Wonders of the Solar System [Archive]

shelltree

01-03-2011, 06:34 PM

CAN I COME!?!?! :D:love: I will make him my famous roast chicken with lemon, honey, garlic and herb sauce and mustard rosemary potatos and for desert... ;) :P Well, we wouldn't want anything sweet to wreck those gleaming teeth of his, now would we!? :D And then we would all talk far into the wee hours of the morning about the many wonders of the universe and more...

Ahem, anyway. Back on topic.

I started watching Wonders of the Solar System on the way to Rarotonga as it was one of the only worthwhile documentaries provided on the flight. I was instantly mesmerised! And I thought he was like 26 :) but alas he is not around my age :sadeyes: But the series is amazing so far, he explains in such a way that tantalises us about the mysteries of the universe yet keeps it grounded by explaining these amazing things by relating them to things we can observe on Earth.

And he's pretty ;)

Liz

01-03-2011, 06:39 PM

Only saw the promo once, and was so excited. I remember the music was pretty powerful, check it tonight.

Yes, I am the alcohol girl, thanks Suzy!!

Mmmm, sounds good Shelly. :D

CraigS

01-03-2011, 06:41 PM

… pretty grubby …!!… :P :)

Cheers

PS: I might drag meself away from my Mayan Calendar research and give him a chance, tonight .. I suppose .. ho hum ...

Stu Ward

01-03-2011, 07:01 PM

I was gonna post some more on this thread but it has turned into girly mush

Suzy

01-03-2011, 07:56 PM

Come back Stu, :sadeyes: we will (I will anyway) try not to be girly mushy anymore - honest. ;) :D I am interested to here your thoughts on the show, so please proceed. :)

From time to time a bit of good fun and humour breaks the monotony of so much seriousness on here, and not often do we girls get together and annoy the men.:D:lol:
But know that a thread with anything to do with Brian Cox will always have the same effect. :question: :lol:

Am anxiously awaiting Craig's input of the show (pretty boy, aside) ;)
I haven't watched it yet as I have been observing the last couple of nights and probably tonight as well, but will do so soon.

CarlJoseph

01-03-2011, 09:08 PM

Watching the first episode of this now on SBS and they've just shown the Total Solar eclipse. Quite an incredible sight indeed.

michaellxv

01-03-2011, 10:17 PM

His teeth aren't that perfect, looks like he has an overbite.

Seriously. Really enjoyed the program. One thing that occured to me when he was talking about the Voyager spaceships. We often go on about how hard it is to get stuff to the speed of light. Yet here is a 30 year old spacecraft the size of a bus sending us signals at the speed of light.

So how hard is it really :question: Why is it we can generate photons so easily that travel at this speed yet we can't get even the smallest particle close?

AdrianF

01-03-2011, 10:56 PM

What a great show.

Ok ladies of this forum..... Tell me what does Brian have that say Leon or Warren doesn't ?

Adrian

Sorry Leon and Warren

Benno18

01-03-2011, 11:53 PM

WOW!!!!!!
Really impressed!!!!
Love all the information given through out the doco. Was going to let my 5 year ols stay up a bit and watch. good thing i didnt. His mind would have been blown away!!!!
More impotantly. . . . . . Brian scrubs up quite well!!!!

cant wait for next week

GeoffW1

02-03-2011, 12:57 AM

Teeth. :lol::lol: Not really, apologies as well.

I watched the program. The toothy one waxed lyrical this time, and reminded me of Carl Sagan, nobly gazing off into the distance. However Sagan's hooter was bigger.

Overall I thought it was a good program, and some of the photography there was terrific.

Cheers

Liz

02-03-2011, 03:41 AM

Yes, really enjoyed it too, lots of good info. Loved the aurora segment, how beautiful are they!! Brian seemed to be genuinely in awe re eclipse and aurora, and enthusiastic about what he was doing. Bring on next week!!

Stu Ward

02-03-2011, 07:04 AM

I think you are slightly confused here

Its easy to get photons to travel at the speed of light, its the only speed they will travel at ( In a vacuum ) Turn on your lounge light, hey presto, light speed !!
It is also possible to get very small particles to travel at 99.999999% of the speed of light. The LHC does exactly this, but that is not the speed of light.

Voyager is sending back signals via radio frequency ( radio is information, therefore just another form of light )

Stu

GrampianStars

02-03-2011, 07:48 AM

Well after 30 years the Voyager spaceships are still only 15 light hours away
not very far at all IMO less than 1 spin of the earth :eyepop:

CraigS

02-03-2011, 07:54 AM

Well, overall … an excellent documentary. A fresh look at at topic we've all seen multiple times over, with an innovative script, which I found took a very Earth-centric view of the Sun's properties. Interesting.

This is a photographer's documentary with awesome, high definition timelapse sequences of the night sky and the Aurora Borealis. At times, Cox (supposedly) even gets out his camera and telescope, to demonstrate the salient points.

Its interesting how even Cox's simple experiments (eg: the rise in temperature of a can of water in Death Valley), give an 'earthy' feel to physical phenomenon, perhaps appealing to the UK audience's carefully conditioned sensitivity to topical environmental issues.

I think they lost the concept of scale in the opening sequences, by attempting to describe the size of the Solar System in kms ! For me, it wasn't until much later, when they introduced the concept of Astronomical Units, that I could relate to any of this preamble commentary.

The eclipse sequence was probably the best I've ever seen. I think they must've had extremely fortunate weather conditions to capture these extraordinary shots. The ESO Atacama Desert sequences made me want to be there. Fantastic.

Overall .. a great documentary propped up by top-notch photography … and that's in spite of my perception of Cox not having changed his attire, or combed his hair, once throughout the whole episode .. :question: … (I'll have to go back and have another look to confirm that .. and those fake teeth really do get in the way at times). :lol: :)

Cheers

Suzy

02-03-2011, 06:13 PM

Dirty clothes :question:. I'm sure Warren & Leon's clothes are clean and fresh.:rolleyes: (my last paragraph will make more sense).
If I say anything else I might get into trouble.:question: Especially since I promised Stu I'd try to behave.:question: However, I must yet remain polite and respond to posts as I just have done so with Adrian. :D

Okay, on a serious note... :rolleyes:
Watched the show. If I'm to be utterly honest, I spent the first 10mins rewinding constantly as I wasn't concentrating on what he was saying.:rolleyes: Once I got past all that, I got hugely involved in it. Fantastic show! I enjoyed the earth based perspective and the physics experiments Brian showed us relative to what he was talking about. The part where he was in the desert after he'd done the experiment and he stands up having the sun silhouette next to him was incredible- he wasn't just talking about the sun, he was out there with it, carrying out experiments with it. Same with the Milky Way- he was out there with it, with a telescope talking to us. Graphics were fantastic, as was those amazing images what our sun looks like from Pluto, Saturn, Mars, Earth & Mercury. The Mars one in particular was a goody as it showed a picture of our sun from the Martian landscape as taken by one of the rovers. The solar eclipse in India was another beauty - great footage.

And here's something interesting... My 20yr old daughter (Chrissy) ends up watching many astro docos with us (some by choice, others not :rolleyes:), but she really really enjoyed this show. She watched it intently like I've never seen her do with other docos, and because of this show, now understands how molecular clouds form. Perhaps because he draws us in with his way of presenting is the difference.
I must say I was skeptical about him as a presenter, I haven't really taken to other stuff his done (watched, but not kept his work), and I have to say, I thoroughly enjoyed it. I loved the interaction between him and us - he was teaching us, not just talking to us.

Now, for the downside- through the whole documentary (I watched it twice and several times in first 10mins on top of that, remember- so I noticed- he only changed his clothes twice :eyepop: Eeeeow! Bet he still smells nice though, he looks like he would.:D

Bring on next weeks show!!! :D

supernova1965

02-03-2011, 06:29 PM

How did my and Leon's laundry come in to this I don't recall being one of the people casting aspersions on his clothes changing or general hygene. Or was it my threat to inform your potential stalkie ie (John) of your new love.:P:rofl:.

It was a great first episode I cant wait for the next one I will be on tender hooks I thought it was the best doco I have ever seen:thumbsup:

Stu Ward

02-03-2011, 06:36 PM

I'm not on Commission honest, but

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wonders-Solar-System-Blu-ray/dp/B00395ATPO/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1299051184&sr=8-2

Works out about $20 delivered for the whole box set

And Universe is out in 2 days time too

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wonders-Universe-Blu-ray-Brian-Cox/dp/B004NRYWD2/ref=sr_1_2?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1299051275&sr=1-2

I'm getting my order in

BTW, did you know that he used to be a Pop Star ?

British band called D-Ream
Anyone know "Things can only get better" ?
Well he was the Keyboard player

Stu

supernova1965

02-03-2011, 06:50 PM

I will be recording on my PC and putting it on DVD my self :D

shelltree

02-03-2011, 07:40 PM

I "accidently" downloaded a 3 part series on BBC called Stargazing Live and who happens to be the co-host but Professor Brian Cox! Looking swoon-worthy of course :P It was like a show for amatuer astronomers or those who have an interest in the night sky but don't know how to go about it. Was really down to earth and basic. Even had an astronomer standing in a field like "unfortunately it's cloudy...". Was definitely something I could relate to!

Sooo, I sat at home sick all afternoon and watched all of it :whistle: And now I'm trawling youtube for some new Brian Cox interviews etc. to watch.

I'm not obsessed...honest.

CraigS

02-03-2011, 07:43 PM

Ewwww … gross !

Suzy

02-03-2011, 07:46 PM

I know... that's what makes him extra dreamy to us girls :whistle:... good looks, rock star status and astro physicist. :D I only found out about the rock star status a few months ago and then it made sense because he looks it :D.

Well I had to come up with something quick after Adrian dobbed you in didn't I, and make you'll look good at the same time (refer post no.45). :P :D
J.T. has my heart, Brian is pure eye candy.:P Hmm, brain candy too.;)

See Stu - the boys won't let me leave it alone already :shrug:. I try :rolleyes: :lol:
Think they enjoy watching the women going goo goo.:question:

By the way, my daughter Chrissy said to tell you'll she likes the way he smiles when he talks. :P

CraigS

02-03-2011, 07:47 PM

Shelley .. I'm … well … 'disappointed'.

I thought you were a Lawrence Krauss woman !!
How fickle !!
:P:)

Cheers

Suzy

02-03-2011, 07:49 PM

I'd like to see it, can I have that link Shelley?

Hope you feel better soon :sadeyes: {hugs}.

supernova1965

02-03-2011, 07:56 PM

That's fine at least I am being compared to someone who gets the girls all afflutter:D:P:rofl:

shelltree

02-03-2011, 08:34 PM

I will always be a Lawrence Krauss woman, thank you very much! After all I still plan to travel to Canberra when he visits ANU sometime this year and swoon over his amazing insight :D But I can't help if my eyes wander every now and then... :P

I will PM you now Suzy :) And thanks, some rest should do the trick!

Liz

02-03-2011, 09:41 PM

Just got home from work, and glad to see that most really enjoyed it, thought you may have found it a bit boring Craig, so happy you liked it.
I knew you would like it suzy, and great that your daughter did too.
Yes, I loved the solar eclipse from Mars too, how amazing!! :)

Yes, have been watching that series in the last week and enjoyed it too. :thumbsup:

No, am sure he has a horde of female (not male) lovers attending to his laundry.;)

Hmmm, not supernova, but casanova. :love2:

shelltree

02-03-2011, 10:00 PM

This made me giggle http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1262449/Brian-Cox-pop-star-turned-pin-professor-series-solar-sent-career-orbit.html

sjastro

02-03-2011, 10:53 PM

Craig and Carl

I think we should lobby for equal time and have Amy Mainzer host a series. (Apologies to Lisa Randall).

Amy has appeared in "The Universe" series.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Mainzer

Regards

Steven

renormalised

03-03-2011, 12:09 AM

Yes...I second, third and fourth that :)

michaellxv

03-03-2011, 12:32 AM

Wouldn't be the first time.

I can buy a light bulb for a few dollars to create photons. How many millions was the LHC to send a couple of protons at not quite C?

Suzy

03-03-2011, 04:03 AM

aha :D

aha aha

:scared2: I'm a cougar :scared2:

I do, I do.

doh! :mad2:

yeah yeah very good hair. :prey2:

Okies, now I think you're head needs pricking :question:

Suzy

03-03-2011, 04:23 AM

You're off topic! :mad2: :P :lol: Back to Brian now, yep yep. :D

And when I mentioned Amy & Linda earlier I meant Lisa whats her name. :rolleyes:
Why's there now a picture of Amy on this thread instead of Brian :question: :mad2: You'll play mean. :rolleyes: I don't know how to put googled pics up. :sadeyes:

Stu Ward

03-03-2011, 06:55 AM

It is the M part of E=mc2 that makes it all so difficult to accelerate anything but photons to the speed of light. Photons are massless but protons have mass.
The LHC is a particle collider smashing particles with mass at near light speed. If we collide photons then if E=mc2. E=0mc2. E=0.

Stu

CraigS

03-03-2011, 07:41 AM

I wonder which species he's checking it for ? :P :)
Did you notice which t-shirt he's wearing in the photo ?
Answer: You don't have to notice !!! .. Its always the same one !! :rofl:
:rofl::lol:

Lisa Randall ?? … now there's a power woman !!
She'd eat Cox for breakfast.
(Unfortunately discussions about her are verboten and seem to lead to locked threads). :)

Has anyone ever seen a scientific paper authored by Cox ?

Randall has written some (pretty heavy stuff, too). So has Greene. Even Kaku co (kind of) co-authored some.

I've never heard or seen any by Cox, though. :question:

Cheers

PS: Ok .. so here are his papers (http://www-spires.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+AUTHOR+COX,%20Brian +AND+EPRINT+hep-ph) .. can't pin any downside of him on that basis, alone. :)

bartman

03-03-2011, 01:37 PM

Sooooo Liz, Suzy and Shelley......
Have you sent your well wishes to Brian yet for his 43 rd Birthday?
Today is his Birthday!!!!:eyepop:

He's 2 months and 1 year older than me, but he seems to have more grey hairs than I do:question:
And in repetition of what others have said here on this post...... great show!

Just a side note ( Wikipedia is great- if it is true), he was a band member of D:Ream as a keyboard player. "things, can only get better" was one of the songs.... :rockband:
:lol:Bartman

shelltree

03-03-2011, 02:46 PM

I just did :whistle: Too bad he is 19 years older than me :sadeyes:

Still his insights are amazingly thought provoking and he is extroadinarily passionate about what he does and that is truly why I am really interested in him. It just so happens he is extremely easy on the eye too ;)

Happy birthday Brian! :D

bartman

03-03-2011, 03:17 PM

He has a bit of a garden gnome look to him, without the facial hair. Especially when he was in the cold Scandinavian countryside.....;)

Bartman
sure he is taller but the cheeks, nose and eyes......

renormalised

03-03-2011, 04:06 PM

That shouldn't be a worry...he's a more "worldly and experienced" guy than your "barely out of nappies" 20 somethings. He's been there and done that...plus he's in a cushy, tenured job on good money and he's a former rocker:):P

Oh, and unfortunately I do believe he's already spoken for :):P

CraigS

03-03-2011, 04:20 PM

I wonder how grungy his wife is ?

Anyone ever seen a photo of her ?

I wonder if she always wears the family t-shirt, too ?
… perhaps she wore it at the wedding, also :question:

Cheers

bartman

03-03-2011, 04:22 PM

Do you think Brian might be reading these posts?
If so, why not start a thread wishing him a happy birthday and see if you( we .....the IIS forum) get a response?.
Or if somebody has a bit of pull, get him to join our forum and on the odd occasion contribute to some of our great posts......maybe this one excluded..... heheheheheh:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol ::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Bartman:thumbsup:

GeoffW1

03-03-2011, 04:28 PM

No, no, it's because we are trying to work out how to all GET that effect on women, ourselves :rofl:

CraigS

03-03-2011, 04:33 PM

Well, I mean .. Cox has shown us that all we need to do is not shower for several weeks and not comb our hair .. wear the same t-shirt .. teeth, etc ..
:lol:

He's a genius !!
:lol:

Cheers

renormalised

03-03-2011, 04:36 PM

Here's Brian's better half....Gia Milinovich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gia_Milinovich) :):)

bartman

03-03-2011, 04:40 PM

Have you?
Not a nice comment .......in plain and simple language......
Lucky you put " I wonder" in front of that post.... (as it is your view)

see above

Bartman
Maybe my interpretation of 'grungy' is different to yours Graig......

renormalised

03-03-2011, 04:45 PM

Something for everyone.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12344973

He just barely passed A level maths!!!!

CraigS

03-03-2011, 04:50 PM

Cute ..!!..
There's definitely a hair thing there, too !
:lol: :)

Cheers
PS: Don't take me too seriously, there Bart … this is all in good fun ...

CraigS

03-03-2011, 04:53 PM

I think Shelley's article explained his maths performance as a 'one-off' …

That could happen to anyone ..

Cheers
PS: .. there's that 'hair' thing again ! .. :question:

sjastro

03-03-2011, 05:01 PM

Oh dear.

As if being nominated for the 10 worst dressed physicists wasn't bad enough....

Steven

renormalised

03-03-2011, 05:18 PM

Probably why it's taking so long to find anything at the LHC....he's still trying to do all the necessary calculations!!!:):P

renormalised

03-03-2011, 05:20 PM

Nah, I don't think this is a "one off" maths performance....that D is an average over his whole senior secondary schooling.

CraigS

03-03-2011, 05:23 PM

Well … I agree with you & Steven, then … that's a serious infringement…

:)

Cheers

renormalised

03-03-2011, 05:27 PM

Not really....good on him that he's managed to get by without a high A level score. But it does help when it comes to doing the work and in the company he keeps, having such a mediocre A level score wouldn't look good:):P

AdrianF

03-03-2011, 05:39 PM

Well there is hope for me with maths yet. I failed maths at school just passed at Uni level and now I teach engineering maths to students. Now I wonder if I dont shower or brush my hair wear the same tee shirt every day ................................... ......................

Adrian

CraigS

03-03-2011, 05:46 PM

Give it a go, Adrian !!

I nominate you as our first test subject !!
:lol: :)

Cheers

Liz

03-03-2011, 06:02 PM

What the!!!! No I didnt know until right now.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY DEAR BRIAN :birthday::birthday::birthday::chee rs: .... hoping YOU have a wonderful day. :D

thank you Bart ;)

renormalised

03-03-2011, 06:38 PM

Should apply for a government research grant for this one:):P

shelltree

03-03-2011, 06:48 PM

I challenge you to look like this ;) :P

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7s9sekKob0E/S9cXrgcas6I/AAAAAAAAFLA/-mNFW-s-Qqs/s1600/briancox_Nom_Nom.jpg

renormalised

03-03-2011, 06:50 PM

No challenge in that:):P

CraigS

03-03-2011, 06:52 PM

Actually, his hair looks a bit like that Solar Flare in the background …
:)

renormalised

03-03-2011, 06:53 PM

Messy:P

shelltree

03-03-2011, 06:55 PM

:lol: And yet he still looks good.

CraigS

03-03-2011, 06:59 PM

What about Krauss though, eh ??

sjastro

03-03-2011, 07:00 PM

Yes I admit I don't look anything like that solar orb.:lol:

Steven

shelltree

03-03-2011, 07:05 PM

:love: Lawrence will always be my one true love. *starts a Lawrence Krauss thread* :P

CraigS

03-03-2011, 07:09 PM

Krauss is almost 57 years old !!

.. at least his hair is under control, I suppose .. (like bald).
:)
I think he has 'the edge' over Cox in the track-record and intellect department, as well (yet to be proven .. where is that new thread, anyway ??)

Cheers
PS: He may have been privileged by being permitted to talk with Sir Ed, (The Great), Witten at some stage in his past. Sir Ed is roughly the same age !!

shelltree

03-03-2011, 07:23 PM

I completely agree Craig. I prefer his presenting style in lectures and talks, he really has a way with words and isn't afraid to stand up for what he believes in, even if he knows it will sound outrageous. I find his books really hard to read though, they seem to start out making sense and end up jumbled before I even get half way through. Maybe they are just too in depth and science related for me to understand. Uh-oh, I may have to start that thread after all...

CraigS

03-03-2011, 07:46 PM

Onya Shelley .. we all have our heros .. I don't know much about Krauss .. I'd like to see more of his presentations and maybe read his books.

And its Ok to like Cox .. :)

I read some of Randall's 'Warped Passages'. Its about other dimensions and it goes into that stuff in quite an amount of detail. Her style is pretty intense (and a bit dry) though.

Good to see you rising above the hype behind these types and looking beyond their public images, too.
:)
Cheers

shelltree

03-03-2011, 09:40 PM

The first thing I ever heard about Lawrence Krauss was in a thread on here awhile back and it was a youtube presentation called "A Universe from Nothing". After watching it I was instantly awed by his passion and enthusiasm and his blunt and honest insights into everything he talks about. I found discussions between him and his good friend Richard Dawkins, another of my absolute favourite people and from there I raided Archives in Brisbane city for all the books I could find by him (even though I find it difficult reading them).

I don't want to be bias though because I know there are a lot of amazing people out there with similarly amazing insights and I want to be able to appreciate them all. But Krauss just got me with the honest and down to earth nature with which he discusses and lectures, I could listen to him forever.

Now, I will keep this thread on topic by saying, Brian Cox is fantastic too :D

Stu Ward

04-03-2011, 06:49 AM

Its all gone goo again !!!

renormalised

04-03-2011, 10:01 AM

Essentially, it's a goo goo thread:):P

terrynz

04-03-2011, 10:32 AM

Great Series and really enjoyed it. So much so I've been watching snippets on BBC.com and reruns on the telly!

supernova1965

04-03-2011, 11:03 AM

Hey Men I think it is the girls equivalent of what we say when caught reading Playboy or Penthouse I only buy it for the articles:P:rofl:

AdrianF

04-03-2011, 11:09 AM

That's all I buy them for.

Honest

Adrian

CraigS

04-03-2011, 11:23 AM

Ok .. so here's a non-gooey thought ..

Way back in my post #51, I mentioned that I felt that Episode #1 of this series had an 'Earth-centric' spin to the way Solar Astrophysical phenomena were presented. This arose mainly because of the Death Valley sequence and the sequence of Cox taking solar photos, in what appears to be a jungle environment. (I actually lost the relevance of him being in the jungle and splitting light using the prism .. I think the point was to explain why the leaves reflect green light … :question: )

Anyway, whilst I appreciate the technique as being one which may enable the general audience to (perhaps) connect with what the presenter is saying, from a more scientific rational perspective, I do not feel that the point was reinforced in anything other than a quite superficial way.

As discussed in our Science Forum thread about 'Counterintuitiveness Facts' (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=72284), I am of the view that most of Science is counterintuitive. A corollary to this may be that if we focus too heavily on our own Earth-bound experiences, we are more than likely to completely miss the points, which the Science uncovers for us.

For example, most Astrophysical phenomena cannot be replicated here on Earth, thus most of the phenomena we see when we look through telescopes has no Earthly equivalent, nor can most of what we see, be replicated in scaled down labs/experiments on Earth. Rational thinking and rigorous, methodical scientific process, enables us to overcome such a bias.

I think the producers are atempting to make this point, (via Cox's experiments), but so far, I'm not sure it has been made with any emphasis. Such emphasis, (for me), adds to the weight and quality of these type of documentaries.

Perhaps the 'light touches' on this topic may evolve into more substance as the series progresses - I haven't yet seen the rest of the episodes.
I will be looking for signs of this aspect, as the rest unfolds. If it doesn't emerge, then for me, the series will fall into the 'eye candy' category. (Much as this also initially appears to be the only reason for the selection of Cox for presenting the material - as is evidenced also, by the observation that the only impact the documentary has thus far achieved here, is in generating comments about Cox himself).

Comments welcome (the above is only my humble opinion).
:)
Cheers

shelltree

04-03-2011, 09:05 PM

I understand your views Craig, it is definitely a different way of going about a documentary that is all about the Solar System and yet most of the content is based on Earth. I have to admit when I first watched Wonders of the Solar System, I really wasn't sure I liked it. It was different and there were very few glimpses at the planets and our star but a lot of talk about them involving phenomena seen on Earth.

In a way though, I feel it keeps the documentary well grounded. People can easily relate and can feel a sense of familiarity because similar processes are occuring right here on Earth (although you say that some processes obviously cannot be replicated on Earth so maybe they will resort to something different or go into further detail in later episodes...I hope so).

Also, I feel that sometimes the special effects and continual repetition of pictures and music can become very dull very fast and this style of documenting really spices things up by transversing the Earth as well as the Solar System (almost like going from very big to very small. Like putting things in perspective). And to be honest, I really didn't like Cox that much the first time I watched it but I feel he is a presenter that one needs to get used to (or understand him a little better and to see a few different sides of his presenting style and learn more about him in general) whereas Krauss instantly engaged me.

Anyway, that's my 2c :)

supernova1965

05-03-2011, 07:57 AM

Well I thought I would catch some female fish with this one. I am now jiggling the bait a bit to see if they are about must be hiding:P

CraigS

05-03-2011, 10:15 AM

At the risk of taking a turn in the wrong direction (again) ..
.. what is it about these documentaries and Playboy ?

.. I mean, the last thread I recall like this .. someone was saying that 'The Universe' documentary series was playing just before the playboy movie !! (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?p=653278&highlight=playboy#post653278)

What are these TV station programmers (& Warren) thinking about ?? :question:
:)
Cheers
PS: Chuckle .. chuckle a rhetorical question … In the case of the programmers, the answer: Ratings !!

Suzy

05-03-2011, 10:27 AM

Of course you do, I never doubted that. :screwy::P
Next you'll will be saying the magazine is very educational. Probably has physics in there too. Wait, yes it has- atoms. :lol:

Can't wait to respond on Craig's well written post. Not now though, I'll be back later.

Shelley- That was an awesome pic of Brian you posted!

supernova1965

05-03-2011, 10:33 AM

Oh it can be very educational:P:rofl:. I think that it's alright for some fun in this thread it isnt in the science forum or one of the ultra serious ones:thumbsup:

shelltree

05-03-2011, 06:47 PM

Hahaha, that was me Craig :D The movie was rather lacking to say the least :P ;)

Suzy

08-03-2011, 03:49 AM

The way I see it, is that in this series his style of presenting is to engage the viewer and educate on a "fairly simple" level. Demonstration through tests helps us understand better. I liked the earth based approach as it was very different to many other documentaries. With the leaf test (that you mentioned in your first para.), he was demonstrating how all the plants have adapted to the sun by abosorbing the energy and making it (the sun) work for them. Now I wouldn't know that if I was busy gawking at him would I. :whistle: :lol: (I got that out the way at the beginning when I had to keep rewinding it). :rolleyes::lol:

I do think if people weren't interested in the subject material, they would tune out eventually, candy or not. In comparison, I'm sure "The Universe" series didn't just hire Amy Mainzer for her intellect. They splashed a ton of make-up on her, styled her hair, dressed her immaculately and presented her looking like Barbie's sister. :whistle: Also, Carl Sagen was a very handsome man with a voice and presentation style to makes us all melt, men included.

Yes, he's sweet eye candy, but if there was nothing on the show to hold my attention intellectually, I wouldn't be watching it and absorbing the information he relays. I was skeptical about this series as I mentioned in my earlier post, as he didn't hold my attention well enough in other shows I've seen him in. But this one got to me.

Interestingly, did you notice at the end when the credits came up, it was written & directed by someone else :question: What does that mean exactly :shrug: There were no credits to Brian Cox, just only as a presenter.

sjastro

08-03-2011, 10:00 AM

Hi Suzy and others.

