Brian Cox was on SBSONE TV again in Australia this week.(1) This Part 4 of 5 programs was broadcast in the UK in March 2010 and, as is often the case, programs made and produced in the UKand the USA--get Downunder about a year later, sometimes more and sometimes less. As I pointed out the last time I wrote about this Brian Cox, he is not the Brian Cox has drunk cheap wine, methylated spirits and aftershave. He's not been in some of what the sociologist Irving Goffman called total institutions: jails, lockups, and padded cells. Hes not the Brian Cox who until the age of 49 was a self-confessed and hopeless alcoholic, who turned his life around and is now a man with a mission. He is not the Emmy Award Scottish actor, the independent film director or the English goalkeeper. I want to talk about here in this short prose-poem the delightful astro-physicist. -Ron Price with thanks to (1) SBS1 TV, Wonders of the Solar System, 22 March 2011, 8:30-9:30 p.m. As I said the last time I wrote about you, Brian, I had trouble with physics in high school and only got as far as matriculation. You have helped me make up for my ignorance of physics, & astro- physics, astronomy and the study of our universe. As I said 4 months ago: I dropped physics in 62 for history so that I could go to university and Ive been into history ever since, Brian. History has as many wonders as astro-physics, Brian. Without physics I could not do medicine, law, engineering, or any of the maths and sciences. So it was into the arts for me and there I have stayed for the last 50 years! Now, in my retirement, I have begun to play at the edges of astrophysics thanks to, by sensible and insensible degrees, a series of media-events, like this Cox chap who could make you feel the wonder and awe of it all: 3 cheers again for Brian Cox!...Hip-hip-hurray! Ron Price 30 December 2010 updated to 23 July 2011
i like the thread in the sense of appreciating learning and the knowledge gained in using math. but i also do not like it in the sense that it left out a pure comprehension each should be taught when using the mechanics of the current paradigm; a)........ the current paradigm is incomplete b)........ the comprehension of life itself cannot be described via the current reductionary scope of entropic function ie....... to learn mathematics is the core to describing existence, i will agree, but within learning the current methodology of describing, the underlying comprehension that the mechanics are incomplete and a paradigm shift is imminent, must be taught and understood by any and all.
Thanks Bishadi for raising some questions. The study of astrophysics has many facets which this program did not raise. Astrophysics is a very broad subject and astrophysicists typically apply many disciplines of physics, including mechanics, electromagnetism, statistical mechanics, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, relativity, nuclear and particle physics, and atomic and molecular physics. In practice, modern astronomical research involves a substantial amount of physics. The name of a university's department ("astrophysics" or "astronomy") often has to do more with the department's history than with the contents of the programs. Astrophysics can be studied at the bachelors, masters, and Ph.D. levels in aerospace engineering, physics, or astronomy departments at many universities. And so, Bishadi, thanks for your comment and raising the questions you did.-Ron Price, Australia
So put into question; if the physics is categorically incorrect based on the assumption of the 2LoT that planck incorporated into 'h'......... then imagine how much error is within the physics from point "A". And the EVIDENCE to observe is the mass curve identified by the hubble of the galaxie rotations at the arms. (ie... it is one of the reasons they added 78% more mass/energy to the equations (dark matter, energy). i pose, the stars are exchanging energy and that increased entanglement is the missing potential (the missing link)
My background, Bishadi, is not in maths and physics and so you will have to get your answers from others here at this site or other science and physics, astronomy and astrophysics sites.-Ron
My point is/was that the math of todays paradigm is flawed at its root adherance to the sLoT. It means, a bunch of what is 'believed' in cosmology is a bit off. Now if you are a reader/writer and dont want to play in physics. I have a subject idea that you can play with. .... Good and bad, in relation to life. I pose, good actions a life can cause to exist, consciously of course, 'support life to continue'. IN this context you, a life, can water a tree and live in that action. The method of comprehending that is your energy is given to the act caused to exist that can be built upon, by a life. exammples; teach a child how to tie their shoe, if they use that, then teach their children, etc....... your 'life' (energy) lives longer. procreate; contribute the single cell (sperm/egg) which is in fact sustaining the energy of the initial life. Consider cell division as the model in which the original life must give a portion of itself to live into the next generation b...... bad: loss to the common (selfish, isolating, against existence itself) The method to sustain the judgment of these, is to sustain 'time' as the ultimate judge of the matter. THink of life as like a wave upon a pond, good waves combine, raise and last longer. The others, fade, still there, but just dust in the wind. food for thought
