FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Professor Brian Cox
Professor Brian Cox
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I can't get past his tombstone teeth and plastic face, I know he can't help it but it gets in the way of me listening to what he's saying.  "
watch it on the radio |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Love him. I fell asleep every time he was on tv doing his last programme.
What programme has this effect on you?
X"
So do i, if ever the was a teacher id have loved to be taught by its him, he comes across amazingly simple, and his last program, the wonders of the universe was explained so simply, hes jus a great presenter  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
No I like him because he is intelligent but cool at the same time but I struggle to see past the shiny tight skin on his face. I would need to put a little face powder on him to blot it down a bit.
X |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Brian Cox has been great...
unfortunately its been alot about how he looks etc...
been plenty of better shows about the subject, by world renound scientists, such as stephen hawking
brian cox appears to be like the nigela lawson of the science world... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I can't get past his tombstone teeth and plastic face, I know he can't help it but it gets in the way of me listening to what he's saying.
watch it on the radio"
This is an excellent idea! People have said to me that I have a great face for radio  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Love him. I fell asleep every time he was on tv doing his last programme.
What programme has this effect on you?
X
So do i, if ever the was a teacher id have loved to be taught by its him, he comes across amazingly simple, and his last program, the wonders of the universe was explained so simply, hes jus a great presenter "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There is a sagan series on youtube which blows b.cox away.can't remember what its called.
Pale blue dot is one of them
Thanks. I will have a look for it
X"
youtube.com/watch?v=oY59wZdCDo0
that is a sagan series of a few little vids which are impossible to turn off.they are some of the most poignant words you will ever hear
after that watch the cosmos series
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There is a sagan series on youtube which blows b.cox away.can't remember what its called.
Pale blue dot is one of them
Thanks. I will have a look for it
X
youtube.com/watch?v=oY59wZdCDo0
that is a sagan series of a few little vids which are impossible to turn off.they are some of the most poignant words you will ever hear
after that watch the cosmos series
"
Sagan was unquestionably the doyen of science popularisers, and I'm sure Cox would be the first to acknowledge...but thought Cox's explanation re thermodynamics, especially entropy, was clear and fascinating...not an easy subject..
To quote my Chemistry teacher.'For those who struggled with the first law of thermodynamics you will be dismayed to know there is a second'! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *roquoisMan
over a year ago
Portsmouth |
He makes science interesting to a whole new generation. Good to have someone like this now Patrick has gone.
He was also the keyboard player for a rock band called Dare...check on youtube for the video for the song We Dont Need A Reason....Great song, great band....became a lot more mellow after the cd he was on...very mellow celtic sounds. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I reckon that this series will probably end up being an award winner. Not least because of the religious controversy that will surely follow last nights broadcast. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I reckon that this series will probably end up being an award winner. Not least because of the religious controversy that will surely follow last nights broadcast."
Agree with that..he was completely unequivocal in his view on the origins of life..no room or necessity for a creator! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I nodded off watching his programme too. It seems he has a perfect voice for lulling people and sending them to sleep. Maybe he should become patron for Insomniacs Anonymous and produce a 'Get to Sleep' dvd. The only problem is that nobody would know the ending of it.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I reckon that this series will probably end up being an award winner. Not least because of the religious controversy that will surely follow last nights broadcast.
Agree with that..he was completely unequivocal in his view on the origins of life..no room or necessity for a creator! "
He bases everything on physics and mathematics and those two disciplines leave no room for unexplainable supernatural or paranormal phenomenon.
I think he's right in so much as what can be proved given the current understanding of physics, but as science as proven over the centuries, it should never be taken as definitive. There is much about this universe that we don't know and even in a thousand years time we still will have only scratched the surface of what makes up the universe and how it came to be.
There is one thing he said last night that registered with me and that is that given the circumstances that need to be in place for life to exist it is inevitable that only way this universe can exist is to have life in it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"the reason brian cox became interested in astronomy,is due to reading a book by carl sagan.
he would be the first to admit,carl sagan was the master.
"
Sagan made a lot of spurious claims in his career simply because of the general level of understanding of the universe at that time, so I wouldn't call Sagan the master, more of a pacesetter from whom others have picked up the baton and run with it. Arthur C Clarke and Patrick Moore were of the same ilk but both made huge claims regarding the universe that have now been proven to be unfounded. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I reckon that this series will probably end up being an award winner. Not least because of the religious controversy that will surely follow last nights broadcast.
Agree with that..he was completely unequivocal in his view on the origins of life..no room or necessity for a creator!
He bases everything on physics and mathematics and those two disciplines leave no room for unexplainable supernatural or paranormal phenomenon.
I think he's right in so much as what can be proved given the current understanding of physics, but as science as proven over the centuries, it should never be taken as definitive. There is much about this universe that we don't know and even in a thousand years time we still will have only scratched the surface of what makes up the universe and how it came to be.
