Jump to content

Narrowband

Tonights Wonders of the Universe


CGolder

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Ashamed to say i fell asleep part way through Episode 1. But Episode 2 was spot on, in fact i've watched it twice now as Harry wanted to see it a second time. And will probably watch it a third time when Sam sits down to watch it.

Looking forward to Episode 3 :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ashamed to say i fell asleep part way through Episode 1.

Ha ha. As did I..

I really enjoyed episode 2 though.

Not sure he "needs" to go to all the exotic locations, but you can't blame the guy for taking the opportunity to do so

- loved the pronunciation of "Beetle-Juice"

- loved the fact that my weeding ring was forged deep within a supernova....sounds a bit Tolkien....one ring to bind them all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I took chemistry at O'level, I remember clearly the lesson when we dropped sodium into water. This was done my the teacher rather than students. She hardly had any sodium in the little container pot, and had a real job setting any out.

I was pretty disapointed with such a small "pop". However, after the lesson the teacher washed her hands only to discover that she had managed to get a fair bit of sodium under her fingernails. As she yelled out in pain, I knew I was then hooked on science!!! :)

The school I went to used to keep magnesium ribbon in one of those big sweet jars that old-style sweet shops used to have on shelves behind the counter.

One day a teacher neglected to replace the lid on a fairly full jar after taking some ribbon out for an experiment and genuinely accidentally a spark dropped inside.

That was quite exciting :(

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I can't blame him but I'd like him to stop wasting money like that.

I really am unconvinced that it's a "waste" if it means that more people find science entertaining or interesting and it means that more people get "engaged" by science in the future. Far better they should watch BC as a result of its style of presentation than vegetate in front of "I'm a Big X-Factor Get Me Out Of Dancing On Ice", IMNHSO.

These days I regularly seem to encounter people who abandon their critical faculties and reject science, instead staunchly believing in utterly baseless "woo woo". It's about time the scales got tipped back the other way and if this is what it takes, I'll live with it even if I would prefer something a little "harder".

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Far better they should watch BC as a result of its style of presentation than vegetate in front of "I'm a Big X-Factor Get Me Out Of Dancing On Ice"

But if all they take away are impressions of the landscape, his hair or outfit and some eye-candy and a bit about entropy, aren't we just doing "I'm a Big X-Factor Get Me Out Of Dancing On Ice of Wonders "?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if all they take away are impressions of the landscape, his hair or outfit and some eye-candy and a bit about entropy, aren't we just doing "I'm a Big X-Factor Get Me Out Of Dancing On Ice of Wonders "?

There will always be some people like that. You can't expect to win every single person over. Just getting the ball rolling would be an achievement.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really liked his first serie (Wonders of the Solar System); so far I am not impressed by the content of this one though... especially the 1st episode, way to philosophical for my taste!

That said, I have a little crush on Prof Brian Cox and I think BBC factual rocks; amazing picture/editing and score!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest that most of the series is shot out of order. I'n not sure where that calender on the hill is but maybe it is in south america, so maybe they shot the prison bit on the way back to the airport. I would think that each location has a few bits filmed and they are spread out over the series and in perhaps other programmes as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I can't blame him but I'd like him to stop wasting money like that.

I like watching The Royal Institute Christmas Lectures. I'm sure they could have done it a lot cheaper and made it more fun.

And I'm puzzled . If a star uses up all it's hydrogen, then goes supernova, where do all the resulting new stars get their hydrogen from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hiya one and all,I don,t post that often.....much prefer to read the posts.....but I've gotta dive in on this one!...Whats with all the knockers of BC...at last we have a presenter that knows his onions,loves his subject,and wants to share it with the public...I am sure you all love watching david attenborough...partly for his love and ehthusisim for his subject...BC is the same type of guy...be grateful..its on prime time...beats eastenders all day

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A star does not use up all the hydrogen before going supernova. The nuclear reactions are only happening deep in the core of a star, which is quite small compared to the star itself. It's only when hydrogen runs out in the core that it starts burning heavier elements, at higher temperatures. Hydrogen burning keeps happening on an onion layer around the core. By the time it goes supernova, there's plenty of hydrogen in the layers that are not fusing nuclei.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see Harry Hill didn't pass up the opportunity of having another dig at a science programme... he had a little calendar wrist watch thing like the stones on the hill in the first episode of Wonders of the Universe, didn't work that well indoors apparently.

Now, I like Professor Brian Cox, but then I also like Harry Hill, but which is better? I suppose there's only one way to find out - FIGHT!!!!

I know, been done, but always makes me laugh. :hello2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, I like Professor Brian Cox, but then I also like Harry Hill, but which is better? I suppose there's only one way to find out - FIGHT!!!!

I know, been done, but always makes me laugh. :hello2:

Made me giggle too :hello2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see Harry Hill didn't pass up the opportunity of having another dig at a science programme...

