Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_2019_sp_banner.thumb.jpg.a0ff260c05b90dead5c594e9b4ee9fd0.jpg

CGolder

All Doom and Gloom from Brian Cox

Recommended Posts

I see Penrose gets a mention.

He's currently suggesting that when an ancient universe, all near-empty and "flat" from any local perspective, finally occurs, it's the perfect breeding ground for a new Big Bang.

That's not doom and gloom! That's a cyclical process of continual universes.

Lovely! :-)

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sense the program objectives might be seen in (personally stated!) context.

YouTube - Brian Cox Lecture - Science: A Challenge to TV Orthodoxy (1/3) :)

I think there's no harm in discussing how science is presented - I'd hate to see the arrival of the "appreciation thread" here too? <G> Heck, even Prof. Cox aknowledges the use of (his own!) aesthetic appeal? Aside: I still bear the scars from (jokingly) criticising a "good-looking" TV presenter elsewhere! :(

Recalling one post-70's discovery (confirming theory!), I was saddened to learn of the recent death of:

Simon van der Meer - Telegraph. One of the "quiet men" of science, and perhaps notably popular for it. :)

As George Jones notes, there is still (hopefully) a place for all types in science? I don't envy young scientists. To scale the "ladder of success" now requires, not merely academic abilities, but supreme presentation skills AND the sales (BS?) abilities of an "apprentice" candidate! Good looks don't hinder either? I sense a lot of this is down to (ever continuing) UK underfunding of science and scientists... :D

Edited by Macavity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that one of the problems is that people on here are not the target audience of the program. I have heard much the same arguement against david attenbourgh from people highly educated in the biology field. We have 'heard it before' because we have wanted to hear it before.

There has also been a shift in the way BBC shows it's programmes. When I was growing up BBC2 was the science channel but this has now been taken up by BBC4, and there has been some very high brow and informative programmes on there. BBC2 is now just a second entertainment channel and any programme on there should really be judged as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that one of the problems is that people on here are not the target audience of the program. I have heard much the same arguement against david attenbourgh from people highly educated in the biology field. We have 'heard it before' because we have wanted to hear it before.

There has also been a shift in the way BBC shows it's programmes. When I was growing up BBC2 was the science channel but this has now been taken up by BBC4, and there has been some very high brow and informative programmes on there. BBC2 is now just a second entertainment channel and any programme on there should really be judged as such.

I've pointed this out countless times as well. There's not much astronomy on telly so let's assume the audience know nothing. You then plan a series of programmes aiming to introduce the subject and build up a knowledge base.

Take Springwatch and how basic it used to be, now it has old grannies and children discussing Rictal Flanges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see Penrose gets a mention.

He's currently suggesting that when an ancient universe, all near-empty and "flat" from any local perspective, finally occurs, it's the perfect breeding ground for a new Big Bang.

That's not doom and gloom! That's a cyclical process of continual universes.

It's also wishful thinking ... Penrose is a gifted mathematician & I'd expect to be able to see the predicting model ... but it doesn't seem to exist.

M-branes colliding in a (possibly) steady state superuniverse is a better solution to a continuous cycle of big bangs, but it doesn't alter the eventual fate of ours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.