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

Dublin_Gunner

murrayp4 wrote: »

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..

That would be waaay too scientific for this series.

FrostyJack

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

That would be waaay too scientific for this series.

The purpose of the series is to inspire/create interest in the subject not teach astrophysics in great detail. That is the reason Cox uses the everyday analogies. I still haven't watched any episodes of it yet (hopefully tonight), but if it is half as good as the Solar system I will be happy. Comparing it with the Universe series isn't like with like. Though the Universe seems to get better each season (I'm on season 3), I still prefere Wonders.

ctrl-alt-delete

I havn't got time to watch episode 3 yet,

But some of the talk on here reminds me of this video,

I just find it so funny him trying to explain what a gravity wave is to the shows producer, some of the looks on his face are priceless, I think he seriously thinks the guy is acting stupid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EJ8r9Rhfw8

ceejay

Kewreeuss wrote: »

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!

Everything with mass warps spacetime so that other objects are attracted towards them. The gravity that you cause isn't annulled by Earth's gravity - you do actually attract the Earth towards you by a very tiny amount. The warping of spacetime by a galaxy is the combined warping due to all the mass of the matter in the galaxy. It doesn't have any gravity of its own per se, since there isn't something that is "the galaxy" that is independent of all the stars, planets, dust, etc. that make up the galaxy.

What the show was trying to convey with the mountains and valleys is the idea of gravity wells. The bigger the mass the more spacetime is warped or curved by the mass, so you can picture it as a steeper "slope" in spacetime around bigger masses. You fall down the slope towards the mass and experience this as the force of gravity.

This video might explain it a bit better:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBQHtF3WhMw&feature=related

Kewreeuss

Ctr-alt-delete's video is very funny. The look on his face is the same as anyone explaining anything to someone who just doesn't understand what is being explained, no-way never!
Ceejay, thank you for the galaxy explanation. I kind of thought it was like that. I watched the video too and all was going swimmingly until the very end when he said "down hill to high orbit" and I had to look and listen a few times before I understood what he was saying.
I also read through the comments as well(my god, youtube posters can be pretty scurrilous) - is he really saying that you take the raw materials from the moon and hey presto in orbit above earth they will be magiced into space stations and rockets and components because it's easier than doing it on earth and then pushing them out into space. I can't imagine it being economically viable, can you? Thanks again.

backboiler

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.

Hydrogen is just the simplest stable configuration of the "traditional" sub-atomic particles. It's not really true to say it's the only element; it's just that the probability of it spontaneously forming from a "loose" electron and proton soup is much, much greater than that of any other element. Forming the heavier, more complex elements just requires much higher energies.

That said, I think the real value in this series is that the writers can bring together the big picture to a relevant and easily digestible sound bite along the lines of "everything around you, including yourself are made of material that was once hydrogen inside a star".

rccaulfield

backboiler wrote: »

Hydrogen is just the simplest stable configuration of the "traditional" sub-atomic particles. It's not really true to say it's the only element; it's just that the probability of it spontaneously forming from a "loose" electron and proton soup is much, much greater than that of any other element. Forming the heavier, more complex elements just requires much higher energies.

That said, I think the real value in this series is that the writers can bring together the big picture to a relevant and easily digestible sound bite along the lines of "everything around you, including yourself are made of material that was once hydrogen inside a star".

Well.... isn't that what i was getting at?;) Would it be fair to say that its the original element in all stars?

Tefral

You are correct in that Hydrogen is the base element. It has the nucleus and the one electron orbiting it..

If anyone here hasnt done chemistry, the best way to learn how atoms bond is by using a bohr diagram.

Atoms will bond together to ensure that there will be two electrons in energy level one, 8 in energy level two etc.

Thats why for example, Water is formed in nature from 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom.

The Hydrogen has only one electron and the outer layer of the Oxygen atom has 6 so it has 2 to fill. Thats there the hydrogen comes in, the spare electron from the hydrogen bonds to the outer layer of the oxygen. Thats why its H2O

Sad Professor

Great series overall, but I was disappointed with the last episode. Not as good as the second and third ones.

Anyway, it seems that's not the last of them. The next series is called "Wonders of Life" and starts shooting in September.

Tefral

Sad Professor wrote: »

Great series overall, but I was disappointed with the last episode. Not as good as the second and third ones.

Anyway, it seems that's not the last of them. The next series is called "Wonders of Life" and starts shooting in September.

I saw that on his Twitter. I agree the final episode wasnt up there with the others.

Where they didnt take him to shoot that series, ha ha wonderful job for him bet it beats sitting inside in CERN with no windows.

missingtime

Good episode but not as good as the gravity one, which I feel was the best.

