# Wonders of the Universe



## Klocky (Mar 13, 2011)

Does anybody else like this?  I find it works on two levels, my OH can appreciate the science, and I can learn something and drool over Brian Cox 
We really need to see more Cox on the telly.


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 13, 2011)

I'm going to resist the obvious answer to that comment ! 

He is a genius and his enthusiasm comes across well. It's nice to see these concepts being shared because they might just spark a desire to look further and open up a whole new world of science and discovery for a few people.

If you're on Twitter, you can follow him via @ProfBrianCox. He likes to promote a rational way of seeing the universe and makes for good eye candy I'm sure ! 

Rob


----------



## Klocky (Mar 13, 2011)

Somebody must have heard about my campaign for more Cox, he's on Someth ing for the Weekend plugging away.


----------



## Steff (Mar 13, 2011)

yeah we all love abit of Cox

love something for the weekend which he is currently on


----------



## Klocky (Mar 13, 2011)

Steffie said:


> yeah we all love abit of Cox
> 
> love something for the weekend which he is currently on



Cox is making stout muffins, words fail me


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 13, 2011)

It's like he's nothing but a piece of meat 

Brain the size of a planet and the only thing that gets noticed is his body. I don't know. We men have to suffer this constantly 

Rob


----------



## novorapidboi26 (Mar 13, 2011)

so far loving Cox...............

Missed the last series wonders of the solar system, cant get enough of all this space carry on.................


----------



## ypauly (Mar 13, 2011)

Love this program



as for the cox comments


----------



## Northerner (Mar 13, 2011)

Do remember we're a 'family-friendly' forum peeps


----------



## kitten (Mar 13, 2011)

could you please tell me what programme he is normally on?
I saw him making the muffins today (I always watch all shows involving cooking hehehe ) and he seemed very interesting guy. I'm not a sciency person at all but I did find the little bits of sciece that he spoke about on there interesting and would like to see this show he normally does  xxx


----------



## Northerner (Mar 13, 2011)

kitten said:


> could you please tell me what programme he is normally on?
> I saw him making the muffins today (I always watch all shows involving cooking hehehe ) and he seemed very interesting guy. I'm not a sciency person at all but I did find the little bits of sciece that he spoke about on there interesting and would like to see this show he normally does  xxx



He's on Wonders of the Universe tonight at 9pm, BBC2


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 13, 2011)

It's Wonders of the Universe Kitten. He is passionate about getting these fundamental concepts across to everyone so that we can all see how amazing scientific thinking is. And apparently he's quite attractive (ok, he is).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00zdhtg

I would imagine you can catch up on iPlayer or it may be repeated late at night some time or on BBC4.

ROb


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 13, 2011)

And he was the keyboard player for D-ream in the 90s (?) who had a hit with "Things can only get better" which became the anthem for the Labour party of Tony Blair. Then he left to finish his doctorate and become a proper geek.

Rob


----------



## ypauly (Mar 13, 2011)

Robster65 said:


> And he was the keyboard player for D-ream in the 90s (?) who had a hit with "Things can only get better" which became the anthem for the Labour party of Tony Blair. Then he left to finish his doctorate and become a proper geek.
> 
> Rob



I wish you hadn't told me that lol





/bites lip


----------



## kitten (Mar 13, 2011)

thank you very much for the info 
just fancy a bit of a change from my normal viewing (all cookery shows, all weight loss shows, all war time documentaries, anything even remotely involving ww2) xxx


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 13, 2011)

ypauly said:


> I wish you hadn't told me that lol
> 
> 
> 
> ...



  Don't hold it against him. He was merely a puppet in the show !

Rob


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 13, 2011)

kitten said:


> thank you very much for the info
> just fancy a bit of a change from my normal viewing (all cookery shows, all weight loss shows, all war time documentaries, anything even remotely involving ww2) xxx



It's good to broaden your horizons. Look at as many things as you can and it helps you to step back sometimes and see how things hang together. 

Enjoy

ROb


----------



## Andy HB (Mar 13, 2011)

I suspect that the programmes are quite good for those who don't follow such things regularly.