I'd take that as a good sign. He wouldn't waste his time making fun of a programme that no-one had seen and wouldn't get a laugh.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I loved it, like I loved all the Universe/Wonders episodes...I especially liked the point he was making about how the history of the universe is actually more spectacular and awe-inspiring than any story religion has come up with. You are, and always have been, at one with the stars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A star does not use up all the hydrogen before going supernova. The nuclear reactions are only happening deep in the core of a star, which is quite small compared to the star itself. It's only when hydrogen runs out in the core that it starts burning heavier elements, at higher temperatures. Hydrogen burning keeps happening on an onion layer around the core. By the time it goes supernova, there's plenty of hydrogen in the layers that are not fusing nuclei.

Plus there is an awful lot of hydrogen just floating around in space that hasn't condensed and collaspsed under gravity to form a star in the first place. Other events (like super nova) can cause this to happen, hence the star forming region in M42.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watched the latest, about gravity.

Again, he did all the explaining with simple props. Nice to see some actual science simulations and data-animations described explicitly as such.

I was annoyed by all the other dazzling FX of neutron stars, star collapses as I had no idea what parts to take seriously and what not. Do they really shake so much when spinning or was that just to give the impression of immense energies? I suspect the latter. Do they make so much noise? of course not. Do they even look like that at optical wavelengths? Probably not.

And please, please, please, enough of all these artistic "enhancements" like lens flares (as if you'd use a 10-element lens to photograph a galaxy), distortions in depth of field, glare aberrations and so on in the whizzo graphics. They confuse the viewer with irrelevant details as they are always going "oh, what caused that, is that real?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason it probably 'washed over' your kids is you were probably sat whining in the background with cleverer than thou comments. They never asked you questions cos Dad probably bores the hell out of them. He knows too much about the subject to just enjoy it as a Sunday night bedtime story, which is what it basically is. Kinda like the way the thread dried up too. Haha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for one enjoyed the third episode, and whilst only touching on the subject of space-time and general relativity, it made it interesting, it made it approachable.

Back before I was born, the idea of space summoned up images of aliens, strange worlds and such like, now even the average 10 year old will have it smashed into them that space flight is highly dependant upon politics and we won't be travelling beyond our solar system to meet other civilisations in our life time, or even our childrens life times.

This show makes the theories and avenues of research we currently will and can follow interesting, sure it's "very" arty, and sure we don't know what things really look like, but a little bit of imagination can inspire awe, or hopefully inspire a child, young student to dive into this field and possibly be the next Eistein...

I swear half the people here would like a nice middle aged man stood in a lab pointing at in-expensive cardboard charts going "Here we have a graph representing ...." and eventually boring the toss out of us with numbers, and a delightfully accurate, detailed and unimaginative explination of the curviture of space.

I suppose I can liken it to astrophotography; in order to get your friend into it, do you?

a) Show a friend a photograph of The Great Orion Nebula, complete, finished explaining that it's a stellar nursery, full of young blue stars and is rather pretty to look at, and that astrophotography offers a gratifying challenge.

:hello2: Show a friend said photograph, tell him/her that it's M42, and describe how long you stood in the freezing cold, polar aligned your scope, mounted a camera to the back, took potentially 50-100 photos, edited them together, and explained signal to noise ratio, and that the colours may or may not be that accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose I can liken it to astrophotography; in order to get your friend into it, do you?

a) Show a friend a photograph of The Great Orion Nebula, complete, finished explaining that it's a stellar nursery, full of young blue stars and is rather pretty to look at, and that astrophotography offers a gratifying challenge.

:hello2: Show a friend said photograph, tell him/her that it's M42, and describe how long you stood in the freezing cold, polar aligned your scope, mounted a camera to the back, took potentially 50-100 photos, edited them together, and explained signal to noise ratio, and that the colours may or may not be that accurate.

That's the key point isn't it :-)

There's a place for hard-core pure science and stuff that will appeal to those who already have an interest in the subject... I don't think this is it.

Yeah, the lens flares and pseudo-real tweaks on the graphics are not realistic... no, a collapsing star doesn't make any noise.... but as a way of enthralling the public and getting across the awe and spectacle of the subject matter, I personally feel artistic license is well justified.

You have to do what is necessary so that people can relate to it.

People wouldn't be half as enthralled by sterile scientific diagrams and block animations of these events. No you wouldn't get lens flares, but then again you wouldn't be sitting inside the corona of a collapsing red giant filming the events anyway would you?!

Lets be realistic... if the Sky at night was on at prime-time how many new astronomers would you get out of it? I'd bet good money... less than you will out of WOTU and WOTSS. I genuinely think BC has done more for astronomy in the last couple of years than any other single person in the last 20 odd years (should I get my hard hat on after that suggestion? :-)

Ben

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.