point where the light could no longer escape. But isn't the distance an event horizon is from a black hole ever changing as the black hole gets bigger or smaller? Meaning the event horizon would in theory constantly swallow that still image? So do you get a new still image of light that had previously escaped but which is now at that critical point or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted November 29, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted November 29, 2013 (edited) A black hole wont change in size. (According to accepted theory at least) Edited November 29, 2013 by Nigel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts