Sky at Night - BBC 4

[reddoss]

Just a reminder The Sky at Night will be broadcast at 10 pm on BBC 4 this coming Sunday. This episode looks at black holes and the possibility of using the newly detected gravitational waves as a means of studying them. It also features an interview with Prof Stephen Hawking. 

[saac]

Good call, thanks for that.

Jim

[Physopto]

I will set the recording. Thanks, I usually forget.

Derek

[MAN or ASTROMAN]

I hate to say this,but if I see the term 'Black Hole' bandied about on 'S@N' or 'Horizon' etc,it's an instant turn off for me.

To be honest,I'm sick of 'Black Holes'!

Then again,Cosmology as a whole leaves me pretty cold.

But I'm not alone-didn't  Sir Patrick Moore say that he was mainly a Lunar and Planetary OBSERVER,and he was pretty much lost past Neptune?

[brantuk]

I must admit I'm more interested in the physical stuff than the theoretical stuff. And watching programs about stuff you can't see, without any noticeable progress from one year to the next, is getting a bit long in the tooth.

[Paul M]

I'm sick of these black holes coming over here and taking all our photons...

Sorry, don't know what came over me!

Seriously though, I really dislike not being a S@N fan but the subject matter of the next one means I'll be less likely than usual to catch it. If it was going to be about the sky at night I'd be all over it!

[saac]

Ah Black Holes are the focus of a lot of research at the moment, particularly in understanding the interaction of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and some of the emerging theories extending knowledge of the big bang theory and evolution of the universe again focus on the physics of black holes.  But if you are not really into the Physics stuff then I guess it would be a bit dull. 

 

Jim

[Paul M]

28 minutes ago, saac said:

.....  But if you are not really into the Physics stuff then I guess it would be a bit dull. 

 

Jim

I really was, back in the day. Mad hungry for theory and current research. I'm not sure what changed. Perhaps it's because a lot of current ideas are so esoteric that I just can't penetrate them or at least I'm so uninspired by them that I don't care to try. Or maybe I've just been left behind.

As for black holes, I'll wait until Maplin have DIY kits for home build before I "get into them" 

Hopefully the simple joy of looking at the night sky will never be beyond my grasp

[WobblySkipper]

It takes all sorts I guess. I must admit, the theory appeals to me, so I definitely won't be missing it. 

For those people who are not so interested in black holes, why not try to guess when the phrase "not even light can escape" gets mentioned. Every program about black holes states that very phrase.

For my money, I'm going with 30 seconds in, said by Maggie.

Jim

[saac]

1 hour ago, Paul M said:

I really was, back in the day. Mad hungry for theory and current research. I'm not sure what changed. Perhaps it's because a lot of current ideas are so esoteric that I just can't penetrate them or at least I'm so uninspired by them that I don't care to try. Or maybe I've just been left behind.

 

 

I get that Paul, as much as I have a professional interest in this area I suffer at times from exactly the same feeling.  In some way I wonder if there has been too much exposure over the past few years.  At the end of the day, unlike say research into degenerative brain diseases or material science, advances in theoretical physics, particularly cosmology, just do not lead to the same tangible impact to our everyday lives.  Now before I get shouted down here, yes we do benefit -  relativity, and the quantum world and particle physics now touches our everyday lives -  GPS, computing, and advances in medical treatments/imaging.  However, those impacts are not as numerous nor as meaningful in the public's concious as perhaps progress through other fields of science.  Pushing back another veil of the universe so that we can better understand the nature of reality is born simply out of our curiosity. For many, general public at large and myself at times,  it will always be - "yep that's cool but so what if the universe is expanding faster than we can understand why it should be".  Now, if arriving at a Grand Unified Theory would help part the clouds, then stop talking and take my money!

 

Re Maplin black holes - I'm still holding out for the ACME version that the Road Runner used in the cartoons to escape wiley coyote, How cool would that be

 

Hopefully the simple joy of looking at the night sky will never be beyond my grasp

You know that's exactly how I feel and I think in a way it's why I'm not pushing perhaps as hard as I should be to make progress along the imaging route - I just love looking through the eyepiece for the sheer joy of it and marvelling at what I can see.

 

 

Jim

[Expat_tony]

Sky at Night relies on both producers and presenters for program development, and producers will tend to play to the strengths of the presenters.

Patrick Moore was an observer and a solar system man. So we got lots on celestial objects, and lots on space probes - it was, after all, the era from Mariner to Cassini.

Chris Lintott is a Professor of Astrophysics - specialist area galaxies, and Maggie Aderin-Pocock, from her Wiki entry, has evolved from a mechanical engineer, via applied research in satellite sensors and instruments, into a "science communicator" especially for young people.