I have not been to this thread for six months, Bishadi. I appreciate your response, but the issues you raise and their context, are too difficult to tackle this evening. With little time and jobs to do, I must leave your questions unanswered.-Ron
ECLIPSE* The rare conjunction of orbital mechanics, the transit of Venus, was perhaps the most anticipated scientific event of the 18th century. Expeditions set off for the far corners of the Earth, including one by Capt. James Cook who sailed to Tahiti to observe the transit. He went on to discover the continent of Australia where I have lived for the last four decades. Explorers like Cook went in hopes of answering one of the most vexing scientific questions of the day: How far away is the Sun? “This was the big unknown for astronomy 250 years ago,” said Owen Gingerich, an emeritus professor of astronomy and history of science at Harvard. Without that number, much else about the solar system was also uncertain: the size of the Sun, the distance between planets, inter alia. The answer that came out of the worldwide 1769 observations was pretty close at 95 million miles. “Historically speaking, it was the beginning of big international science,” said Dr. Gingerich. It was only in 1627 that anyone realized Venus transits occurred at all. That year, Johannes Kepler, the mathematician and astronomer, published data about the planetary orbits that predicted that Venus would pass directly between Earth and the Sun in 1631.-Ron Price with thanks to: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/sc...l?ref=eclipses What a set of revolutions we’ve seen since Captain Cook was in Tahiti and we finally learned the distance to the Sun among other bodies in our solar system! What a story it has been in the last 250 years! We each follow these many revolutions as suits our tastes and interests. My particular interest is in the revolutions that have taken place in history, science, politics, the many social sciences, applied and physical sciences, indeed, in more areas than can be listed here: revolutions that have eclipsed so many things that have gone before. * The term eclipse is derived from an ancient Greek noun, a noun which means "the abandonment", "the downfall", or "the darkening of a heavenly body." This noun is derived from a verb which means "to abandon", "to darken", or "to cease to exist." The prefix of the word eclipse, e, comes from a preposition meaning "out," and from a verb meaning "to be absent". Ron Price 8 June 2012 PS for my writing in many areas of these revolutionary changes go to my website at: http://www.ronpriceepoch.com/
Astronomers Predict Big Discovery In 2013... First 'Alien Earth' Will Be Found in 2013, Experts Say Thu, Dec 27, 2012 - The first truly Earth-like alien planet is likely to be spotted next year, an epic discovery that would cause humanity to reassess its place in the universe.
The Newtown killings raised mountains of print like this item in The New Yorker: ------------------------------------------- December 14, 2012 The Right Day to Talk About Guns Posted by Alex Koppelman “I don’t think today is that day,” Jay Carney, the White House Press Secretary, said on Friday. He was responding to a question about gun control and the shooting in an elementary school in Connecticut that reportedly claimed the lives of twenty-six people —including twenty children between the ages of five and ten years old, as well as that of the shooter and, separately, one of the shooter’s parents. (The reports about what exactly happened are still somewhat shaky and unconfirmed. It’s likely that, as in most situations like this, some of what we now think we know will turn out to have been wrong. I will update this post as the day goes on.) For more go to: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/12/the-right-day-to-talk-about-guns.html
It has been some 18 months since I was last at this thread, a thread that has followed a somewhat circuitous route. I'll bring it back to the subject of the universe, and then finish my day here in Tasmania, the first day of winter in 2014.-Ron Price, George Town, Tasmania ------------------------------------ TIME Wonders of the Universe is a 2011 television series produced by the BBC and hosted by physicist Brian Cox. Wonders of the Universe was first broadcast in the United Kingdom on BBC2 on 6 March 2011 and in Australia on ABC1 on 19 July.1 The series comprises four episodes, each of which focuses on an aspect of the universe and features a 'wonder' relevant to the theme. It follows on from Cox's previous series for the BBC, Wonders of the Solar System, which was first broadcast in 2010. Wikipedia informs me that in the UK 6 million watched the first episode. Cox and the BBC are also reportedly responsible for a hike in telescope sales. But, as night follows day or, as a planetary nebula becomes a white dwarf, Cox and the program have its detractors. Ill let you read about them for they are easily accessible in cyberspace. The universe is filled with over a hundred billion