While our "criticism" of Brian Cox is light hearted fun, no one is denying his passion and intellect.

Unfortunately the same can't be said for the idiotic EU website that
engages in pure vitriol.

Pathetic isn't it.

Regards

Steven

renormalised

08-03-2011, 11:02 AM

Steven, that is a beauty and typical of the so called "free thinkers" from over yonder. Yes, it's true, they are "free thinkers"...it takes a lot of time, stress and a considerable amount of money to get an education where you are able to understand what you're doing and talking about.

It's quite easy and eminently free to learn nothing of consequence and fill your mind up with garbage.

sjastro

08-03-2011, 12:56 PM

Carl,

Note it's the self professed free thinker that turns out to being the most ignorant.
Our free thinking friend is blissfully unaware that Cox is a particle physicist not an astronomer or cosmologist regurgitating "many years of perpetual indoctrination....."

(BTW how can something perpetual be described in years:shrug:?)

Regards

Steven

renormalised

08-03-2011, 01:11 PM

It's always the way...the fool that believes he is the most open minded is normally the one with the most closed mind...and the most ignorant.

He'd still say the same about Cox even if he knew what he was. I doubt that would change at all, for any branch of science they'd care to comment about.

You could probably try and point that out to him but I doubt he'd get it even if you spelt it out in simple terms. They can't grasp simple things, so trying to grasp the infinite would be way beyond their capacity for thought.

orestis

08-03-2011, 05:47 PM

Heads up for tonight don't forget.
very informative documentaries.

Cheers Orestis:thumbsup:

CraigS

09-03-2011, 08:12 AM

Well, watched the second episode: Order out of Chaos.

I now see how they are tying Physics into the 'Earth-centric' references alluded to in the first episode. The Laws of Physics operate everywhere, so what we observe on Earth, is applicable elsewhere in the Universe. This is called the 'Cosmological Principle', and is the first basic concept of Cosmology. Interestingly, there maybe shades of grey in this, however. (There are continual probing questions/research into the Cosmo Principle 'ins and outs'.. eg: the Fine Structure Constant). On the whole though, and for the general population, gravity clearly operates anywhere where concentrated mass exists. Fair enough.

So, the entire last half of this episode focussed on the Rings of Saturn (with a smattering of the moons thrown in, for good measure). To me, this is because of the extraordinary photography returned by Cassini. They could've chosen some other examples to illustrate the coalescing gas model, but I think using Saturn's Rings, is a great example. Good to see them trying to explain gravitational resonance and the role it plays in proto-planetary environments as well .. never seen that before !

I liked the sequence on geysers and Enceladus .. my favourite moon, I think.

Kepler's laws were wrapped in there too, but I heard no references to any of those who did the original research/theory development. Still, this would have only inflamed certain 'ranters' .. but who really cares what these types have to say, anyway ?

Got to see Carolyn Porco again, too. She's another credible personality in the scientific community. (Probably put in there to prop-up Cox's flagging credibility… ;) :) ).

Ever noticed that Cox puts a 'k' at the end of words that end in a 'g' ? Like 'think' instead of 'thing' ? (Another hit-point against him as a front-man). ;)
I don't think he changed his T-shirt during any of the Atlas Mountains sequences, which bridged nights and days ! He also wore the same attire during the entire North American sequences too I think .. I'll have to check again to confirm … (Suzy ??). Oh yes .. his hair still looked grubby throughout the whole episode, too .. yuk !

:lol: :)

Cheers

CraigS

09-03-2011, 09:51 AM

.. And just this morning, news about the heat source behind Enceladus' plumes/geysers:

Cassini finds Enceladus is a powerhouse (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-cassini-enceladus-powerhouse.html)

Anyone up for a trip to Enceladus ?

Cassini has produced some truly outstanding science data. I remember the protests when it was launched, which could have put the whole mission in serious jeopardy. Thank goodness mass paranoia didn't win that battle !

Cheers

renormalised

09-03-2011, 10:02 AM

I was reading about that the day before yesterday. Might have been in Astronomy magazine or New Scientist, not quite sure, but it was an interesting article.

Yes...protests about its nuclear power supply. Sometimes these fools who just like to hear themselves speak should just keep quiet and do some research for a change. They're usually the people who protest about every little thing that goes on and usually know nothing of the circumstances behind the events.

Liz

09-03-2011, 06:52 PM

Enjoyed last nights episode too, and some great info on Saturn, its rings and couple of the moons. Very informative.

I think dearest Brian has had a haircut since last episode, and, hmmm, didnt notice him putting K on the end of words Craik. ;)

CraigS

09-03-2011, 07:03 PM

Where the cheeky emoticon when you need it ??

.. this'll have to do … :eyepop:

:lol: :)

Cheers
PS: Its more like .. "Craigk". I don't think I could even come near to replicating it…
in Brian's defence, it maybe an accent thingky … :)

Suzy

09-03-2011, 08:35 PM

Craik, :P you do the bestest doco summaries ever!!! :D

I'll be watching this episode tonight, looks good from what you'll say. So Craig, do I take it that you like the Earth based physics so we can learn/understand better? :P:lol: IMO it makes this show different from the others.
I think he doesn't mind Brian now :lol: But he's a guy, so he'll never admit that :rolleyes:
Look forward to seeing Caroline Pocco- I like her.:)

I was seriously considering trying to get Brian Cox to join us on this thread (I have ways to find him, whether he'll respond is another matter). The fact that I know his movements helps :question: - I'm not stalking honestly I'm not :shrug::P). I just was a bit unsure because there is a bit of negativity on this thread, but then again I guess that's to be expected with a public figure and goes with the territory :question: ). What do you'll think? Should we invite him for an on-line discussion? I have a message ready to go to him, I just need your thoughts? Crikey, you should see his facebook page, full of young, hot, women wanting to throw themselves at him, I even saw a marriage proposal. Oh well, at least they are learning about the universe :question:.

The replies and views on this thread are incredible :eyepop:. Perhaps the highest for this section? Simple recipe really.. take one hot bloke that doesn't wash his clothes and get him to talk about the universe :D on tv, and youtube and twitter and facebook and his webpage ..and ..and... (nope still doesn't classify as stalking.) :D I only stalk LesD.

CraigS

09-03-2011, 09:04 PM

Suzy;
How long have you been looking for Travolta, hmm ???
So how long are we going to have to wait for Cox, hmmm ??

… well .. we're waiting !! .. Bring it on, I say !!
:P:)
I have never had any problem with Physics !!
They didn't explain what they meant in the first episode. With the exception of the temperature measurement in the desert, his 'experiments' made pretty weak points. They could've written some better stuff and stuck that into his script. Their point is much clearer in this episode.

… err … not !!

What is this fascination some folk have around here with counting views, posts, etc ? It means zip to me ! Content and clarity rules, (for me).
:)

??? LesD ???
What about Travolta etc, etc, etc ???
:P:)

Cheers

shelltree

09-03-2011, 09:35 PM

It would be interesting to see if Brian would join in with this thread and what he has to say. Especially about the boys making fun of his hair and shirt choices or lack thereof :P

Urghh, Suzy I see those posts every time something new pops up that Brian has said on facebook and it just astounds me the amount of people falling all over him saying they are learning about the Universe but really, do you think they care about the content as much as how Brian looks and sounds? Hmm, just a thought although I could be wrong and I hope for their sakes that they are actually very interested in the content.

So what do you intend on sending to him Suzy? I would absolutely love to see what he has to say and contribute, I think it would be very interesting and enlightening. Whether he will actually reply is another thing all together but we can only hope and dream ;)

I'm not keeping up-to-date with the episodes on TV, I prefer to watch them without interruption or silly ad breaks. I have watched the first episode and absolutely loved it, really felt engrossed in the entire program from start to finish. And it was calming and awe inspiring, which is how I would describe Carl Sagan's Cosmos so I definitely think there is something very right and unique about this series. I cannot wait to see Wonders of the Universe too! :)

P.S On an unrelated note, Victoria Coastline is amazing!

Suzy

09-03-2011, 11:31 PM

Ya had fun with that post of mine didn't ya :poke: :doh:
Why, it's almost like I broke it down into specific paragraphs so it can come back and bite me :rolleyes:. :lol: Lucky for me I enjoy a laugh. :lol:

Travolta? :question: *clear throat* Ahemm, you had to bring that up too didn't ya :rolleyes:. But.. but.. but.. Brian is on-line active, where as Travolta is Hollywood royalty and not so much within reach. So maybe I might have a better chance. :question:

What do you think of this post on his facebook wall:

Brian, your show is a hot topic of discussion at the moment on "Ice in Space" - the largest amateur astronomy forum in the southern hemisphere. Are you able to spare some time and join us for an on-line chat session sometime soon?

Maybe I'll ask some astronomy people as well on how to contact him.

I watched the second episode tonight and loved it. Enjoyed it even more than the first one. Some really basic things that I should have known (not saying what they are either :rolleyes:, I learned tonight. Very interesting his demonstration on how Saturn's rings shine so brilliantly, (by travelling to the arctic it looked like?) and breaking off a piece of ice and holding it up to the sunlight, wow:eyepop: and then he said that they keep on shining because the ice rocks in the rings keep on colliding with each other so they never lose their luminosity.
I love all the travelling he does in this series. It's like Leyland Bros meets the Universe:question: :lol:.

And one thing I realised tonight why I'm learning so much from this show- he talks slow and pauses plenty (whilst playing with dessert sand or jumping through giza's or drawing planetary orbits in the ground around a camp fire), so it allows me time to digest the information. Shelley has a point (when she said "calming"), It is very relaxing watching all that beautiful scenery while he slowly and gently talks.

Also, really enjoyed segment on the star, Polaris. While sitting under the Milky Way, he shows us exactly where it is and explains its significance alongside the importance of the Earth's axis tilt. This is the first time I've seen Polaris in the night sky amongst the other stars, it was quite awesome for me.

Suzy

10-03-2011, 12:13 AM

Okay, perhaps I was easier to please (physics wise) because I'm not as smart as you in that department. Or you probably may have been too busy looking for stains on his shirt rather than what he was talking about. :P :lol: I'm kidding! Seems he has only one t-shirt per episode tho..

Forgot to mention, Craigkkk, I have a bone to pick with you :poke: Unfortunately I read your post straight before watching the chaos episode. And the whoooooole way thru I got stuck on his accent "thingky" and I couldn't shake it out of my ears, then it was like a mozzie... just waiting and he does it again, over and over. :screwy:

And who cut his hair??? It's sooo short and there's no cute wispy bits anymore :shrug: Bad hairdresser, very bad.:mad2: Perhaps they want him to look more serious for the show :question:

He's easier to track, responds to my fan mail and tells me that (as a stalker) I will make him look good. :D LesD is a wonderful and kind person and I have a huge respect for him.;) Les, if you are reading this you now owe me a favour so go find Brian Cox because I just made you look better! :D:D :lol:

CraigS

10-03-2011, 08:13 AM

Suzy;
You're a loose cannon !
Don't you dare post that to his web page !!
:P :)

I'll construct a more appropriate letter, shortly.

In short, I'll be recommending that Cox should fall on his sword and nominate a replacement for himself .. someone who's a man's man … y'know.. let me think … hmm … I know !!

How about Bear Grylls ??
He's a pretty boy but at least he manages to tone it down by his 'actions'.

:lol: :)

More later.

Cheers

CraigS

10-03-2011, 12:51 PM

I nearly fell of the chair laughing when he talked about the purity of the ice ...
... and then proceeded to hold up a chunk of the dirtiest looking ice he could find. :lol:

.. I guess that’s to be expected from someone who seems to be completely oblivious to dirt ! :lol: ;).

:)

On a more serious note however, the statements about the brightness of the rings, are not at all intuitive.

I double checked. His words are:

He then talks of them “collecting into giant clusters that are endlessly forming and breaking apart”.

He goes on to say that the rings harbour collisions, which shatter the ice into smaller particles, thereby creating more surfaces to reflect more light.

And the final statement is that this is why they are “as bright and shiny as when they were formed”

Hmm ... maybe. The statement about the collisions, would suggest that brightness would increase over time. The reforming of ice aggregates may then reduce the apparent brightness and, if the respective rates balance out, then an equilibrium in brightness over time, may result.

This is one of the current theories floating around, and it may be correct, as a second or third order effect. I think I’d prefer to think that first and foremost, the key reason for the apparent brightness, is that the rings are composed of chunks of 99% water ice in the first place. They may have always been, and may continue to be that way.

Even this last statement isn’t entirely theoretically accurate, as they are still theorising about why the ice is as pure as it appears to be. It may have started out contaminated with dust, which has since diminished due to other hypothesised processes. So, the original rings may not have been “as bright and shiny as when they were formed”

Cheers
PS: They also say that the rings have an atmosphere .. primarily oxygen … there's an interesting snippet ! :)

shelltree

11-03-2011, 11:17 AM

Thought you boys might find this amusing http://yfrog.com/h33oizzj :rofl: He is selling it as part of a charity fund raiser for Red Nose Day as well as the Professor himself following you for 90 days on twitter and reposting one of your posts. And only up to 255 pounds! Bargain :P But really, good on him for doing this for a good cause :)

So lads, no more orange shirt in supposedly every sequence :P

Thinking about tracking down a copy of Wonders of the Solar System when I'm shopping in Melbourne too so I can watch it all when I get home :)

CraigS

11-03-2011, 12:24 PM

Shelley, Shelley, Shelley …

I'm simply speechless .. we're at post #136 and the boyz have posted countless pearls of wisdom and then … well .. you come up with this ..

?? … achem …. (throat clearing) ...

… achem, achem …

… phewwwy !!! .. Not with this little black duck !!

.. paying him to stalk you ?? You've gotta be kidding !!

he's still wearing it !!

for incineration ...

.. in crayons ...

Shelley, Shelley, Shelley … I'm simply lost for words … isn't there something he's said which remains ?
:P :lol: :)
Cheers

sjastro

11-03-2011, 12:50 PM

I don't think so if he is wearing the same unwashed shirt.:)

Steven

renormalised

11-03-2011, 12:59 PM

Whilst wearing a gas mask and hazmat gear:):P

sjastro

11-03-2011, 01:36 PM

And high density goggles for the reflections off those glistening white teeth.:)

Steven

renormalised

11-03-2011, 01:54 PM

Welder's goggles:):)

CraigS

11-03-2011, 01:55 PM

But seriously boyz … whattdya reckon ?

Replace him with Bear Grylls ?? (of 'Man vs Wild' fame ?)

.. or perhaps, he should comit to undergoing public re-imaging … you know .. perhaps he could enlist .. yeah, I know … maybe Warnie .. or maybe Russell Crowe …. Charlie Sheen ?

.. Now there are a few who could set him straight, and help him to lose the pretty boy image !!??

:lol: :rofl:

Cheers

renormalised

11-03-2011, 01:58 PM

Bear Grylls......no, wouldn't work.

CraigS

11-03-2011, 01:59 PM

Maybe he could end up looking like this …

Steven … this guy was one of your world-reknown professor types, wasn't he??

I'm not sure of this guy's credentials, but visually, he's a definite improvement !

:)

Cheers

renormalised

11-03-2011, 02:02 PM

ROFPMSL!!!!:rofl::rofl::rofl::P:P:P :D:D:D

sjastro

11-03-2011, 02:51 PM

What a man. Perhaps the greatest flint knapper in history (he learnt it from Uncle Fred). I imagine he has an army of female admirers/stalkers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Harding_(archaeologist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Harding_(archaeologisthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Harding_(archaeologist))

Regards

Steven

CraigS

11-03-2011, 03:22 PM

He's got the looks - check;
got the hair - check;
got the teeth - check;
got credibility/qualifications - check;
got a lumberjack shirt (none of this orange t-shirt nonsense !) - check;
doesn't say "k"s instead of "g"s;
writes his own material - check;
does his own field experiments - check;
is a man's man - check …

Looks like he's just the perfect man for the job !

Now, we'll be needing a letter of dismissal for Cox .. any volunteers ?
… I think it needs to be brief and to the point … something like …

Dear Brian;

'You're Fired !!'

:lol: :)

Cheers

Suzy

11-03-2011, 05:44 PM

hmmmmmm :rolleyes:
sigh :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
and lastly :poke:

:prey: I hope Brian isn't reading this thread. I think we'd scare him off so not a good idea to invite him- you'll would gang up on him and squish him and toss him.:shrug: :lol: And hurt his feelings :question: and make him feel less than credible. Though...:question: I can come to his rescue so it could be my moment to shine and impress him :D.
Sheez, you guys are meaner than the meanest mean girls.:P

You guys are funny! :lol:
But I seriously don't think we should invite him, he'll take one look at the thread and run a mile.

Octane

11-03-2011, 06:08 PM

How many bears can Bear Grylls grill if Bear Grylls grills bears?

"Just found clean water, better drink my own piss."

Craig, I think you should register Professor Brian Cox, and, Brian Cox, and Becox, and, any other variation, and, start prolifically posting wearing your dirty orange shirt and jeans.

H

shelltree

15-03-2011, 04:19 PM

LOL. This thread has got completely out of hand... :P

CraigS

15-03-2011, 04:38 PM

Hey Shelley;
I'm wondering whether I should publish my usual review of tonight's episode … or run for cover .. :question:
:P :)
Cheers

shelltree

15-03-2011, 07:25 PM

:lol: Watch out for those swatting women arms coming your way :P

But in all honesty I enjoy reading your reviews of each episode, they are very in depth and truthful. They make me even more excited about watching more of this program (I still don't have a copy and I don't have a tv or want to use one so I just have to wait to get the whole series :))

Look forward to seeing what you think of tonight's episode!

Suzy

15-03-2011, 09:30 PM

Publish your usual review! :D:D:D
I can take it :D

Liz

16-03-2011, 09:34 AM

Another great episode - lots of info some planets and Moons, esp Mars and Titan, and similarities to Earth. Very interesting. :thumbsup:

supernova1965

16-03-2011, 09:48 AM

And there was not a red shirt to be seen maybe he is reading our thread :P:rofl:

CraigS

16-03-2011, 10:52 AM

Ok . This episode is all about atmospheres.

Overall, I’m noticing that the producers seem to be torn between selling Cox’s style, and conveying basic information. It may be my imagination, but there seems to be a whole lot more “soppy” background music to support Cox’s presentation style. His commentary almost lapses into poetry at times, which I personally find hard to listen to.

I also think that they’ve actually disputed their opening points in their latter commentary. Eg: the opening scenes emphasise the fragility of our ‘Thin Blue Line’ of atmosphere ... then about half way through, Cox is emphasising the ‘sculpting power of weather’, as a ‘huge mass of air moves across the surface’. Almost a contradiction of concepts. Its clear to me they are trying to convey the concept of diversity of environments, but this is not reinforced as a main theme of this episode.