Personally, I much preferred the old Horizon programmes (not so much the new ones, but they have their moments).

Channel 4 used to have a good science series called Equinox too which was a similar concept to Horizon.

The programmes these days don't seem to have as much content as the old ones and I think that they tend to repeat points over and over again. I really hate that!

Andy


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 13, 2011)

What you say is perfectly true Andy, and I agree from a personal point of view. 
But I do feel that reaching a much wider audience is important too and Brain C seems to do that well. Albeit possibly mostly female.

If an interest is sparked, then it's so easy to follow it up with the internet, TV or those things they used to call books. 

I think that his mission is to show that it's not just for geeks, who will find it out for themselves, but is more wonderful than myth or fiction can come up with and can show us what we are and where we came from (and where we're going). I hoped it would be more detailed but with only 4 episodes (I think), he's got his work cut out.

Rob


----------



## Andy HB (Mar 13, 2011)

Robster65 said:


> What you say is perfectly true Andy, and I agree from a personal point of view.
> But I do feel that reaching a much wider audience is important too and Brain C seems to do that well. Albeit possibly mostly female.
> 
> If an interest is sparked, then it's so easy to follow it up with the internet, TV or those things they used to call books.
> ...



Yes, I agree with you there. It is the wider audience that they are targeting. Nothing wrong with that of course. 

The old Horizons and Equinoxes were often on late and in the case of Horizon were on during BBC2's 'dead-zone' (my terminology there!).

Andy


----------



## ypauly (Mar 13, 2011)

Robster65 said:


> Don't hold it against him. He was merely a puppet in the show !
> 
> Rob


It's ok I have done some research and discovered his parents were bankers lol


----------



## Northerner (Mar 13, 2011)

Andy HB said:


> Yes, I agree with you there. It is the wider audience that they are targeting. Nothing wrong with that of course.
> 
> The old Horizons and Equinoxes were often on late and in the case of Horizon were on during BBC2's 'dead-zone' (my terminology there!).
> 
> Andy



The old Horizon and Equinox programmes were really good - I still have quite a few on video, although no doubt the quality will have degraded by now. Horizon is dreadful these days for posing an interesting question, repeating it throughout the show, and never reaching any conclusion, whilst filling the programme with camera trickery and loud background music. Mind you, I quite enjoyed the recent one with Dr Alice Roberts on it (sigh! )


----------



## ypauly (Mar 13, 2011)

Northerner said:


> The old Horizon and Equinox programmes were really good - I still have quite a few on video, although no doubt the quality will have degraded by now. Horizon is dreadful these days for posing an interesting question, repeating it throughout the show, and never reaching any conclusion, whilst filling the programme with camera trickery and loud background music. Mind you, I quite enjoyed the recent one with Dr Alice Roberts on it (sigh! )



I agree, they seemed to have dumbed it down to the point that anybody that clever enough to get a D grade gcse in any subject would find it annoying. I think the way they repeat points like you couldn't grasp it the first or second time around is silly, If you need things explained at that level you would probably be watching something else.


----------



## Northerner (Mar 14, 2011)

Brian Cox is on Radio 4 now  I think he has possibly been on every programme I've seen or heard lately!  Multiverses!


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 14, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00zdbhz/Start_the_Week_14_03_2011

Repeat from this morning.

Rob


----------



## ypauly (Mar 20, 2011)

Had to post this from another site I visit just for Klocky lol



			
				somebody on the internet from a guardian report said:
			
		

> ...by Sam Wollaston. Don't get me wrong, I love by science TV, but I thought this was bang on:
> 
> Hi, I'm Professor Brian Cox, I'm one of the Wonders of the Universe (BBC2, Sunday). Here I am, on top of a mountain, triumphant in outdoor clothing. Why are we here? Where do we come from? These are the most enduring of questions. And why is it that you are a little bit in love with me? Is it my enormous mind? Or my boyish good looks, the NME hair, the expansive wardrobe coupled with exotic locations, the soft modest enthusiasm with just a hit of Lancashire, the winning smile . . . this winning smile ? ah, that's got you, hasn't it? Look how proudly I stand, while the helicopter circles. I've conquered this mountain, just as I'm conquering your heart.
> 
> ...


----------



## FM001 (Mar 21, 2011)

I think Professor Cox is rather interesting and obviously very passionate about his work.


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 21, 2011)

I like that ypauly 

and i agree toby 

Enjoyed last night's btw. 

Rob


----------



## falcon123 (Mar 21, 2011)

I loved the lectures of Dr Richard Feynman (physicist) when I was a student. Many of the ones we saw/read were a number of years old but his enthusiam never waned even in his latter years. His knowledge seemed to cover every area of physics and mathematics. I rate him the best ever and Brian Cox; the name of the person I would put second escapes me but it is 28 years since I got my MSc.


----------



## Northerner (Mar 21, 2011)

falcon123 said:


> I loved the lectures of Dr Richard Feynman (physicist) when I was a student. Many of the ones we saw/read were a number of years old but his enthusiam never waned even in his latter years. His knowledge seemed to cover every area of physics and mathematics. I rate him the best ever and Brian Cox; the name of the person I would put second escapes me but it is 28 years since I got my MSc.



Horizon did a couple of brilliant programmes about Richard Feynman a few years ago (when Horizon was still good!). By coincidence and fortuitously, Brian Cox is on Radio 4 at 3pm today talking about Feynman!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00ts5mm

Also worth watching tonight, I think, will be Jim Al-Khalili on BBC4 at 9pm 'Everything and Nothing'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00yb59m


----------



## Carina1962 (Mar 22, 2011)

What did you all think of this week's episode about falling and gravity?  although i try to understand, it is really difficult to get my head round it all and as for black holes, well he completely lost me there....confused.com


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 22, 2011)

It's another fascinating subject Carina.

The best way is to try and imagine that while we're stood or sat here, we're feeling the force of gravity under our feet or bums as an upward push. If we step off a tall building, there's no feeling of force, other than the wind resistance. In space, you wouldn't feel anything in freefall because there's nothing to resist your motion. You'd feel like you were floating but you'd be under the influence of gravity, falling toward the nearest massive object.

Einstein showed that the force is relative. It's why it's called relativity theory. If you were falling to earth, you'd feel like earth was rushing up to you. The result is that you and the earth would collide due to a mutual attraction due to gravity.
The same force that makes the moon freefall to earth. But its motion through space stops it colliding, instead it keeps trying to go in a straight line past the earth. But gravity makes it follow a curved route around the earth. 

The way Einstein described it was that what we think of as space, is in fact spacetime, and massive objects warp spacetime. This makes other objects travel through this warped space in an apparent curve, but from their perspective, they are travelling in a straight line. At this point it gets a bit more complicated by Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, which deals with the speed of light and acceleration, which is where the famous E=mc^2 formula comes from.

Hopefully, somebody else can explain it better. 

Rob


----------



## Carina1962 (Mar 22, 2011)

thanks for explaining (and very well explained too).  I like watching the programmes on the History channel and Nat Geo channels about the Universe.  On one particular programme a scientist was saying that they are now trying to find out whether the Universe is actually curved or just in a straight line, it really is amazing how these scientists try and piece the jigsaw bit by bit.  Although Brian Cox mentioned that gravity is not to be thought of as a magnet i tend to think of it that way ie keeping us all sort of stuck to everything if you see what i mean.


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 22, 2011)

I think that's pretty much how everyone thought of it before Einstein. 

When I was at college, our engineering science lecturer challenged myself and a mate to find out what gravity was. Since then (1983ish) I've been trying to find out and am still trying to make sense of much of it.

I love Special relativity because it seems more logical. General relativity and gravity has some really hard concepts (for me) to grasp, but the 2 theories do tie in. 