galaxies, each containing hundreds of billions of stars. In the first episode, the one I watched yesterday evening in the middle of an Australian winter, Cox considered the nature of time in this vastness of billions and billions. He explored, briefly, the cycles of time that astronomers and physicists have now named and described. Cox also discussed the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, its effect on time, and the Heat Death theory concerning the end of the universe. Ill leave you to google all this to your hearts content if, indeed, your heart and mind want to get more content, more stimulated or more amazed beyond human understanding.1-Ron Price with thanks to 1ABC1, 19 July 2011, 8:30-9:30 p.m. We all react to different aspects of programs, and that is only saying the obvious, eh, Brian? I was most impressed by the idea of times line: the cosmological terms and those many epochs beginning with the Planck epoch, the stages of the early universe, and of structure formation: stars, galaxies, clusters, super-clusters and the ultimate fate of the universe in billions of years.1 What went on in the first trillionth of a second in that growth from sub-microscopic to astronomical size in the blink of an eye?2 Ive had a fascination with time since the 50s and those first years of the atomic age when the edge of self-destruction filled our time and I joined a new religion with its cycles & periods, eras & epochs, phases & stages, and plans.3 1 Go to this link for the details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang 2 See this link: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02EFDE1E31F934A25750C0A9609C8B63&pagewanted=all 3 The Bahai Faith Ron Price 19/7/'11 to 21/6/'14.
I'm a fan of Brian Cox. He's an excellent populist of science and conveys great passion and curiousity.
I follow the programs by Brian Cox [on BBC Knowledge] and I find him quite brilliant and clear to understand. Probably the fact that I followed Carl Sagan when I was young has left me a high level of criticism about scientific propagator. In any case I enjoy his programs.
Agreed, any man who can explain quantum string theory with just three skipping ropes is something very very special
I would also recommend Susskind's Standford lectures. You can find them on Youtube for just about any subject in classical and modern physics. Most of them were done through the School of Continuing Studies so anyone with a decent understanding of calculus can get through them.
Though I do enjoy Brian's stuff, I really cannot stand universe-fetishism. People get so hard for science, it's ridiculous. I've never been much of a fan of Carl Sagan, or popularizers of science generally. They try too hard to appeal to the lowest of all common denominators. Science is fun in part because it's a challenge - look for popularizers who go a little more in depth, or better yet take an undergrad physics major.
having a popular rudimentary understanding of the cosmos, its origins and functions is important to our civilization. Not everyone can take an undergrad physics course, and yet they can still be curious as to how our universe works. To many, the foundations of science even in the absence of deep understanding are important to their world view. So, while many of these populist shows cater to a lower common denominator than university lectures, they can still have incredible relevance.
Meh. It's good fun and all, especially if you get into stuff related like astronomy and astrophotograph - but I don't think it has much societal wealth above any other pasttime, not on the level they present it anyway. It's like fencing, dog breeding, learning an instrument, etc. Certainly has its benefits, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Agreed and how many have been influenced by such a populist program to embark on a career in the sciences.
You know the story of DeGrasse Tyson? there are many many scientists that as kids were influenced by people like Sagan, Bill Nye, Jacques Cousteau, Brian Cox et.al. Its about firing the imagination, presenting the wonders of our world and universe. I am not suggesting that a casual layman interest is anything more than a hobby as you have pointed out. But for a substantial number of people it serves as inspiration be it scientific, academic, artistic, or philosphical.
Yeah, I don't disagree with that. I dislike Sagan's style (and Tyson's views on NASA funding), but to each their own. If they float your boat then by all means. If anyone's looking for a good middle ground I'd suggest getting a book by Brian Greene. I find they go a little more in-depth in books - minimal mathematics, but a lot more understanding of how everything works.
Well goodness me: there certainly has been a good deal of discussion on the merits of Sagan and Cox, et al and on the permutations and combinations of popular and specialist knowledge. I don't think I'll buy into either of these ongoing debates which are many decades, if not centuries old; but I will leave you all with some quotable quotes for your possible reading pleasure at this link: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/elitism I'll drop back here later in 2014 and see how the discussion, now nearly 3 years in the making, is going.-Ron