They raise as supporting evidence that Mars once had a thick atmosphere, by citing a photograph of a Nickel-Iron meteorite found on Mars in Aug 2009. The point being that the meteorite, (if that what it is), could only have remained intact if there was a thick atmosphere to slow it down for landing. I must admit, this is the first time I’ve heard about this. This point raises an interesting question (for me) ... is this the only conclusion possible after reviewing all the evidence ? Can a meteorite fall into a body having the gravity and thin atmosphere of Mars and remain intact ? “Why not ?” is the question I’m left with …

They move onto Titan. Cox talks about ‘lakes of liquid methane’. He refers to Kraken Mare as being composed of liquid. To the best of my research, Kraken Mare is a northern polar sea, identified thus far, as being composed of “hydrocarbons” (imaged by radar).

In June 2008, the Visual and Infrared Mapping Spectrometer on Cassini, confirmed the presence of liquid ethane beyond doubt, in Ontario Lacus, a southern polar lake. The latest paper I could find (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.1860v1) here says:

The same paper develops a model which results in a predominance of liquid Ethane by an order of magnitude over liquid Methane.

My point here is that Cox et al, go to great lengths to emphasise that Titan’s lakes are composed of liquid methane and this seems to not be definitive at all, and the evidence thus far, points to it being composed of predominately, liquid ethane.

This may seem to be a minor point, but I would have expected better research and more accuracy in major statements made in this episode. My point is that they seem to be more interested in selling Cox’s presentation style, than presenting accurate information and consistent themes.

My 2 cents worth … and all comments welcome.

Cheers

Outbackmanyep

16-03-2011, 12:40 PM

I nearly backflipped when he said that, my first thought was "what about shallow angle impacts??" IE: HOBA?
It was a little misleading i thought! :rolleyes:

PS.......Kraken Mare (is it pronounced Crack-en mayor or the poofy sounding mah-ray?)

avandonk

16-03-2011, 02:35 PM

It is only a TV show folks. He is trying to put up the idea that physics and chemistry are the same everywhere and to explain the complexity what we see in simple terms.

The atmosphere is huge compared to us puny life forms. As a shield against the vacuum of infinite space and the Suns relentless particle onslaught it is fragile indeed.

As an amateur anthropologist I see evolution at work here. The girls all go for his boyish looks and obvious intelligence and the boys who are in direct competition with him will put him down to elevate their chances at procreation. We humans do this unconsciously! I am not jealous of him at all!

I have to think about the existence of the meteorite and an early thick atmosphere. I am sure it is more complex than what we think. With such a thin atmosphere and a shallow angle could lead to the asteroid having enough velocity for gravitational escape.

Bert

renormalised

16-03-2011, 03:05 PM

Why not....for exactly same reason as was stated. Objects entering the Earth's atmosphere, so long as they're not too large, are slowed down to terminal velocity by our planet's atmosphere and so medium sized pieces, like Hoba, can remain pretty much intact when they hit the ground (of course, depending on their composition and internal structure). If Mars' atmosphere had always been as thin as it is, most objects would shatter on impact because they wouldn't slow down far enough to appreciably depreciate their entry velocity. So, if they were moving at a few kms relative to the planet, they would hit with most of that velocity. Only something rather small would slow down enough to remain intact...small rock/pebble sized or smaller.

CraigS

16-03-2011, 03:56 PM

Yeah Chris;

In isolation, its entirely possible that Mars once did have a thick atmosphere. Its also entirely possible it didn't, either. My point in raising the segment on the intact meteorite fragment, is only to point out that it is not immediately obvious from this alone, that the planet once had more of an atmosphere. I'd have to work out what the minimum impact velocity, energy etc, it would have to have, in order to accept it as evidence. I'm not saying its not evidence, either. If its not intuitive, then I'd expect more information to support the inference. There are heaps of variables in this (eg: Mars' gravity is one third of Earth's, etc, etc .. which raises an immediate questions, for me).

So why make a point of it if you're not going to explain further ?

Venus has a very weak planetary magnetic field (and is not due to the iron core dynamo effect), but has heaps of atmosphere. Its closer to the Sun, so why hasn't it been stripped of its atmosphere ? (If the magnetic field is the only reason ?)

Venus has no plate tectonics, and they think this is a possible reason for it not losing its internal heat, and is the basis of a current a hypothesis for its lack of a dynamo type magnetic field. The atmosphere is extremely dense, and thus has more mass per unit volume. Gravity plays a role in keeping it there.

None of these points were raised in the doco.

Frankly, I think content-wise, this episode could have been presented better.

Cheers

renormalised

16-03-2011, 04:22 PM

Here....http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/termvr.html

Outbackmanyep

16-03-2011, 10:04 PM

Agreed, it's a shame that he had to wittle it all down into a 1hr segment. One thing i notice is that he keeps re-hashing his thoughts which is a little annoying, like "seconds from disaster"
Anyways, next week's epi will be interesting!

CraigS

17-03-2011, 08:22 AM

The series is called "Wonders of the Solar System", right ?

Well, from the way its looking, this really should read .. "Brian Cox's Wonders of the Solar System". Many of the points he's raised so far, (which are presumably, 'wonders'), certainly aren't 'wonders' to me.

Which leads me to the conclusion that this series is about productising Brian Cox. What is being presented is about how he sees things, rather than being primarily being about physics or the Solar System.

We should be aware of the subtle ways film-makers sway our views about nature. This series seems to make use of all such techniques, with the main result being a product called Brian Cox.

Cheers

Liz

17-03-2011, 09:34 AM

I think this series is aimed at the normal person on the street, to which the info is wondrous. This was a hugely popular series, so obviously they achieved their goal. ;)
For the seasoned astronomically minded person, the info may not seem so informitive, and maybe a little boring even. :D
I have really enjoyed them, though must admit the meteoreite blew me away a bit, but Brians the boss to me. :thumbsup:;)

shelltree

17-03-2011, 09:41 AM

I actually do agree with you Craig. He is always so fascinated and awed by certain "wonders" which is awesome that he is so intrigued by them but not everyone is going to share his point of view and that makes him less of a voice behind the series and more of a permanent feature, trying to share his wonder and excitement over what he percieves as worthy of sharing. I think though if you are going to do episodes specifically about Mars etc. then all the facts should be discussed, not just what a few people feel is important to express.

Having said that, I still enjoy his downright enthusiasm and excitement, the way he draws the viewer in and makes them excited too. He has a way of expression that is almost childlike, filled with energy all of the time.

Can't wait to get to see more episodes!

CraigS

17-03-2011, 09:49 AM

Fair enough, too Liz.

I have said many times, that Science needs regular ambassadors who appear in the public eye. I see no reason to compromise the accuracy of information conveyed in achieving public awareness, however.

Surely this aspect can be used as a way of comparing various documentaries? :question:

It also promotes useful, thought provoking discussions using a similar style, but coming from an opposing viewpoint. ;)

:)

Cheers

astroron

17-03-2011, 10:17 AM

Craig, Carl Sagen went through the same criticism when Cosmos came out:) and yet it classed as the best and most watched Science program ever:thumbsup: and I still love watching it:D
I agree with liz this program is not a science lesson,but made for the general public:)
I would love to have heard your criticism of the Universe with Sam Niel narrating it,I think you would have a coronary over the poor science in that program;):lol::lol::lol:
I think you are approaching this program too rigorously,and with your dislike of Brian Cox being the driving force.
Lighten up and take the program for what it is, a window for the general public to get some idea of the Wonders of the Universe, even with some factual errors:)
Regards

CraigS

17-03-2011, 10:53 AM

Ron;

There are many different perspectives on many things we see in the media.

These stem from different interests, and interest groups.

My interest lies with science, rational thinking and in this forum, some light-heartedness. I do not seek to invalidate other people's interests, nor their motivations.

Your interests are clearly along those propagated by Sagan.

There is no need to prioritise one over the other.

All views are equally valid.

On what bases would you compare these documentaries ?

Cheers

Suzy

17-03-2011, 07:36 PM

Basically what Liz said but in a longer babble (as I tend to). :rolleyes:

Craig, I am enjoying your views and opinions (and everyone else's too). Makes for a good discussion both serious and light. If he says things that are "questionable" I would like to know. Unfortunately, because I don't have a huge understanding of science, many times I tend to take science too literally - if they said it did that, then that's the way it happened (in my mind) as (to me) they sound so sure of themselves. I have to keep pinching and reminding myself that at the end of the day, most of this stuff is theory and hyposis - well researched, tested etc, but still not absolutely definitive.

Brian Cox seems to be selling the science in this show with a lot of romance involved (aye, rolling in the sand lovingly, closing his eyes at the sun rays lustingly, etc). Yes, great that he’s simplified & romanticised the physics side of things so we can understand our place in the universe better, but I guess at the risk of not giving too much information to the viewer. Although if he did make the show too complicated, I guess we simple folk would remain more ignorant than when we'd first started out.
What's that famous line Bert often uses... good science is about asking the right questions, not getting the right answers. Hope I got that right because that line makes sense to me and I love it . On the show, he’s not really asking the good questions- you and others are doing that for him. I think that some of you guys are a bit more advanced in the audience than the one he’s trying to target.

