Wonders Of The Universe - BBC2 - 06/03/11

Ardent

Kewreeuss wrote: »

What's BUMP mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_%28Internet%29

ctrl-alt-delete

rccaulfield wrote: »

Best line from tonights show was "all the other elements form from hydrogen". I had to pause and let that line sink in. That means theres only one element not 115 or whatever it is these days, theres one and given time look what happens. I'd consider myself big into astronomy and while i knew that already i had never realised what it meant and it hit me like a tonne of bricks! You have hydrogen and 4 forces and thats it.

Yeah that bit got me too! It is amazing to think there is so much we don't know out there in our Universe - yet we know that everything out there is made from a combination from 92 possible chemical elements!

Was very interesting for me anyways to see that we can tell what things in our Universe are made of, from looking at a spectrum of the light they emit.

Looking forward to next weeks episode already.

I know many may know Brian Cox was in D:Ream but maybe some of you may not know that the first band he was in was a band called Dare!



See if you can spot him in the picture above

djhaxman

He doesn't look much older!

Gael Uirbeach

I enjoyed the other nights prog, though I was just pondering somthing, in the first episode he said eventually every last star would go out, forever, and the universe would cease to exist, but then in the second episode he was describing the process of the death of a star and how it creates a nebula, which i think he called a nursery for stars, basically creating new stars from the matter of the old one that went super nova, like our own sun, maybe im missing somthing but do these two points not contradict each other? as in, how will all the stars go out if the death of a star creates a nebula which in turn creates new stars? do not all stars go supernova? or do not all nebulas create new stars and it just chance?

djhaxman

Gael Uirbeach wrote: »

I enjoyed the other nights prog, though I was just pondering somthing, in the first episode he said eventually every last star would go out, forever, and the universe would cease to exist, but then in the second episode he was describing the process of the death of a star and how it creates a nebula, which i think he called a nursery for stars, basically creating new stars from the matter of the old one that went super nova, like our own sun, maybe im missing somthing but do these two points not contradict each other? as in, how will all the stars go out if the death of a star creates a nebula which in turn creates new stars? do not all stars go supernova? or do not all nebulas create new stars and it just chance?

Only stars about 4 times the size of the sun and bigger go supernova. Smaller stars like our sun form planetary nebulae when they die, which is where the star sheds its outer layers into space, in a far less violent manner than a supernova. When all the hydrogen in the universe gets used up, or gets so dispersed that nebulae can't collapse due to gravity, then all stellar formation will end, so he is right in what he said, it just wasn't the clearest way he could have said it.

Hauk

Tell me I'm not the only one that thought the first episode was depressing as hell?

Haven't watched the second ep. Gonna watch that tonight.

Ardent

Yes it was very depressing. I always knew our solar system and maybe even our galaxy would end one day. But the thought that the universe itself will eventually dissipate into nothingness really does bring a sense of hopelessness.

But we don't need to worry about that for another few trillion trillion years!

thecommander

He said the universe will end up as nothing, and close to absolute zero. But if energy is neither created or destroyed then where does it all go?

Dublin_Gunner

Missed it the other night - its repeated tonight?

Am I the only one that thinks its a bit of a struggle to get through an episode? His constant commentary has a sort of monotonous drone to it.

I also think he over-simplifies his explanations to the point of confusion.

Half the time I was thinking "Will ya just get to the point and stop talking about turle sex".

But then again, the turtle moved at about the pace of the episode, so I suppose it was an apt inclusion.

I'll probably be slated for this opinion (though it hasn't deterred me from wanting to watch the rest of the episodes, especially now that the new season of 'The Universe' is over), I generally rather scientific programs with a bit more substance and fact.

mike65

I haven't bothered with this series as I felt I'd had enough of Prof Cox, he knows his stuff but the "everythings big and wonderful and soooooooooooooo fab-tastic" tone is a bit much after a while.

jill_valentine

I take it you guys have already seen this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhn8j7S4uKU

This is pretty funny too.

The series will be released as a DVD box set later this year with his earlier documentary Stars & That, Yeah? Right in both their original formats and, at the Cox's insistence, a version remixed by Frankie Knuckles

Hauk wrote: »

Tell me I'm not the only one that thought the first episode was depressing as hell?

Haven't watched the second ep. Gonna watch that tonight.

It was a bit, eh? But it was totally worth it to watch the Twitter traffic immediately afterwards - thousands of people all over Britain and Ireland suddenly confronted with the end of all things, all at once. Was interesting.

I do think he made a game attempt to present us with reasons why it shouldn't be such a bleak prospect though - if it wasn't for that continuous process of change, there wouldn't be an Us to be depressed about it.

I think it might have been a mistake to start the series on that one, to be honest, I think it's a tough one to top.

david75

See if you can see Mr. Cox..(he's on keyboards)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKIiNx8pCq8

ceejay

I've liked both programs so far, looking forward to the other ones.

The sand castle explanation for entropy was really good I thought, as was his description of the heat death of the universe and the general idea that time is linked to change, so no change = no time passing

As for being depressing, I actually took the other view - it's amazing we're here at all, and we're capable of theorising about the life cycle of stars and the universe itself, and of proving these theories too. Life (wherever it may exist in the universe) is brief and fleeting, but wonderful too

This thread carries through into the second program. I love the fact that everything we see was born in stars, that every atom in my body was once in the heart of a star or created in the biggest explosions since the creation of the universe itself! I thought he conveyed that quite well.