Incidentally, after watching this series I would like to watch a few more like it, does anyone have any other shows they would recommend?

ManFromAtlantis

really interesting series. is that the last episode for now.

they spared no expense in bringing him to diff locations all over the world just to highlight a point. eg the rainbow / us mountains fossils all nice to watch just couldn't imaging rte having the money to do this when it could be shown in a photo or looking at a rainbow out the back garden?
class series tho in fairness.

FrostyJack

missingtime wrote: »

Incidentally, after watching this series I would like to watch a few more like it, does anyone have any other shows they would recommend?

Don't know if you know there is Wonders of the Solar system, which is quality. The Universe, Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking, Cosmos (Carl Sagan) to name a few. All available on Amazon.co.uk and a few on youtube.

MagicMarker

ManFromAtlantis wrote: »

really interesting series. is that the last episode for now.

they spared no expense in bringing him to diff locations all over the world just to highlight a point. eg the rainbow / us mountains fossils all nice to watch just couldn't imaging rte having the money to do this when it could be shown in a photo or looking at a rainbow out the back garden?
class series tho in fairness.

Not to mention having him up in a fighter jet just to break the sound barrier, even though the main focus of the show was on light! lol

ComeraghBlue

missingtime wrote: »

Good episode but not as good as the gravity one, which I feel was the best.

Incidentally, after watching this series I would like to watch a few more like it, does anyone have any other shows they would recommend?

'How the universe works' was on discovery last year some time, very good series and IMO on par with wonders.

irishh_bob

im still not convinced that astronomers and students of space dont simply pick a number ( a big one ) when it comes to describing how far away a particular galaxy is or how far across or up and down the milky way is , would be nice if they just came out and said , we havent a clue but its a big fcuker , all this talk of a particular star burning out in 12 . 5 billion years or a galaxy having 600 billion stars , its bollocks

ps . i still find the subject fascinating though and loved the series

FrostyJack

irishh_bob wrote: »

im still not convinced that astronomers and students of space dont simply pick a number ( a big one ) when it comes to describing how far away a particular galaxy is or how far across or up and down the milky way is , would be nice if they just came out and said , we havent a clue but its a big fcuker , all this talk of a particular star burning out in 12 . 5 billion years or a galaxy having 600 billion stars , its bollocks

This is a wind up, right?

Cú Giobach

irishh_bob wrote: »

im still not convinced that astronomers and students of space dont simply pick a number ( a big one ) when it comes to describing how far away a particular galaxy is or how far across or up and down the milky way is , would be nice if they just came out and said , we havent a clue but its a big fcuker , all this talk of a particular star burning out in 12 . 5 billion years or a galaxy having 600 billion stars , its bollocks

ps . i still find the subject fascinating though and loved the series

I tell you what, study the links below and then come back and point out the areas you have a problem with.

Introduction to Cosmology
Cosmic distances
The Milky way
Stellar evolution
History of astronomy

irishh_bob

FrostyJack wrote: »

This is a wind up, right?

how could they possibley know the exact distance that a particular star is from earth , telescopes dont reach a million light years away , all this talk of light from a star having left home 18000 years ago is pure speculation , albeit mighty impressive sounding , i dont doubt the universe is big and that it is brilliant men and women who research the cosmos , im not a creationist either btw but its obvious thier is a fair amount of guess work going on , humans cant even guess what number banks owe , knowing how many stars or galaxys thier are would be like knowing how many grains of sand thier are in the desert , its impossible to come up with a definitive answer

Cú Giobach

irishh_bob wrote: »

how could they possibley know the exact distance that a particular star is from earth , telescopes dont reach a million light years away , all this talk of light from a star having left home 18000 years ago is pure speculation ,

Why don't you learn (or ask) how they do, before coming here and making an fool of yourself.

ManFromAtlantis

irishh_bob wrote: »

i dont doubt the universe is big

fair play to ya.

irishh_bob

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Why don't you learn (or ask) how they do, before coming here and making an fool of yourself.

play the ball , not the man

Cú Giobach

irishh_bob wrote: »

play the ball , not the man

What ball?
You are talking sh1te from a position of ignorance, have no desire (apparently) to learn anything about the subject you are commenting on and seem only intent on childishly trolling this thread.

irishh_bob

Cú Giobach wrote: »

What ball?
You are talking sh1te from a position of ignorance, have no desire (apparently) to learn anything about the subject you are commenting on and seem only intent on childishly trolling this thread.