There is one thing he said last night that registered with me and that is that given the circumstances that need to be in place for life to exist it is inevitable that only way this universe can exist is to have life in it."
Always amuses me when I read 'Science is not definitive' when for most of us in developed countries our health, safety, communication, travel, leisure, employment et al..depends on the appliance of science being very definitive!
Of course Science evolves..Newtonian mechanics was thought absolute until quantum theory, but that is at the heart of why science has been so successful.
New research attempts to disprove what has gone before, not prove it.
As Cox said though, of all the physical laws, the second law of thermodynamics is going to take some pretty nifty work to shift
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I reckon that this series will probably end up being an award winner. Not least because of the religious controversy that will surely follow last nights broadcast.
Agree with that..he was completely unequivocal in his view on the origins of life..no room or necessity for a creator!
He bases everything on physics and mathematics and those two disciplines leave no room for unexplainable supernatural or paranormal phenomenon.
I think he's right in so much as what can be proved given the current understanding of physics, but as science as proven over the centuries, it should never be taken as definitive. There is much about this universe that we don't know and even in a thousand years time we still will have only scratched the surface of what makes up the universe and how it came to be.
There is one thing he said last night that registered with me and that is that given the circumstances that need to be in place for life to exist it is inevitable that only way this universe can exist is to have life in it.
Always amuses me when I read 'Science is not definitive' when for most of us in developed countries our health, safety, communication, travel, leisure, employment et al..depends on the appliance of science being very definitive!
Of course Science evolves..Newtonian mechanics was thought absolute until quantum theory, but that is at the heart of why science has been so successful.
New research attempts to disprove what has gone before, not prove it.
As Cox said though, of all the physical laws, the second law of thermodynamics is going to take some pretty nifty work to shift
"
We're talking about science on a cosmic scale though, not the mechanics of propulsion, or medicine.
A thought occurred to me last night with something Cox said about all living things on this planet have a shared % of dna, and it made me wonder if all life in the universe had this shared dna or if life on one planet can be traced to that planet.
Let's say, for argument's sake, that in a million years time our galaxy will have been explored and many hundreds of planets with life on them are found. Let's also say that each planet with life has it's own dna different from any other planet. Theoretically, it would then be possible to place a particular lifeform as originating from a specific planet.
Obviously, that's all based on life in the universe not sharing the same dna. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I reckon that this series will probably end up being an award winner. Not least because of the religious controversy that will surely follow last nights broadcast.
Agree with that..he was completely unequivocal in his view on the origins of life..no room or necessity for a creator!
He bases everything on physics and mathematics and those two disciplines leave no room for unexplainable supernatural or paranormal phenomenon.
I think he's right in so much as what can be proved given the current understanding of physics, but as science as proven over the centuries, it should never be taken as definitive. There is much about this universe that we don't know and even in a thousand years time we still will have only scratched the surface of what makes up the universe and how it came to be.
There is one thing he said last night that registered with me and that is that given the circumstances that need to be in place for life to exist it is inevitable that only way this universe can exist is to have life in it.
Always amuses me when I read 'Science is not definitive' when for most of us in developed countries our health, safety, communication, travel, leisure, employment et al..depends on the appliance of science being very definitive!
Of course Science evolves..Newtonian mechanics was thought absolute until quantum theory, but that is at the heart of why science has been so successful.
New research attempts to disprove what has gone before, not prove it.
As Cox said though, of all the physical laws, the second law of thermodynamics is going to take some pretty nifty work to shift
We're talking about science on a cosmic scale though, not the mechanics of propulsion, or medicine.
A thought occurred to me last night with something Cox said about all living things on this planet have a shared % of dna, and it made me wonder if all life in the universe had this shared dna or if life on one planet can be traced to that planet.
Let's say, for argument's sake, that in a million years time our galaxy will have been explored and many hundreds of planets with life on them are found. Let's also say that each planet with life has it's own dna different from any other planet. Theoretically, it would then be possible to place a particular lifeform as originating from a specific planet.
Obviously, that's all based on life in the universe not sharing the same dna."
Not true, the reason I can press a button and look at your lovely cock is a direct result of the application of the universal laws of physics. Cosmic therefore in the physics sense, and of course 'Cosmic' in description.
Interesting point re dna, but remember any life form in the universe will have dna formed from the periodic table of elements.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Interesting point re dna, but remember any life form in the universe will have dna formed from the periodic table of elements.
"
That would be the period elements we know about. I'm absolutely certain that once man has reached out into the galaxy beyond our solar system (and maybe even in our own system on Saturn & Jupiter's moons) we'll find substances we've never encountered on Earth. Some very deadly ones too I suspect. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Interesting point re dna, but remember any life form in the universe will have dna formed from the periodic table of elements.
That would be the period elements we know about. I'm absolutely certain that once man has reached out into the galaxy beyond our solar system (and maybe even in our own system on Saturn & Jupiter's moons) we'll find substances we've never encountered on Earth. Some very deadly ones too I suspect."
Highly unlikely, all the holes in the periodic table have been filled.. elements consequently synthesised in labs are unstable and last for micro seconds..therefore unlikely candidates for the basis of life! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I just think its really obvious the only way to survive in a cold universe will be to become machine like(there will be broad definitions on this), - eventually it could be just forms of energy(a way to get in and out of black holes?)... it all sounds star trekky yes...
but heyho..thats them basically already made a microscopic tractor beam... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I thought that the periodic table went up to about 115 with many gaps at the top end."
Only 94 naturally occurring elements the rest are lab synthesised and unstable...there may be holes between 116/118 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I thought that the periodic table went up to about 115 with many gaps at the top end.
Only 94 naturally occurring elements the rest are lab synthesised and unstable...there may be holes between 116/118 "
are they fuckable holes? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I just think its really obvious the only way to survive in a cold universe will be to become machine like(there will be broad definitions on this), - eventually it could be just forms of energy(a way to get in and out of black holes?)... it all sounds star trekky yes...
but heyho..thats them basically already made a microscopic tractor beam..."
Man cannot survive for long periods in space without some form of artificial gravity as our bones lose calcium and muscle mass deteriorates. We either have to invent artificial gravity to replicate that on Earth of we have to be augmented with cyber systems to negate the need for gravity. I don't think the Borg are a million miles away from what man will have to become to survive in space. I foresee a time in man's not too distant future where microchipping babies at birth will be the norm and articial limbs are getting better and better all the time. Link them up with the brain and we'll have Cybermen |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I thought that the periodic table went up to about 115 with many gaps at the top end.
Only 94 naturally occurring elements the rest are lab synthesised and unstable...there may be holes between 116/118 "
I'm at room 117 south devon hotel...just knocked and no answer...are u timewasters?????  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I just think its really obvious the only way to survive in a cold universe will be to become machine like(there will be broad definitions on this), - eventually it could be just forms of energy(a way to get in and out of black holes?)... it all sounds star trekky yes...
but heyho..thats them basically already made a microscopic tractor beam...
Man cannot survive for long periods in space without some form of artificial gravity as our bones lose calcium and muscle mass deteriorates. We either have to invent artificial gravity to replicate that on Earth of we have to be augmented with cyber systems to negate the need for gravity. I don't think the Borg are a million miles away from what man will have to become to survive in space. I foresee a time in man's not too distant future where microchipping babies at birth will be the norm and articial limbs are getting better and better all the time. Link them up with the brain and we'll have Cybermen "
cybernetic vs artificial..only one way to find out!-FIIIIGHTTTTTTT! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Brian Cox has been great...
unfortunately its been alot about how he looks etc...
been plenty of better shows about the subject, by world renound scientists, such as stephen hawking
brian cox appears to be like the nigela lawson of the science world..."
Not sure if I would agree with this...I find Hawking a bit closed minded on some subjects where as Cox is still very inspiring and more open to other possibilities! But both have amazing abilities to copmprehend the bigger picture and both can be considered excellent teachers! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I thought that the periodic table went up to about 115 with many gaps at the top end.
Only 94 naturally occurring elements the rest are lab synthesised and unstable...there may be holes between 116/118
I'm at room 117 south devon hotel...just knocked and no answer...are u timewasters????? "
Not timewaster, just in a different frame of reference..lol..By the way I'm in 69 ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"He is a not quite as good modern Carl sagan
Had to google him  Carl Sagan was a god!!! He was the first to do a "tour of the cosmos" and with Pink Floyyd as his theme music!"
I think that covers it...
P.S. They still sell Cosmos [1980]! It's that good! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Brian Cox has been great...
unfortunately its been alot about how he looks etc...
been plenty of better shows about the subject, by world renound scientists, such as stephen hawking
brian cox appears to be like the nigela lawson of the science world...
Not sure if I would agree with this...I find Hawking a bit closed minded on some subjects where as Cox is still very inspiring and more open to other possibilities! But both have amazing abilities to copmprehend the bigger picture and both can be considered excellent teachers! "
I understand..but I see cox as more a presenter than anything else...he is easier on the eye and to the ear (and brain for many)
Hawking has become a little more einstien like..I'd effectively call that a scientific stubbornness lol...however, I dont think we will see Cox being in the history books for the formulation of theoretical sciences |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I thought that the periodic table went up to about 115 with many gaps at the top end.
Only 94 naturally occurring elements the rest are lab synthesised and unstable...there may be holes between 116/118
I'm at room 117 south devon hotel...just knocked and no answer...are u timewasters?????
Not timewaster, just in a different frame of reference..lol..By the way I'm in 69 !"
this schrodingers hotel room situations getting on my tits..are u in the room or not...or both
(hope ur alive mind) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I thought that the periodic table went up to about 115 with many gaps at the top end.
Only 94 naturally occurring elements the rest are lab synthesised and unstable...there may be holes between 116/118
I'm at room 117 south devon hotel...just knocked and no answer...are u timewasters?????
Not timewaster, just in a different frame of reference..lol..By the way I'm in 69 !
this schrodingers hotel room situations getting on my tits..are u in the room or not...or both
(hope ur alive mind)"
I'm uncertain...xxxHeinsenberg |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Brian Cox has been great...
unfortunately its been alot about how he looks etc...
been plenty of better shows about the subject, by world renound scientists, such as stephen hawking
brian cox appears to be like the nigela lawson of the science world...
Not sure if I would agree with this...I find Hawking a bit closed minded on some subjects where as Cox is still very inspiring and more open to other possibilities! But both have amazing abilities to copmprehend the bigger picture and both can be considered excellent teachers!
I understand..but I see cox as more a presenter than anything else...he is easier on the eye and to the ear (and brain for many)
Hawking has become a little more einstien like..I'd effectively call that a scientific stubbornness lol...however, I dont think we will see Cox being in the history books for the formulation of theoretical sciences"
Lol..scientific stubbornness..? I'll stick to simply closed minded!
And Cox is still pretty young and more than capable of great things...
He's already bringing science to the masses!!!
Also...I have as much faith in the validity of history books as I do in the bible!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Hawkins is (in)famous for staking his reputation on a new theory only to retract it when he decides something else is right and he was wrong previously. Ok, so you might say he's man enough to admit when he's made a mistake, that's fine, but what bothers me is the many millions of people who take him at his word simply because it's him saying it.
There's no doubt he's a genius, but he's certainly not someone I'd take the word of when he tells me the universe is this or that.
I really struggle with his Big Bang Theory if only for what it doesn't say. For example, it doesn't say what occupied the space the universe currently occupies, and if it's still expanding, what is it expanding into? What is it replacing?
He goes on to say that if the universe is expanding at an ever slowing rate then at some point it must stop expanding. Not content with that he then says that if it isn't expanding then it must begin contracting and if it contracts then it must contract back to it's primal state of nothing.
That's everything and everyone totally fucked then isn't it?
IT is to man's eternal arrogance that he cannot accept that the universe is built on chaos, and that man's place in it is not by design of God, or Special Favoured Status from Nature. We are nothing in the true cosmic stellar playground and we could be extinguished by an asteroid and the universe will simply trundle along nicely without us, just as it always did before our little ball came into existence, and as it will long after our own Sun has gone supernova and devoured our planet and everything on it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Hawkins is (in)famous for staking his reputation on a new theory only to retract it when he decides something else is right and he was wrong previously. Ok, so you might say he's man enough to admit when he's made a mistake, that's fine, but what bothers me is the many millions of people who take him at his word simply because it's him saying it.
There's no doubt he's a genius, but he's certainly not someone I'd take the word of when he tells me the universe is this or that.
I really struggle with his Big Bang Theory if only for what it doesn't say. For example, it doesn't say what occupied the space the universe currently occupies, and if it's still expanding, what is it expanding into? What is it replacing?
He goes on to say that if the universe is expanding at an ever slowing rate then at some point it must stop expanding. Not content with that he then says that if it isn't expanding then it must begin contracting and if it contracts then it must contract back to it's primal state of nothing.
That's everything and everyone totally fucked then isn't it?
IT is to man's eternal arrogance that he cannot accept that the universe is built on chaos, and that man's place in it is not by design of God, or Special Favoured Status from Nature. We are nothing in the true cosmic stellar playground and we could be extinguished by an asteroid and the universe will simply trundle along nicely without us, just as it always did before our little ball came into existence, and as it will long after our own Sun has gone supernova and devoured our planet and everything on it."
Mmmmmm...I agree mostly with your comments about hawking, I think he belives he KNOWS everything, even stated there is no life after death...
But i believe if one thing changes...everything changes,
Our absence from the universe would be felt!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
IT is to man's eternal arrogance that he cannot accept that the universe is built on chaos, and that man's place in it is not by design of God, or Special Favoured Status from Nature. We are nothing in the true cosmic stellar playground and we could be extinguished by an asteroid and the universe will simply trundle along nicely without us, just as it always did before our little ball came into existence, and as it will long after our own Sun has gone supernova and devoured our planet and everything on it."
Agree - except that perhaps it's not only about what we've been, but what we could become and we have come a long way in a very short space of time.
Agree about Hawkings too. Found his book dull, whereas Brian Cox I find very interesting.. and I saw D:REAM in Sheffield |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
*takes a long hard look in the mirror*