*Black holes.*

Gravity's strength increases in proportion to the mass it is acting on. In the case of a massive star, there is an outward force caused by the particles escaping outwards from the nuclear furnace of the star.
WHen the outward force diminishes as the star dies, the gravity is the greater force, forcing the matter of the star to fall in towards the centre and make the whole more dense. As the density increases, the force of gravity increases, and it accelerates the inward collapse. When it reaches a certain critical point, it will, theoretically collapse to a 'singularity', which is a mathematical concept whereby all the matter exists in a single point of infinite density and time itself stands still. Beyond the event horizon of the black hole, light cannot escape, so we have no way of peering inside as without light or any other matter escaping, we have no means of communication within the 'hole'.

I think that's right. Please correct if not.

Rob


----------



## Carina1962 (Mar 22, 2011)

thanks Rob for explaning (i had to re-read it a couple of times to let it sink in lol) but i can see where the 'religion' fits in as you wonder howly  the Universe was put there in the first place and that is the point where you may think of something greater ie a God existing but that i think (unless science can prove otherwise) seems impossible ever to be discovered but then again..... who knows - all fascinating stuff, a truly fascinating subject to study


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 22, 2011)

I think most people see God as starting the big bang, or whatever current theory is winning for how it all began.

I have no desire to believe in anything without evidence that can be proved or disproved. Therefore, I have no thoughts about what lies within black holes or what came before the big bang. I think it's all complicated enough without having to hold onto beliefs as well. But it's down to personal choice and what you were brought up to believe. And whether you want to carry that forward or let go and just see the universe as matter and energy.

There must be way better explanations of it all on the web if you do a google search. I wonder why they don't show these concepts in animation sequences. Warped space used to be demonstrated on a rubber snooker table with balls sunk into the surface and smaller balls rolling around the curves. It wasn't very good. But no-one seems to have improved on it despite all the visual magic they can do.

Rob


----------



## Northerner (Mar 22, 2011)

There was a great episode of the Simpsons once which dealt with it! 







I made the mistake yesterday of attempting to read 'Cycles of Time' by Roger Penrose - not an easy read! 

Did anyone see the Jim Al-Khalili programme last night about the Universe? I thought it was excellent - I think Jim is an excellent presenter.


----------



## Carina1962 (Mar 22, 2011)

when was that programme on?  what time and channel?  missed that one, can i catch it on iplayer?


----------



## Northerner (Mar 23, 2011)

carina62 said:


> when was that programme on?  what time and channel?  missed that one, can i catch it on iplayer?



It was on on Monday night 9pm BBC4, but is on iplayer here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00yb59m/Everything_and_Nothing_Everything/

There is another episode on next Monday


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 23, 2011)

I have it on series link and yet to watch it ! 

I've seen progs by him before and he is very good, I agree.

I would have thought, similar to the simpsons, they could use CGI to visualise a 3d grid with planets/stars scattered about and the realtime warping of the grid as they move, warping as they go, and following the warpings (?) of other obects.

They could also illustrate the acceleration of particles, showing them becoming more massive relative to observers, with the slowing of time, also relative. Instead, they choose to use pieces of rock in a desert.

It frustrates me somewhat.

Rob


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Mar 23, 2011)

Robster65 said:


> They could also illustrate the acceleration of particles, showing them becoming more massive relative to observers, with the slowing of time, also relative. Instead, they choose to use pieces of rock in a desert.
> 
> It frustrates me somewhat.
> 
> Rob



I was watching it with my daughter yesterday and she said 'Huh?!' at the "If we looked at space-time it would look just like this..." sequence (cue moody aerial shots of mountains...). Which I also found frustratingly vague. 

Another pop-doc once explained it in a visual way I was slightly more able to get my head around which was this: Imagine space-time is a big flat rubber sheet stretched tight. Onto the sheet you put a bowling ball (planet) which bends and distorts the sheet because of its mass. Now you roll a pingpong ball (meteor or similar) across the sheet. If you roll it a long way away from the bowling ball it would travel in a fairly straight line. If you rolled it nearer the bowling ball but really fast its trajectory would be pulled in toward the bowling ball, but then it might make it past (albeit heading in a slightly different direction). If it passed very close to the bowling ball it would begin to curve inwards toward it, then progressively spiral inwards until it collided.

