Stargazing

[brockers]

Dara is just putting it into layman's terms to compensate for Brian's camper than camp view of the cosmos... give him a break.

Please don't think I'm dissing Dara - I'm a big fan. I'm aware of why he's there (and his name - I was mirroring BigonaBianchi upthread!), but what I'm trying to point out is that I don't think many people realise how bright and maths/physics savvy he actually is. He hides his light under a bushel somewhat. I work in telly occasionally, and am well aware of the proud ignorance of relatively straightforward scientific matters displayed by the vast majority of media types. (The current obssession over Brian Cox is starting to grate a bit though. Thank God he doesn't need a wheelchair or have a degenerative disease..).

FWIW a long time ago, I designed and built a muon (an elementary particle/cosmic ray) detector as part of my physics degree. Forgotten it all now mind!

 

[ASC1951]

Please don't think I'm dissing Dara - I'm a big fan. I'm aware of why he's there ..... but what I'm trying to point out is that I don't think many people realise how bright and maths/physics savvy he actually is. He hides his light under a bushel somewhat.

He's not the only one. Take his look-alike, Al Murray the Pub Landlord, who has a good Oxford degree in Modern History: did anyone see his series on German culture on Beeb 4?

 

[Headgardener]

Quite a few of todays comeidens (sp!) have good degree's from either Cambridge or Oxford and got their breaks through Cambridge's Footlights club or the same at Oxord.

 

[Peteaud]

Anyone in the South West area should check out this

http://www.normanlockyer.com/

 

[Arch]

Dara is there to represent 'the common man' - the Beeb finds it impossible to put on serious programmes without a token comic/presenter/singer/model as a stooge. That is patronising and unnecessary, because the ordinary viewer has always been able to follow complex subjects if they are well presented.

So Dara is obliged to appear as ill-informed on science matters as most of the Beeb's commissioning staff actually are.

So all those programmes Cox does on his own don't count then?

It's a certain type of show, which works well with a certain type of pairing.

 

[rich p]

It must be me but I found this prog both patronising and stultifyingly boring and I possess binocs, a telescope and an interest.

 

[ComedyPilot]

I ride mainly at night on dark, unlit country roads. Tonight's sky was full of stars.

 

[ASC1951]

So all those programmes Cox does on his own don't count then?

No, of course they do - and all the better for it, in my view. I'll admit to some exaggeration - hardly a crime in Cafe - but it is still the case that far fewer of the Beeb's serious scientific programmes are presented by an expert with a script and camera, than put out with an expert and one or more 'celebrity' co-presenters. I think they have the balance the wrong way round.

And I'm certainly not exaggerating about the woeful ignorance of science throughout the BBC, particularly BBC radio. The place is full of Arts graduates who can't their heads round basic concepts, let alone those like John "I'm just a simple wordsmith" Humphrys who take a pride in their ignorance.

 

[SpokeyDokey]

It must be me but I found this prog both patronising and stultifyingly boring and I possess binocs, a telescope and an interest.

I gave it a go and yes it was boring as it was basic stuff but a younger family member wanted to watch and needed some support to understand it all so I stuck with it. I didn't read it as patronising at all. I thought it was nicely pitched for those who have little knowledge of the subject matter.

***

Brian Cox is niggling me a little as he is quickly shifting from niche expert to celebrity status and plays to the audience too much for my liking. Still, anyone who brings science to the masses gets my vote.

 

[fenlandpsychocyclist]

And I'm certainly not exaggerating about the woeful ignorance of science throughout the BBC, particularly BBC radio. The place is full of Arts graduates who can't their heads round basic concepts, let alone those like John "I'm just a simple wordsmith" Humphrys who take a pride in their ignorance.

Ahhh!!! But they're the "experts" when it comes to climate change.
At one point about a year ago they had a piece on every news program talking about the climate, i think they realised the public were
getting fed up with it and changed over to having a culture report instead.

Maybe there's a reason for the bbc's brainwashing:
http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/02/bbc-pension-funds-linked-to-climate-policy/

 

[Noodley]

It is all a lotta shite. Geeky Dr bloke trying to get over his bullying at school by having a "cool" haircut..and a right lot of self-gratification artists who have no no life geting a chance to be on TV as long as they say the right things. Sad.

 

[pally83]

[QUOTE 1690056, member: 9609"]Really enjoyed it, learned one or two new things. Didn't know black holes evaporated, didn't think anything could escape a black hole, apparently Hawkins radiation can! so does that mean Hawkins Radiation that can travel faster than the speed of light ? - Presumably if it is to do with Hawkins then its all to do with the bizarre world of Quantum Physics, which I don't get at all. [/quote]

In simple(ish) terms, what happens is that a matter particle and its antimatter partner spontaneously pop into existence through what is called pair creation. These particles will normally annihilate each other very quickly. However, if sufficiently close to a black hole, one of the particles can get dragged in. In order to maintain the conservation of energy laws the black hole will then lose the equivalent energy as Hawking Radiation. If this occurs often enough then the black hole will eventually disappear.

This theory is a possible contender for the domination of matter over antimatter in the formation of the Universe.

 

[brockers]

[QUOTE 1690056, member: 9609"]then its all to do with the bizarre world of Quantum Physics, which I don't get at all.[/quote]

You're in good company. The only way to get Quantum Mechanics (as it's generally known), is not to try to get it! All very zen and paradoxical, but it's pretty impossible to conceptualise as it defies common sense. It's essentially a weird and sophisticated kind of maths that describes how things called wavefunctions (a nebulous way of representing 'stuff' or 'stuffness') behave over time and distance.

 

[Peteaud]

In simple(ish) terms, what happens is that a matter particle and its antimatter partner spontaneously pop into existence through what is called pair creation. These particles will normally annihilate each other very quickly. However, if sufficiently close to a black hole, one of the particles can get dragged in. In order to maintain the conservation of energy laws the black hole will then lose the equivalent energy as Hawking Radiation. If this occurs often enough then the black hole will eventually disappear.

This theory is a possible contender for the domination of matter over antimatter in the formation of the Universe.

So does this mean star trek is real?