i see whats going on here , anyone who isnt well read on the subject of astronomy is dismissed as an idiot for asking ( dumb ) questions or making average joe statements

ive checked out other threads and im not the 1st to question how accurate scientists can be on this topic , im not doubting einstiens findings on gravity etc or anything like that but how is it any more redicolous to declare what number of grains of sand thier are in the egyptian desert than to declare how far away the andromeda galaxy is or how many stars are in the andromeda galaxy for that matter , its all theory at the end of the day , theese scientsts talk about distances from one part of the universe to another like a taxi man would from one end of dublin to the other

Cú Giobach

irishh_bob wrote: »

i see whats going on here , anyone who isnt well read on the subject of astronomy is dismissed as an idiot for asking ( dumb ) questions or making average joe statements

ive checked out other threads and im not the 1st to question how accurate scientists can be on this topic , im not doubting einstiens findings on gravity etc or anything like that but how is it any more redicolous to declare what number of grains of sand thier are in the egyptian desert than to declare how far away the andromeda galaxy is or how many stars are in the andromeda galaxy for that matter , its all theory at the end of the day , theese scientsts talk about distances from one part of the universe to another like a taxi man would from one end of dublin to the other

You're not asking questions you're making definitive statements about things you know nothing about. You are at this on another thread here also. :rolleyes:
If you want to know how stellar and galactic distances are measured read the links I gave earlier.

Check out how stellar parallax, cephid variables, type 1A supernova and doppler red shifts are used to determine distances, when you understand these then you will be in a position to state your reasons for not accepting the measurements.

murrayp4

Ignore the troll.

Anyway...I thought the final episode was meh.

slade_x

irishh_bob wrote: »

how could they possibley know the exact distance that a particular star is from earth , telescopes dont reach a million light years away , all this talk of light from a star having left home 18000 years ago is pure speculation , albeit mighty impressive sounding , i dont doubt the universe is big and that it is brilliant men and women who research the cosmos , im not a creationist either btw but its obvious thier is a fair amount of guess work going on , humans cant even guess what number banks owe , knowing how many stars or galaxys thier are would be like knowing how many grains of sand thier are in the desert , its impossible to come up with a definitive answer

To be honest im not even sure where to start on your posts, from the opening of that statement your adamant on making statements to which i can only describe as ignorant (theres nothing wrong with ignorance were all ignorant to some or many things) You clearly have not researched or even have much of an understanding before giving your own judgement on the topic

irishh_bob wrote: »

Telescopes dont reach a million light years away?

Telescopes dont reach they record/gather
Your eyes dont reach a millimetre in front of you. for your eyes to see, sufficient light has to travel in through your retina. you wait for the light to come to you. Hubble is the most obvious of experiments to prove this on an astronomical scale

irishh_bob wrote: »

Humans cant even guess what numbers banks owe?

I fail to see how that is even remotely relevant to the subject

irishh_bob wrote: »

and knowing how many stars or galaxys thier are would be like knowing how many grains of sand thier are in the desert , its impossible to come up with a definitive answer

No one has ever claimed to know how many of any object there are, only what is currently observable with our technology. And such methods involved are far different than divising a method of sorting through and counting all the grains of sand on a beach. I know a lot of people passionate about astronomy and some who have devoted their lives to it. i dont know of anyone who feels passionate enough about grains of sand to actually research it, to spend years to generations to build or devise experiments on the subject. however given the volume of a beach and the size of a grain of sand among other factors, one could work out a relative figure if given enough time. And without an interest no one would care, just as much as anyone without an interest in astronomy would care from how many galaxies we see and can chart to the very structure of our universe

Basq

Bump!

I just the Blu-ray of 'Wonders Of The Solar System' last week and am working through it..

.. but I just pulled out my Blu-ray of Danny Boyle's 'Sunshine' (knowing that Brian Cox served as scientific consultant) and lo-and-behold, one of the special features:

# Commentary by Dr Brian Cox: The University Of Manchester

Could definitely be worth a listen!

Sad Professor

Basq wrote: »

# Commentary by Dr Brian Cox: The University Of Manchester

Could definitely be worth a listen!

Yeah, I've listened to it. It's pretty good as I recall. However, despite hiring him to be the scientific consultant, it's pretty clear that Boyle didn't listen to him all that much.

Amtmann

Just a question on entropy and the tendency towards disorder:

If things naturally tend toward disorder, then how come ordered things like solar systems form out of chaotic nebulae?

And another question on the origin of the universe:

What's the latest thinking as to the cause of the Big Bang?

***

Also, when I was interested in astronomy in the early 90s, theories such as the big rip and the big crunch were very popular. What's been discovered in the meantime that has made these redundant?