I did like the waterfall-as-black hole illustration though.

Black holes are ace.


----------



## novorapidboi26 (Mar 23, 2011)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> Black holes are ace.



I agree, I also enjoyed the neutron star animation, boy those things spin fast............


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 23, 2011)

The bowling ball on the rubber sheet is basically the rubber snooker table but it only illustrates a 3d universe in 2 dimensions. It is a good analogy but only if you have a reasonable imagination. 

It would be so easy to do for a CGI technician. Considering how much time they spend on dinosaur graphics, which, let's face it, are not that relevant to science today, other than to educate on evolution.

And when it comes to strings and Membranes, I just want to give up.

Rob


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Mar 23, 2011)

Robster65 said:


> The bowling ball on the rubber sheet is basically the rubber snooker table but it only illustrates a 3d universe in 2 dimensions. It is a good analogy but only if you have a reasonable imagination.



Yes it's is fairly severely flawed... especially because it relies on our basic planet-based understanding of gravity and things falling downhill  And what happens to little things that roll 'under' the big bowling balls... Still at least it got me feeling 'Ahhhh OK I sort of see what you mean' rather than just staring blankly into space humming to block out any thought


----------



## Natalie123 (Mar 23, 2011)

Awesome! you guys are brilliant, first you help me cope with my diabetes then you have discussions on physics  I used to watch the horizon programs when I was at school - that was what got me interested in physics. Cox is great, getting people interested in physics and thinking about the universe and where we all come from is really important and he's doing a great job at appealing to a wide audience. Mike - I like your 2D universe analogy, personally I find 4 dimensions a little bit of a struggle to get my head around


----------



## Carina1962 (Mar 27, 2011)

OK your thoughts on the last episode of Wonders?  what are your thoughts about the universe expanding?


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 27, 2011)

The thing I'm trying to get to grips with recently, is the fact that it's space that's expanding and not that everything's moving further apart. Bit of a tricky thing to grasp.

Rob


----------



## Carina1962 (Mar 27, 2011)

yes, i see what you mean, i think more of galaxies and stars moving further apart than 'space'.  Do you think that scientists will ever go beyond the big bang?  my partner says that he can grasp the universe expanding theory as he said it would be like an elastic band stretching out until it shrinks back to the beginning in which case the universe could go from expansion to getting smaller and smaller - weird isn't it?


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 27, 2011)

The analogy I have read a few times is like a balloon with the stars and galaxies on the surface and it's only the space between that expands. 

The recent observations have suggested quite strongly that there isn't enough matter in the universe for gravity to slow down expansion enough to create a 'big crunch'.

Hence the ever-expanding and cooling to a cold, dark end.

Rob


----------



## Carina1962 (Mar 27, 2011)

Am just watching Everything and Nothing never watched this before and it sounds very interesting too, i like the way he is explaining things


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 27, 2011)

I've got the 1st episode recorded and have the 2nd one programmed in.

There are quite a few very good presenters around who pop up from time to time. I'm quite pleased with the BBC science programming in recent years. It gets a lot of criticism but has brought real science to the public eye in a way it never did before.

Rob


----------



## Carina1962 (Mar 27, 2011)

so Robster, in your opinion, do you think that the expansion of the universe will happen before all the millions and billions of stars die out? or is it possible it could happen around the same time?  and to think that i used to find Physics and Chemistry boring at school, i'm now at age 48 finding it all very interesting


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 27, 2011)

The expansion is happening all the time, ever since the big bang. It will continue to expand, unless there is something fundamentally wrong with the understanding of matter, gravity, etc. It's something that is ongoing and will not even stop, presumably, when all the matter has been spread out into a cold, dark soup. It's one of those occasions where the word infinity comes into play !

