Wonders of the Solar System

[shelltree (Shelley)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

What about Krauss though, eh ??

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

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by shelltree

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

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 (Shelley)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

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 !!

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]

Originally Posted by shelltree

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...

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 (Shelley)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

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

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

[Stu Ward]

Its all gone goo again !!!

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Stu Ward

Its all gone goo again !!!

Essentially, it's a goo goo thread

[terrynz (Terence)]

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

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

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

[AdrianF (Adrian)]

That's all I buy them for.




Honest

Adrian

[CraigS]

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 … )

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', 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 (Shelley)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

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 … )

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', 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

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 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

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

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

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

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

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 !!

What are these TV station programmers (& Warren) thinking about ??

Cheers
PS: Chuckle .. chuckle a rhetorical question … In the case of the programmers, the answer: Ratings !!

[Suzy]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

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

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

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 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by Suzy

Next you'll will be saying the magazine is very educational

Oh it can be very educational. 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

[shelltree (Shelley)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

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 !!

What are these TV station programmers (& Warren) thinking about ??

Cheers
PS: Chuckle .. chuckle a rhetorical question … In the case of the programmers, the answer: Ratings !!

Hahaha, that was me Craig The movie was rather lacking to say the least

[Suzy]

Originally Posted by CraigS

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 … )

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', 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

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. (I got that out the way at the beginning when I had to keep rewinding it).

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. 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 What does that mean exactly There were no credits to Brian Cox, just only as a presenter.

[sjastro]

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.

Over the many, many years and especially of recent times, it seems to me that nothing much has been "proven" by the 'mainstream' science fraternity at all particularly within the realms of Astronomy and Cosmology, which for just one instance is why the likes of Professor Brian Cox's ramblings (he now has his own series on TV) are to myself, a feature and example of complete ineptitude.

His (Brian Cox's) ramblings and rather pathetic deliberations are just a repetition and continual regurgitation of his many years of perpetual indoctrination, courtesy Universities and also courtesy of their most esteemed anciently-minded 'Gas-lit' Victorian Mentors, from which of course they must never deviate...for fear of their standing and jobs etc.

Okay, by all means do whatever it takes to keep your job, but it is the same old story.

Most of these guys (and there are many other examples these days), actually believe without question what it it is that they are conveying toward the public at large to be actually true...and in many cases...at public expense too!

Disgraceful, pompous and extremely contemptuous...in my view.

Like themselves, they want us to be similarly persuaded by their collective coercive and psychological means toward this extreme underhanded and disgraceful manner of approach toward so-called further 'education'.
Pehaps these so-called 'highly educated' ignoramuses/morons, with their "caps and gowns" etc need some sort of a 'Refresher Course' in basic common sense and logical understanding, then the door might open-up towards some measure of progress.

They obviously revere their acquired "Caps and Gowns"?
Yes indeed and of course, for that is what most Clowns wear in the Circus http://49-17.bluehost.com/forum/phpB..._e_biggrin.gif

Nothing personal of course towards any of these people, but I will say in closing this brief rant that may their inept stupidity and ignorance long continue, for it gives us free-thinkers at least ample time, amplitude and ammunition by which to confront their moronic demises and basic ignorance of the sciences.

End of brief rant.

Cheers,

John

Pathetic isn't it.

Regards

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

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.