I also learned some new stuff, like the way the different elements in the star's core are in concentric shells with hydrogen at the outside all the way through Helium, Carbon, Oxygen, etc., through to Iron. I knew the idea of the process, but I never quite visualised it in that way

I also thought it was good the way he helped visualise just how big Betelguese is - it would reach out to Jupiter if it was in our solar system :eek:
It doesn't look like that from here though, does it:


(I took this last night Full details on Flickr)


If it gets more people interested in science, physics, and cosmology, then I think it's doing its job

djhaxman

I would love to be around to see Betelgeuse go supernova. They are pretty rare events and with it being so close (in astronomical terms), it would likely be visible during daylight and would be like having two moons in the sky at night. Not many generations have seen one of them.

Plug

It dimmed 14% in the last 10 years:eek:
Something must happen within the next few years.

Sad Professor

I wasn't wild about the first episode. Seemed very repetitive. Second episode was brilliant though. Can't wait for next week. Disappointed to see there's only going to be 4 episodes.

missingtime

Cant wait till next weeks episode, its a really good show.

Ardent

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

I'll probably be slated for this opinion (though it hasn't deterred me from wanting to watch the rest of the episodes, especially now that the new season of 'The Universe' is over)

You're entitled to your opinion but I think "The Universe" is poor in comparison. Too much programmatic padding, rent-a-quote scientists and cheap cgi.

Dublin_Gunner

Ardent wrote: »

You're entitled to your opinion but I think "The Universe" is poor in comparison. Too much programmatic padding, rent-a-quote scientists and cheap cgi.

I don;t mind the sort-of-crappy CGI if it serves its purpose, and in fairness, its not that bad.

While I agree its the same scientists you see in most things, its gives a bit more detail than Cox's cryptic analogys. And to say the Universe's scientists are any more 'rent-a-quote' than Cox himself is nothing short of hilarious. He whores himself to the beeb like noone else.

Fair enough, I'm basing this all off the first episode (still haven't seen the second one).

Too much talk, and not enough visual. He seem to try to hard to over simplify not very simple theory's.

Fair enough, I'm basing this all off the first episode (still haven't seen the second one).

Some of his analogy's were good, like others have said, the sand castle for entropy.

ScrubsfanChris

BUMP...
Just started.

missingtime

Great episode. Just really really interesting stuff.

Rubecula

missingtime wrote: »

Great episode. Just really really interesting stuff.

I agree that was the best so far. All about gravity. Mind you it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know but it was very interesting for all that. I enjoyed it.

Kewreeuss

It seems everyone here knows all about and understands everything Brian Cox talk about. Well I don't and I lost what he said about the space time thing. I sort of understand bits of what he said about gravity, and I get the black hole thing but I got lost when he started talking about something looking like canyons and mountains.
Can anyone point me to where I can read up on whatever it was, or hear what he said again?

murrayp4

Kewreeuss wrote: »

It seems everyone here knows all about and understands everything Brian Cox talk about. Well I don't and I lost what he said about the space time thing. I sort of understand bits of what he said about gravity, and I get the black hole thing but I got lost when he started talking about something looking like canyons and mountains.
Can anyone point me to where I can read up on whatever it was, or hear what he said again?

I think using the valleys/mountains analogy made a hash of the explanation. I expected a wire mesh style visual representation but it didn't come..

rccaulfield

Suppose he was getting at the idea that for example mars has a monster of a volcano/mountain called olympic mons. Earth could never have a mountain that big because its gravity is heavier and wouldn't allow it. Every planet has a rough height limit for its mountains. Is that the part you meant?

thecommander

murrayp4 wrote: »

I expected a wire mesh style visual representation but it didn't come..

Thought he'd use a bit of material and a ball to do it. Was surprised about the mountain analogy.

squonk

I think the best way to put what I feel about the show is that I generally start of having a good idea about what the show's premise is each week because I've read/seen examples before but, while the show meanders, if you stick with it, you end up learning quite a bit new on things you didn't quite understand and getting a very concrete hold on things you already did understand but now see them in a new perspective.

I never knew much about entropy but I do now. On the whole I'm not as impressed as I was with 'Wonders of the Solar System' but it's still a damn good show!

murrayp4

thecommander wrote: »

Thought he'd use a bit of material and a ball to do it.

That would be the easiest way to do it. A victory of style (great looking shots of Cox looking at mountains/valleys) over substance.
Strange decision seeing that in the Solar System series he made a great job of explaining things by drawing in sand with a stick...

thecommander

murrayp4 wrote: »

That would be the easiest way to do it. A victory of style (great looking shots of Cox looking at mountains/valleys) over substance.
Strange decision seeing that in the Solar System series he made a great job of explaining things by drawing in sand with a stick...

He could have used that table cloth that he love projecting onto.

Kewreeuss

Thanks for the picture, Murrayp4. That makes it clearer. That was what he meant, wasn't it?
RCaulfield, no I didn't think he was talking about gravity and height restrictions. All the same, that's cool - can we really not have a mountain 25000 metres high on earth?
I have another question. Would a galaxy, as a whole, have its own gravity or is it just the sum of its parts. I read that anything with mass has gravity. That means that I have gravity, doesn't it, but the earth's gravity is stronger so my gravity is annulled.
When they talk about the earth's mass does that include everything on it as well, ie us and the cities?
So, is there a point where a galaxy stops being a massive grouping of stars and planets around a centre, each with its own gravity and becomes more powerful. or is it all russian dolls and it's all the same, it just depends how you define your focus?
I'm not making sense to my self now, sorry!