Rob


----------



## mcdonagh47 (Mar 28, 2011)

carina62 said:


> so Robster, in your opinion, do you think that the expansion of the universe will happen before all the millions and billions of stars die out? or is it possible it could happen around the same time?  and to think that i used to find Physics and Chemistry boring at school, i'm now at age 48 finding it all very interesting



A robster says the expansion of the universe is going on now but its fate is unclear. Scenarios include ...
The Big Freeze , if there is enough Dark Energy the universe will expand, stars will go out and it will all go coldd and dark
The Big Rip , if there is a lot of Dark Energy it will push the universe into expanding even faster so that everything will be ripped apart into individaul molecules.
The Big Crunch, there is not enough Dark Energy to keep the acceleration of the universe going so gravity slows down the expansion and it begins to come back together again leading to a "Big Crunch"
The Big Bounce, as above, the universe returns to a singiularity but another Big Bang sets it off all over again.

It all depends how much Dark Matter and Dark Energy there is and whether the Universe id Open, Flat or Closed.
Brian Cox seemed to imply in one of his progs that the Big Freeze was nailed on.


----------



## veganlass (Mar 28, 2011)

I watched it mostly to see the lovely handsome Brian Cox.  He can excelerate my particles any day.

I do enjoy any programs about cosmology and astronomy. I look at this site daily.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.html


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 28, 2011)

mcdonagh47 said:


> A robster says the expansion of the universe is going on now but its fate is unclear. Scenarios include ...
> The Big Freeze , if there is enough Dark Energy the universe will expand, stars will go out and it will all go coldd and dark
> The Big Rip , if there is a lot of Dark Energy it will push the universe into expanding even faster so that everything will be ripped apart into individaul molecules.
> The Big Crunch, there is not enough Dark Energy to keep the acceleration of the universe going so gravity slows down the expansion and it begins to come back together again leading to a "Big Crunch"
> ...


 
It was stated with much confidence a while ago that there isn't enough dark matter or energy in the universe. But then, again, these things can be re assessed 

Rob


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 28, 2011)

Some outtakes from the series are here

http://bit.ly/f0AecQ (copied from twitter @ProfBrianCox)

Beware. Contains some language which may be offensive.

Rob


----------



## mcdonagh47 (Mar 28, 2011)

Robster65 said:


> It was stated with much confidence a while ago that there isn't enough dark matter or energy in the universe. But then, again, these things can be re assessed
> 
> Rob



It is currently calculated that Dark Energy makes up 73% of the Universe and is the thing that is causing the acceleration of the expansion.


----------



## ypauly (Mar 28, 2011)

Robster65 said:


> The expansion is happening all the time, ever since the big bang. It will continue to expand, unless there is something fundamentally wrong with the understanding of matter, gravity, etc. It's something that is ongoing and will not even stop, presumably, when all the matter has been spread out into a cold, dark soup. It's one of those occasions where the word infinity comes into play !
> 
> Rob



I like to think of the universe as a living organism so it would be growing not expanding.


Could be rubbish, but it feels nicer that way.


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 28, 2011)

ypauly said:


> I like to think of the universe as a living organism so it would be growing not expanding.
> 
> 
> Could be rubbish, but it feels nicer that way.


 
Sadly, every scrap of evidence points towards it being rubbish, but it does have a nice, warm feel to it ! 

I wish I could say otherwise.

Rob


----------



## novorapidboi26 (Mar 28, 2011)

veganlass said:


> I watched it mostly to see the lovely handsome Brian Cox.  He can excelerate my particles any day.
> 
> I do enjoy any programs about cosmology and astronomy. I look at this site daily.
> 
> http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.html



Just to comment on this link, its bloody fantastic, I have always wanted a database of recent images of space/the universe.........

Thanks...........


----------



## veganlass (Mar 28, 2011)

Your welcome, Ive visited this site for a couple or so years now.


----------



## Carina1962 (Mar 29, 2011)

Yes, i do think these programmes reignite our interest in why we are here (sadly, not for all) but it really does make you appreciate life and everything around us.

Robster, can you remind me when Brian Cox said (i think it was episode 3) that science stops at this point....can you remind me at what point scientists become baffled?  and also is it really their ultimate quest to prove that there is life elsewhere in the universe?