It seems, then, that Prof. Lintott has the ear of the producers more often at the moment. Not sure how good this is for the future of S@N.

Like some other commentators above, I now take it or leave it depending on the topics. They could start by at least doubling the time slot for the "What's up there this month?" feature.

[Physopto]

It is definitely not the same as when Patrick Moore presented it and not as interesting!

Pity.

[The Head Gardener]

2 hours ago, Expat_tony said:

and Maggie Aderin-Pocock, from her Wiki entry, has evolved from a mechanical engineer, via applied research in satellite sensors and instruments, into a "science communicator" especially for young people.

Another ditto, it is just not the same without Sir Patrick.  Saying that, it's on series link on the Sky box so I don't have to think about when the programme is broadcast.

However, am I the only one who has a problem with the way Maggie A-P speaks?. It always seems to me as if she takes a pause in the wrong place in a sentence and I find it incredibly distracting and often makes it more difficult to concentrate on what she's actually saying?

Jayne

[Gina]

Yes, she talks in bursts with breaks that don't correspond to commas in text.  I wish she'd just talk a bit slower and more continuously.  Otherwise I think she's good.

[The Head Gardener]

Cheers Gina, you have described it perfectly, glad it is not just me.  Darn shame because she is obviously so enthused and engaged with her subject, and clearly no dummy in the brain department.

Jayne

[Gina]

I agree Jayne, it is a shame and she's certainly very clever.

[Scott]

I think Maggie is brilliant, all I see is an enthusiastic, knowledgable person with a passion for all things space and a willingness to share it.

 

[Penguin]

My kids don't like her and I agree, the breathless speed when she is speaking and the pauses in strange places distract from what she is actually saying. I also find her constant nodding when she is listening to an interviewee offputting. But then Sir Patrick also had a very fast delivery that was sometimes hard to follow and I think much of her delivery is probably down to sheer enthusiasm for the subject, possibly combined with nerves over being on the telly.

Nebula's point about the presenters' interests and specialisms influencing the topics covered in the show is an interesting one that I hadn't considered. Luckily for me, I enjoy the weird theoretical stuff as well as coverage of what we would actually be able to see if the clouds and light pollution ever went away.

My bet for "not even light can escape" is at around 5 minutes in. Say 5'20"

[SilverAstro]

18 hours ago, MAN or ASTROMAN said:

Then again,Cosmology as a whole leaves me pretty cold.

yep, about 2.7K I think ?

I'm still recovering from the shock of losing Sir Fred and the Steady State theory, that made a lot more sense !

Poor Maggie, she does come in for a lot of stick ! but so did Sir Pat for his diction, hair and eyebrow, so she is following the master, , , not to mention the recession velocity of his collar and tie

Edit Oooops, sorry, I just duplicated wot Penguin said !

 

[saac]

I'm another big fan of Maggie, full of character and passion for her subject; certainly not just another clone wannabe presenter from the clone wanabe presenter factory.  In fact, I'd like to see the BBC giving her more air time, perhaps presenting a Horizon episode in spacraft/propulsion development.

 

Jim

[Andyb90]

Have to say I find some of the science a bit heavy going. There seems to be very little content aimed at amateur observers and astrophotographers.

I know its difficult with only a 30 minute slot once a month.

Just wish there was a bit more content for amateur enthusiasts or those wanting to get into astronomy, more like the magazine.

Andy.

[MAN or ASTROMAN]

I think that 'S@N' should mainly concentrate on observational Astronomy (as should 'Stargazing live',if it comes back again next year).

Leave the Cosmology in the main to 'Horizon'

[bejay1957]

3 hours ago, MAN or ASTROMAN said:

I think that 'S@N' should mainly concentrate on observational Astronomy (as should 'Stargazing live',if it comes back again next year).

Leave the Cosmology in the main to 'Horizon'

And on that subject, BBC2 Wednesday 6 April at 20:00 - Oceans of the Solar System

[colin2007]

22 hours ago, MAN or ASTROMAN said:

I hate to say this,but if I see the term 'Black Hole' bandied about on 'S@N' or 'Horizon' etc,it's an instant turn off for me.

To be honest,I'm sick of 'Black Holes'!

Then again,Cosmology as a whole leaves me pretty cold.

But I'm not alone-didn't  Sir Patrick Moore say that he was mainly a Lunar and Planetary OBSERVER,and he was pretty much lost past Neptune?

You are not alone.

Solar system stuff is all what I`m really interested in and anything beyond that doesn`t really do it for me. Although I will say the exception is double stars. Very nice objects to look at.

[SilverAstro]

So we all want more actual night sky and observatonals in  "Sky at Night"  ,,, .  .  . Could it be that the lack of such is because of cloudy thinking by the producers/directors ?