Keep your input coming along (as well as Carl, Steven etc) because for people like me that would believe anything, you guys stop me from hopefully not being so gullible and believing everything I read/see.
I can see why this show raises a lot of questions from knowledgeable science people like yourself. But nevertheless, I am still enjoying the information and education its providing.

allan gould

17-03-2011, 07:36 PM

You can explain scence clearly and concisely to the general public. Just look at the popularity of The Sky at Night. Clean, Concise and factual and Sir Patrick More is no toy boy. Look at Attenburough and his continuing brilliant science series.
It for a different audience so you don't have to watch it.

Suzy

17-03-2011, 07:38 PM

Just watched “The Thin Blue Line Episode” and really enjoyed it. The part that he was talking about the meteor on Mars, he did say that we didn’t know, so this was purely his opinion, though he seemed very sure of himself (see what I mean about how it gets confusing for me when they sound sure of themselves… aye!)

Look… sorry, I have to throw this in, I’m only human after all… that part at the beginning when he gets out of that “Lightning” plane all decked out in his flight uniform brought all my fantasties to life. Hubba bubba… That take off – down the runway and straight up vertically in the air just blew me away and made my heart race. 18km straight up, and five G’s (estimated alt. of that plane is a whopping 60,000 ft) to get to our atmosphere. Looks a lot like the shuttle.

CraigS

17-03-2011, 07:45 PM

Cheers Suzy;

I really don't care one way or the other about Cox or his image (that's in spite of what others may think they know about me) … there's a bit more to me than they've imagined.

Let's stick to the material and the impression it leaves, after watching the episodes, eh ?

Cheers

CraigS

17-03-2011, 07:49 PM

'Twould be fun .. and I think that's what the sequence was all about.

The idea that there's something to learn about science by looking out the window at an extremely small, slanted, cross sectional view of the atmosphere, is highly dubious though.

That's what Al Gore got hung up on … a long distance view of the Earth taken from way out beyond Saturn (??I recall ??). Completely emotive, if you ask me.

Cheers

shelltree

19-03-2011, 07:10 PM

Here here, Suzy! Well put!

And I also really enjoy the boy's opinions and reviews because they completely disregard the swoon worthy presenter and go straight to the facts and the way they are presented. Not belittling anyone else's involvement in this thread (or myself for that matter, being female and all :P) but it's great that we all have such different points to add from those who aren't so science minded like myself to those who understand it as clear as day. It's been really great chatting in this thread, I've had a lot of fun so keep it coming :)

Second episode is almost ready to watch as well as the third, I cannot wait and you can be sure that an extensive ramble on here will follow :D

luvmybourbon

19-03-2011, 08:27 PM

i have just got my hubby into star gazing lol, the series the Universe has had by far a better influence than Wonders of the solar system, my hubby told me that if i showed him the solar system first that he would have never been curious, too light fairy was how he put it. Different strokes for different folks i guess.
p.s we only lasted 3 shows

CraigS

22-03-2011, 08:18 AM

Folks you may find this interesting …. another development in the news today, raises the question of whether a planetary magnetic field really does retain an atmosphere .. or not. (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-importance-magnetized.html)

I have long felt that this hypothesis has weak evidence. As a matter of fact the bulk of the evidence cited for it, is Earth's magnetic field and the presence of our atmosphere. (Ie: an 'Earth-centric' view dominates the thinking behind it.

I have raised the article in the Science Forum (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?p=701481#post701481) , if anyone would like to discuss it further, but suffice it to say, the unrelenting emphasis on this hypothesis in mainstream media productions, like "Wonders of the Solar System" does not necessarily make it so.

A quote from the article (and the scientist challenging the whole perspective):

I can't necessarily pin this one on Cox, (because we've all seen it before in other docos), but it does show that there isn't a lot of critical thinking going on behind the production of the series. Why build a documentary episode around an idea which is controversial and not universally supported ?
Surely there are other perspectives which are more accepted by the scientific community ?

Cheers

shelltree

22-03-2011, 11:16 PM

Hi Craig,

So, I'm going to have a stab in the dark at having a science-y discussion, seeing as I really don't know much about science at all but am very intrigued by it and would like to participate more (even if my answers are wrong or don't make sense).

I just found a link here: http://www.windows2universe.org/kids_space/qearth_grav.html (ctrl+find then type atmosphere) that states that it's Earth's gravitational pull on the particles in our atmosphere that holds it in place but that some escape into space, mainly lighter elements like Hydrogen. But that planetary volcanism replenishes them.

I also had a silly theory based on no knowledge of science whatsoever, so I'm going to tell you and hope you don't laugh too hard :P

Is it possible that the particles contained in our atmosphere are reacting with the electric current in the Earth's magnetic field so that they are heating up and moving faster and continually bouncing back and forth and that's why they don't escape off into space? :help:

Also, a note related to #Wonders. If Brian Cox says "magnificent" or "brilliant" one more time I swear...... I'll take him out for dinner ;)

But more importantly, the content! Well, I pretty much watched episode 2,3 and 4 back to back.

Order out of Chaos: My favourite parts would most certainly have to be the "year in 10 seconds" showing the rotation of our globe and the distinct wobble of its axis, really helped me understand the reason for the seasons and how the Earth actually appears in rotation.

I also loved his simplistic approach to explaining the strange way in which Mars appears to travel across the sky as it has baffled me in the past. I have to say I am rather fond of his simple experiments and presentations but I can see how it could become tedious for some.

The sequences about Saturn's rings just absolutely blew me away. I still cannot quite comprehend how up close they are filled with such discord and "chaos" but far off they appear in these perfect rings all in the same shade of colour. How is this possible?? Is it just the sun reflecting of the ice chunks and then the ice chunks in turn reflecting off each other to create similar tones and appearance? (baffled! :help:)

And Enceladus...well, just wow. One of my favourite moons and for good reason. It is so amazing to think that Saturn's gravity creates tidal forces that warp the moon to create friction and heat and therefore these amazing geysers. These alien worlds are certainly alive and kicking! :D And I also didn't realise that it is also Saturn's tidal forces that prevent its rings from forming into moons. And not only that but Saturn's F ring would not exist without the help of Prometheus and Pandora :) You learn something new every day!

The Thin Blue Line: Well, this really ties in with what I have discussed at the beginning of this post about my very "far out" views on our atmosphere :P Although my favourite sequence of this episode would have to be solely about Titan. This sequence had me so excited and inspired that I could barely contain the smile from my face. Lakes of liquid methane on Titan! Clouds that form into methane rain, appearing to descend in slow motion to the surface! I'd like to question though, whether this has been scientifically proven or whether it is just a theory?

Dead or Alive: Well, considering I had high hopes for the series continuing to grow in strength and become more in depth, I have to say I'm disappointed. Though I have enjoyed watching Wonders, I feel as if a lot of things are left out and that the sequences only briefly touch on certain subjects and I find myself asking a million questions afterwards and having no answers. Because of this I feel like I've almost forgotten what happened in each episode except for the small parts that have stuck in my mind because they were of great interest to me. It seems to jump from one thing to the next without any greater explanation.

The sequences about Io were by far the most interesting aspects of this episode, with touches of Mars thrown in as well but still I felt it really lacked in detail. It seems to skim the surface of intrigue then dashes on to something else.

Anyway, I've rambled on enough. I hope my views aren't too silly, especially my very weak theory on the atmosphere :P

Cheers :)

Shelley

ballaratdragons

23-03-2011, 12:50 AM

Yes Shell, tonights episode was really good.
I also enjoyed the bit about Io (I call it the Pizza Moon), and how they can't explain why it is volcanic considering its small size!

CraigS

23-03-2011, 11:10 AM

Shelley: Great question .. don't put yourself down so much .. you know more than you think you know ! ...

It is fair to say that an electric or magnetic field can induce a force on any charged particle, and this happens in our atmosphere.
Gravity also influences any normal matter possessing mass, (including charged particles), and this also results in capture of gas particles within our atmosphere.

It is fairly clear that the combined net effect of these fundamental forces (and the native forces carried by the particles themselves), results in instances of both capture of gases around our planet, as well as their reaching escape velocity and 'drifting' away.

The big question is: how much drifts away from Earth, and how much stays, for a given value of Earth’s magnetic and gravitational field strengths.

And then, how does all this compare with other planets?

Clearly from the article I posted, the matter of whether our planetary magnetic field really does retain an atmosphere on its own, or not, is not yet fully understood, or supported by direct evidence. This was a surprise to me, as we’ve all been led to believe it was a ‘slam dunk’.

So I would say, ‘Yes’ its possible .. errr .... ‘definite’, that “particles contained in our atmosphere are reacting with the electric current in the Earth's magnetic field”, but ‘No’, this doesn’t necessarily contribute to appreciable “heating up, moving faster and continually bouncing back and forth and that's why they don't escape off into space”.

Cheers

icytailmark

23-03-2011, 12:48 PM

saw last nights episode was really good.

CraigS

23-03-2011, 01:51 PM

I actually found this episode to be closer to the mark, (scientifically), than some of the others. I found it a little boring, also. They spent about 50% of it getting to the conclusion on why Io has volcanos .. I got the impression that they were spreading out the content to fill the program and meet duration targets of the production.

Nonetheless, the most profound points, (for me), came right at the end and frankly, for me, make this by far, the best episode I've seen because of the following words:

These are scientifically valid statements and there is A LOT of theory supporting them. See: Chaos Theory and Complexity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity).