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 29, 2011)

At present, there is no way of finding out what happened at or before the point of the big bang. There are theories, which are pretty much speculation based on the evidence we can observe or infer. A lot of science, especially at the sub atomic level, seems like science fiction and takes a lot of trust in the scientists telling us. We can never see the evidence, but every piece of work has to reviewed by other scientists who are equal in the particular field (peer reviews).
I've no idea what their theories are nor how they deduce them, but there are theories!

As for life on other planets, there are a few who spend their career looking, but I would imagine most barely give it a second thought. They're more concerned with working out the whys and wherefores of our own existence. 

Rob


----------



## Tezzz (Mar 29, 2011)

Northerner said:


> He's on Wonders of the Universe tonight at 9pm, BBC2



As I don't have a telly I just hope it'a on the iplayer or youtube.


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 29, 2011)

Also keep in mind, in the best scientific tradition, that what I say is only based on my interpretation of what I have read/heard/dream about and possibly mis-remembered or misunderstood.

ALways question what you're told until you are satisfied by the evidence you can see or you have discounted all other possibilities.

I could be completely wrong in what I'm saying, but I would hope if that's the case, someone else will correct me, with a better explanation.

With the likes of Brian Cox, he has a track record of being a 'good' scientist, in that he doesn't just believe things. He needs to be sure for himself that what he says is correct, or at least the most likely explanation. Some scientists have their own agenda or get sidetracked by certain issues which they can't let go of. I have heard a few tales of professors using underhand tactics to ruin another's reputation and discredit their work. This does nothing for science but a lot for their own reputation.

All of this explains a little bit about the difference between science and belief, and why the 2 can co-exist and why the 2 can cause dilemmas for individuals. Belief is something you don't need any evidence for. Whatever you see fits in with what you believe. Science has no prepconceptions, you observe, you speculate and you repeat to see if your idea fits. If it doesn't, you try something else.

Rambling again. SOrry 

Rob


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 29, 2011)

brightontez said:


> As I don't have a telly I just hope it'a on the iplayer or youtube.


 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00zf9dh/Wonders_of_the_Universe_Destiny/

Rob


----------



## novorapidboi26 (Mar 29, 2011)

In Sundays episode there were images revealed of the outer most point of the observable universe, these images were red star like objects. He then goes on to explain the stretching of light (red colour) and how these object are uncomprehendingly far away..........

What do we think these objects are, more universes...............?

Looking so far it seems unlikely they would be galaxy size.........


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 29, 2011)

They were early galaxies NRboi.

Redshifted to the point that their light was really weak, but they built the photo up over days to capture as many photons ('particles' of light) as they could.

They are all within the observable universe. As far as I know, there are no credible multi-verse theories that place other universes within our own. Or at least not observable from within our own. But plenty predict effects that we could maybe observe.

Rob


----------



## David H (Mar 29, 2011)

Just throwing these in for your delectation.


*Hubble the Movie...click here*


*Mysterious Earth Phenomena with Alan Steinfeld & Dr. Patricia Hill ... click here 
*


*Cambridge Ideas - How Many Lightbulbs? ... click here
*


David


----------



## Andy HB (Mar 29, 2011)

Oh, and according to QI the colour of the Universe is beige. 

I wonder if there are any which are a russet shade of purply blue? 

Just thought that everyone should know that.

Andy


----------



## mcdonagh47 (Mar 29, 2011)

Andy HB said:


> Oh, and according to QI the colour of the Universe is beige.
> 
> I wonder if there are any which are a russet shade of purply blue?
> 
> ...



yes, the luridly computer-enhanced coloured computer-generated images are one of the annoying things on Cox's programme ( as well as the dreary and irritating music).
They keep showing the same colourful images swirling slowly over and over again.


----------



## Northerner (Mar 29, 2011)

Did anyone see the Jim Al-Khalili programme on BBC4 last night? Now that was really hard to get your head around! Last week's was 'Everything' and last night's was 'Nothing' - with things appearing and disappearing from nowhere constantly within the 'energy' of a vacuum!


