Wonders of the Solar System

[renormalised (Carl)]

Here....http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/educ...et/termvr.html

[Outbackmanyep]

Originally Posted by CraigS

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 your 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

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]

Originally Posted by Outbackmanyep

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!

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]

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.
I have really enjoyed them, though must admit the meteoreite blew me away a bit, but Brians the boss to me.

[shelltree (Shelley)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

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

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]

Originally Posted by Liz

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 informitiv, and maybe a little boring even.
I have really enjoyed them, though must admit the meteoreite blew me away a bit, but Brians the boss to me.

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?

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



Cheers

[astroron (Ron)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

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?

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



Cheers

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 and I still love watching it
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
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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Suzy

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.

'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 (Shelley)]

Originally Posted by Suzy

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

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.

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 ) 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

[luvmybourbon]

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]

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.

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, 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):

"My opinion is that the magnetic shield hypothesis is unproven," says Robert Strangeway from UCLA. "There's nothing in the contemporary data to warrant invoking magnetic fields."

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 (Shelley)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

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.

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, 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

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...arth_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

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?

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! )

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! 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 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

Cheers

Shelley

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

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]

Originally Posted by shelltree

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?

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 (Mark)]

saw last nights episode was really good.