Read 'em again … and then ask how tiny might the changes have to be … and how many places are needed before the tiny changes occur just once at the right time, and how many connections, to result in a single instance of life ?

Perhaps then, it might be understood why the universe might have to be so big, for a single instance of life to occur. (A perfectly scientifically valid proposition, coming from this perspective).

These are not trivial wishy-washy points (unusual for Cox :P ;) :) ).

I'm impressed that they've finally emphasised what I hoped they were on about from the first episode … diversity of environments .. driven by the Laws of Nature .. leading to life.
:)
Cheers

shelltree

23-03-2011, 09:17 PM

This had me really excited because it makes a lot of sense and to be honest, is something I have never considered before. I have always "assumed" that other forms of life must be out there, however small but when strong links between Chaos Theory are made, is it any wonder that we haven't found other life close by? Who is to say that an expanse as big as our Universe isn't needed to harbour only a few instances of life?

Not to mention the endless possibilities for life from many different environments. If life can survive on Earth in extreme conditions, then why not somewhere else in the Solar System or anywhere else in the Universe?

Interested to watch the last episode of Wonders as I believe it touches on life in extreme environments.

CraigS

24-03-2011, 08:19 AM

Hi Shelley;

I have stated that I have no particular hang-ups about whether exo-life exists or not ... I really don’t care one way or the other. But, until a single instance of exo-life IS found, both perspectives are equally valid. I have been called a ‘fence-sitter’ here at IIS but as a result of taking this position, I have seen something quite extraordinary ...

In the General Chat thread ‘Propositions ...’ Bert’s words are a great example of precise, scientifically sound wording (in support of the ‘possibility that exo-life exists’ camp):

Which hooks up very nicely with the theme of ‘Wonders of the Solar System’ which attempts to focus on the universality of the Laws of Physics (ie: they work everywhere) and yet, they result in huge variations as exhibited by diversity of exo-environments.

An adjunct view supporting the contrary, (ie: against the ‘possibility that exo-life exists’ camp), usually argues many aspects, (not the least of which is that there is no evidence of exo-life, as yet), but for me, this analogy demonstrates the thinking behind it, to perfection (credits again, to Bert):

(There are many other examples, but I love the simplicity of this one).

If the emergence of life in the universe follows this same pattern, it can still obey all of the known Laws of Physics, but still may not have a repeatable outcome. (There is evidence that this may be the case, not the least of which, is the huge the diversity of exo-environments staring us square in the face).

It will all change once a single instance of exo-life is found, mind you.
;)

It is also world of pain to argue this contrary view. The idea I mention above, is really a conclusion I have come to myself and I don’t think I’ve ever seen it presented anywhere. I doubt we’ll see this view in ‘Wonders of the Solar System’. Until I meet someone who fully understands Complexity/Chaos, I’m not sure it is likely to gain any acceptance anywhere, except amongst the ‘crank fringe’ elements of society. Which is a pity, because as far as I can see, it is just as valid as the other side of the coin.

In the meantime, what I can say, is that if one keeps an open mind, one ends up seeing a lot more in science, than with a closed mind. The trick is knowing when to keep it open ... and when to close it (a little). Don’t ask me how to keep it all in balance ... I think it has to do with knowledge and the only way to acquire it, is to soak it all up .. and keep opinions separated from the reality.

Cheers

supernova1965

24-03-2011, 08:49 AM

Craig I think the sad thing is that you don't care one way or the other. The trick with an open mind is also to know when it is open or closed

CraigS

24-03-2011, 09:10 AM

Its only sad because you see it that way and that does not make it reality.

I'm not sad .. in the least !

Take a look at the fun we had in this thread !

Do you have any comments/feedback/questions about the Complexity/Chaos view of it all ?

Cheers

supernova1965

24-03-2011, 09:20 AM

Yes anyone who claims to completely understand Complexity/Chaos is insane.:P

CraigS

24-03-2011, 09:25 AM

Warren,

This is completely off topic, but I am very interested ..
You refer to yourself as a Buddhist Astronomer .. and I've always wondered what that means.
Don't get me wrong .. I'm not having a go at you about this … I actually think Buddhism is a really cool philosophy .. and it doesn't have to be taken religiously. I'd love to understand what defines a Buddhist Astronomer (seriously).

Could you describe it for us ?
And I do respect you views on this .. very much so.

Cheers

supernova1965

24-03-2011, 09:26 AM

Its very simple I am a Buddhist who also happens to be an Amateur Astronomer. My Buddhist name is Tenzin Khonchog. A full discussion of Buddhism would be a lifetime discussion and may be quickly locked as it is known as a religion although I don't consider it a religion myself.

CraigS

24-03-2011, 09:45 AM

Yep. I agree with you .. to me, it is a philosophy (although many do take it to be a religion).
So, the philosophy part influences thinking about how to look at things around us and the universe, eh ?

Cheers

mswhin63

24-03-2011, 10:49 AM

watching the last episode I notice that Brian managed to give astrology a kick in the guts.
Pretty sure that didn't go down too well for a some people.

CraigS

24-03-2011, 10:57 AM

Mind you, I did hear him say in the 'Jupiter' segment .. ."the astrologers were proven right" !!!

… He then followed up with … "Of course, Astrology is a load of rubbish !"

Can't really blame him for those comments … although, they were pretty bluntly stated … and highly opinionated (and fundamentally on the mark).
;) :)
Cheers

supernova1965

24-03-2011, 01:52 PM

And scientists are actually starting to say that Buddhism has a strong basis in science. Meaning that a lot of what Buddhism say's is being proven by science. You just have to search google for Buddhism and Science to see how much they have in common. And the Dalia Lama is very interested in astronomy and science he is one of us he has his own Telescope and uses it often I believe.

CraigS

24-03-2011, 02:15 PM

Yes, very cool ... we should transfer this conversation over to the Science Forum: Philosophy of Science (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=73256) thread (if you're willing …. I'm interested, and game to give it a go if you are …) .. I'll start it off with a question ...

Cheers

CraigS

30-03-2011, 10:52 AM

Hi All;

Intrepid, undaunted cub reporter (CraigS) dares once again, to publish his perspectives on this episode. :lol: :)

For what its worth, on this hyper-controversial-at-IIS series, here we go ...
Actually, sorry to let you down folks, I couldn’t find any factual issues/flaws in this episode. Most of what was presented, is pure mainstream science’s interpretations on the topic of exo-life.

I actually think they did a good job on presenting the main arguments underpinning exploration of the Solar System for exo-life.

But there is a paradox left for us right at the end, which I don’t believe they are aware of. The argument goes:

Extreme environments: life is found on Earth in extreme environments. Life can exist, and flourish in such environments;

Water: is correlated with wherever life is found on Earth;

Mars: Mars is dry, but geological formations seem to imply large volumes of liquid water have existed there in the past. Methane, (a key indicator of life metabolism), perhaps generated by archaea bacteria, is detected, and seems to be seasonally dependent. Robotic probes have found Gypsum crystals, known to require liquid water for formation, on Earth. (Note: there are many ‘flavours’ of methane, many of which are not connected with life, folks. This post (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showpost.php?p=687628&postcount=20) encapsulates some of this aspect. This thread (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=71785&highlight=methane) has more).

Europa: May have large liquid water oceans, (twice as much as Earth’s) and have red ‘stripes’, which may represent life metabolic by-products;

Richard Hoover (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=73191&highlight=Hoover) makes an appearance. (Check out the link for more discussions on this guy’s research, if interested). He shows life can exist in ice.

Ok .. so the inference is, that there may well be bacterial life forms elsewhere in the Solar System, but Cox concludes there’ll be no civilisations. This is what makes us ‘special’ and for him, makes this the biggest ‘Wonder of the Solar System’.

So, the paradox ?

If civilisations make Earth ‘special’ then why are we using Earth and its environments, as our guide for inferring the existence of exo-life ? (Eg: in the Solar System).

Answer: (i) Because we have nothing else to go on. (Fair enough .. but remember that fact), and (ii) the Laws of Physics operate everywhere, not just on Earth, (fair enough, also).

None of the evidence cited in the episode tackles the question of the Origin of Life. My view is that there is a huge leap of faith required, (with totally unknown steps in the middle), in making the connection between the fundamental Laws of Physics and Chemistry and the Emergence of Life. The correlation of the presence of water with life, works on Earth, but what of the high chances that life simply follows water on Earth, because it needs it to survive ?

The Emergence of Life is a completely different discussion, not dealt with in the entire series. I think that SBS, next week on Tuesday at 8:30pm, (same time as ‘Wonders’ was), is a great place for folks, interested in continuing discussions this topic, to check out.

The relationships between Physics, Chemistry and the emergence of life, is a total unknown for us. We are only now developing the tools, which may help us to better understand the science behind how complex life forms behave.

Perhaps the way they behave, is intimately associated with how they originated - it appears to me, that there is a closer relationship between Chaotic and Complex Systems physics, and the Emergence of Life, than between Classical Physics, (like what Cox has presented), and its emergence.

Basing our thinking entirely upon what we know about life on Earth, seems to result in us swamping our thoughts and completely forgetting about what we know that we don’t know .. which is related to the mysterious connections between how self-organising order, emerges from chaos.

Hope that makes sense .. if it doesn't, I recommend we start a new thread about the show on SBS next week, which is about Chaos Theory and Fractals an continue discussions there.

My 2 cents worth. Comments welcome.
:)
Cheers