----------



## novorapidboi26 (Mar 29, 2011)

Northerner said:


> Did anyone see the Jim Al-Khalili programme on BBC4 last night? Now that was really hard to get your head around! Last week's was 'Everything' and last night's was 'Nothing' - with things appearing and disappearing from nowhere constantly within the 'energy' of a vacuum!



I totally forgot about you mentioning this the last time, writing it down as we speak...............


----------



## mcdonagh47 (Mar 29, 2011)

Northerner said:


> Did anyone see the Jim Al-Khalili programme on BBC4 last night? Now that was really hard to get your head around! Last week's was 'Everything' and last night's was 'Nothing' - with things appearing and disappearing from nowhere constantly within the 'energy' of a vacuum!



Isn't that one the theories for the origin of the big bang and the Universe ? Matter and anti-matter keep popping into existence all the time out of nothing but the anti-matter immediately annihilates the matter. Except on one occasion some matter popped into existence out of nothing and there was no corresponding anti-matter to annihilate it ....the rest is History !


----------



## Northerner (Mar 29, 2011)

mcdonagh47 said:


> Isn't that one the theories for the origin of the big bang and the Universe ? Matter and anti-matter keep popping into existence all the time out of nothing but the anti-matter immediately annihilates the matter. Except on one occasion some matter popped into existence out of nothing and there was no corresponding anti-matter to annihilate it ....the rest is History !



Yes, it was along those lines - for some reason there was an excess of matter that wasn't therefore annihalated. It's making my brain boil just thinking about it - better stop for a while!


----------



## Carina1962 (Mar 29, 2011)

Yes, i too enjoyed watching 'Everything and Nothing' last week and last night and last night's was really hard to comprehend, in the end i got really frustrated and just paused the TV for a few mins to take it all in but very interesting nonetheless 

Re: the Big Bang theory, what led this 'matter' or whatever it was to cause such a huge explosion?


----------



## novorapidboi26 (Mar 29, 2011)

Think it was gravity mainly, fusing atoms together to create larger particles which in turn created even greater gravitational forces and therefore fusing the atoms further resulting in a huge release of energy in the form of heat and light......


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 29, 2011)

That's one of the things the scientists are trying to work out Carina !

It didn't so much explode, as spontaneously expand. I try to imagine everything as a point of light (although there was no such thing as light at the 'beginning') which then suddenly expands into a cloud of matter and then into individual particles and onto atoms, etc.

It's been likened to a balloon being blown up but it doesn't really do it justice.

The early expansion is measured in millionths or even billionths of a second.

Rob


----------



## Andy HB (Mar 29, 2011)

I have a theory that universes are constantly being created by intelligent species smashing protons and anti-protons together in huge circular particle accelerators.

Andy


----------



## katie (Mar 29, 2011)

I love this programme. Missed the last one though  I'll have to catch it on the iplayer


----------



## Carina1962 (Mar 29, 2011)

Is that what that big contraption thing they have in Sweden (or Switzerland) which all the scientists got excited about and was on the news?  to see whether they can work out how the Big Bang started?


----------



## Andy HB (Mar 29, 2011)

carina62 said:


> Is that what that big contraption thing they have in Sweden (or Switzerland) which all the scientists got excited about and was on the news?  to see whether they can work out how the Big Bang started?



Yep, that's the one CERN, Large Hadron Collider is it's name.

It's the thing which is going to create a mini black hole and suck all that lovely swiss chocolate into another universe somewhere! The ultimate chocolate fountain!!

Andy


----------



## novorapidboi26 (Mar 29, 2011)

carina62 said:


> Is that what that big contraption thing they have in Sweden (or Switzerland) which all the scientists got excited about and was on the news?  to see whether they can work out how the Big Bang started?



Particle Accelerator.............I believe so........


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 29, 2011)

It's also where the delectable Professor Cox does his day job. He led a team on a part of the research and is going back to do something similar now he's finished filming.

Rob


----------

