Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,527
- Location
- Surrey
Well I liked it.
Wonders of the Universe
- Thread starter Tombstone
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 3,779
- Location
- Wales
There was a lot of waffle.
Wasn't convincing enough when making the leap from 2nd law of thermodynamics to arrow of time. Entropy always increases, the past is always more ordered than the future, therefore 'arrow of time'. He may aswell have been explaining the holy trinity, the logic and reasoning was that flimsy.
It was pretty though.
Wasn't convincing enough when making the leap from 2nd law of thermodynamics to arrow of time. Entropy always increases, the past is always more ordered than the future, therefore 'arrow of time'. He may aswell have been explaining the holy trinity, the logic and reasoning was that flimsy.
It was pretty though.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 13,477
- Location
- London
I was just wondering, is this 'heat death' thing actually going to happen, or is it just a popular theory?
"Go here, see pretty images, talk incessantly about stuff changing."
That's what it boiled down to. There was some interesting concepts in there, but they were only touched upon, and were fairly simplisitic.
Unfortunately this doesn't even touch the previous series (Wonders of the Solar System?). I hope it gets better as the series goes on.
That's what it boiled down to. There was some interesting concepts in there, but they were only touched upon, and were fairly simplisitic.
Unfortunately this doesn't even touch the previous series (Wonders of the Solar System?). I hope it gets better as the series goes on.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 5,798
I thought it was a great episode, better than solar system.
Maybe some of you should go read a few scientific journels if this didn't satisfy you.
Your obviously not the intended target.
Maybe some of you should go read a few scientific journels if this didn't satisfy you.
Your obviously not the intended target.
The pseudo intellectuals on here aren't impressed, as someone who has done A level cosmology as well as a course for it at university, I thought it was a pretty good program!
The beginning was a bit slow perhaps, but I found the second half got a lot better. People calling it terrible and awful have problems.
The beginning was a bit slow perhaps, but I found the second half got a lot better. People calling it terrible and awful have problems.
Last edited:
Everything is a theory. But due to the accelerating rates of the expansion of the universe, it indicates that it might occur.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 11,535
- Location
- Bucks
lol. if you honestly thought this was a good program i would really look at how you were educated.
A program that is filmed essentially with him looking at an object or jetting round the world whilst awkwardly explaining relatively simple theories is not good tv.
Me too.
Admittedly after about the first 20 minutes I thought to myself "well, he hasn't really said anything yet?" I also thought he seemed to do an awful lot of travelling for very little screen time (nice gig if you can get it)
I did learn something new, although not as much as I hoped (happy to admit I don't know everything)
The glacier was cool though, must have been awesome to be there.
The first episode seemed depressing, specially when he explained that the cosmos will eventually die, obviously by that time our planet wont exist, but the theory that the everything has an end, but how can that be proven if space is infinate, we can only see what light has continued over billion of years but theres further light that are to far for our technology to see.
I think he misrepresented the death of the universe tbh. Fell in to the common popular science trap of portraying things as known (he said "concrete") when they are anything but - especially that far into the future.
Overall it was well made - yes for anyone who's studied science it didn't say anything new, but you have to remember that most people don't know ANY science.
Overall it was well made - yes for anyone who's studied science it didn't say anything new, but you have to remember that most people don't know ANY science.
i think it's based around the fact that as we know space is expanding, and as it expands the main resource "hydrogen" to fuel new stars will become less and less as the distance between galaxies and stars become seperated. but from cox predictions the cosmos will die 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years, but again this is based on theories of law that everything has a end, this is why he used the shipreck as an example, that through time the ship will eventually dissapear as the sand peeled away at the iron and steel, also rust.
I think the question of what is and what isnt "good tv" is a subjective one. Some would say that the Jeremy Kyle show and Loose Women isnt "good tv", others would say it is "good tv". Some would say Eastenders and Coronation Street isnt "good tv" , others would say it is. Some would say Dexter and Battlestar Galactica arent "good tv" , others would say it is. Some would say that The Sky at Night isnt "good tv", others would say it is.
Everyone is different and everyone has different tastes in what they enjoy watching and what they dont. Its not always related to how they were educated or their intelligence levels.
I really enjoyed it.
I found it really interesting to learn about white/red/black dwarfs, the arrow of time, the theory of entropy and how it can be used to explain where our universe is ultimately headed. Visuals were great, music was great and Brian Cox's enthusiasm as always makes him a joy to listen to.
Looking forward to next weeks episode.
I found it really interesting to learn about white/red/black dwarfs, the arrow of time, the theory of entropy and how it can be used to explain where our universe is ultimately headed. Visuals were great, music was great and Brian Cox's enthusiasm as always makes him a joy to listen to.
Looking forward to next weeks episode.
He was on the 700th Sky at Night later that night as one of the main guests. This was the first time he'd ever appeared on the programme which surprised me and tbh he looked strangely out of place next to Sir Patrick Moore and Chris Lintott. I get the impression he doesn't actually do that much astromony/observing as a hobby, he's more of a particle physicist.
I like the guy myself, he does have a knack of explaining things to the massess, but The Sky at Night is never going to need someone like that. If anybody takes over from Patrick it will be Chris Lintott, but it is going to be a completely different programme as I imagine they wouldn't be able to use Patrick's house and garden unless he wills it to the BBC or something.
Patrick Moore is my all time absolute hero of anything ever btw.
I know why the predictions were made. I was saying that he wrongly implied a certainty to those predictions. Nothing in science is certain - certainly not things that far in the future.
The solar system series was better than this first episode, it was all a bit too melancholy, right from the start with the over the top vignetting on the video, the haunting soundtrack, too long clips of "something amazing" that wasn't really relevant, with the underlying theme that it's all for naught anyway.
I only actually saw the first half as the above sent me to sleep, if I'm lucky it sounds like the 2nd half might have been better.
I only actually saw the first half as the above sent me to sleep, if I'm lucky it sounds like the 2nd half might have been better.
Entropy always increases? how did the sun, planets and life happen then, it required an decrease in Entropy... I think he over simplified the rule? or am i missing something....
Entropy usually inceases unless influenced by an external force especially if the external force is inteligent?