I am not a scientist - I have no knowledge of that aspect of things but I watched the C4 documentary this evening and was in tears and so moved that I feel compelled to write something as a result of watching Stephen Hawking on C4 this evening. I still don't totally understand why I'm crying but despite regularly crying over the documentaries on C4 - this was different - I've seen one previous portrayal of his life - a drama of his early life - and that stayed with me, and many mimics of him in comedy shows etc - but this was the first time that I saw him for real on TV - the most real I can get to meeting such a person.
As a lay-person, it has left me astounded at the human mind and it's spirit to survive and it's ability to discover let alone the ability that such a man has to even channel his energies into something that he probably knows few of us can understand - never mind a disablity he must struggle with each day.
I watched it - because I wanted to know more about this man - and I found myself grabbling with physics with a less than 0'level understanding - and I got lost on really what it was all about in depth - although I've been to planetariums and tried to understand some of what the universe is about - but I was delighted that what was explained was undertstandable - not all of it - but I got a glimpse of what it is about, and a glimpse of what Stephen Hawking is trying to do along with those that work with him - who he seems to be inspiring if not to go with him - but to fight against him.
It was humbling and awe-inspiring.
I'm sure that Stephen Hawking has many critics on many levels.
But for me, I thank C4 for doing a documentary on this man in this way - it was the first time I had ever had the chance to see him - and realise what he is trying to achieve.
Serious, I have heard many comics - and even adverts take his identity - and understood that aspect but never until now I have I the chance to realise what an increadible man he is.
The documentary touched on his private life - and I suspect he would be the first to acknowledge that even without a disability - he may have been difficult to live with - but thank you all for giving us lay people a chance to see the man - and for giving us a bit of a glimpse into what he is trying to do - even if we don't understand more than a small partical of it.
hi there, i recently watched master of the universe and loved it...i also really liked the soundtrack and background music but cant seem to find a list of credits on the web? does anyone know where i can buy the soundtrack, or does anyone at c4 have a list of artist/track names for the music?
I watched the program both weeks and I find myself listening with some inability to grasp what they are talking or that such a broad collection of people/experts can believe what is being claimed, especially in the second program. I here what they are saying but asking me to believe what they are saying is not possible. I don't believe it is because I lack intelligence. I find myself listening to the people and wondering how they can believe all the theory or how someone can be so confident to make such claims. I believe in the importance of what we don't know and not the importance of what we know. I believe in the existence of brainwashing and mind conditioning and if I knew many of those people in real-life I would not think they are geniuses. My Judgement would either be reserved or I would not think highly of them at all. The arguements are almost akin to religion/faith based arguements which I find annoying
How can you astronomers of all people, who should be most aware of the size of the observed universe, possibly believe that those stars, nebulae and so on, that you see in your telescopes were once, some 13.7 billion years go, encapsulated within a ‘primeval atom', which is orders of magnitude smaller than a pinhead?
What does it mean, ayway, to talk aut the size of the universe? What can this possibly mean? the ‘universe’ is everything there is. Outside it there is, by definition, nothing – not even empty space. There is no time, no volume, no anything. In that case, what can it mean that the universe is ‘expanding’, ‘contracting’ or whatever? Against what can that ‘expansion’ or ‘contraction’ possibly be measured? The same goes, of course, for the idea of the ‘Big Bang’ of universal creation. As the little schoolgirl on the TV advert asked: ‘If the universe is expanding, then what is it expanding into?’ Not only is the idea of universal expansion completely ridiculous from any commonsense point of view, it is also logically and linguistically incoherent. Although invariably stated to be fact, the ‘expanding universe’ is never more than just a theory, as its adherents are forced to admit when pushed. Also, the interpretations of the evidence on which that theory is based are interpretable in other, much more sane and sensible ways. For instance, the fact that those nebulae exhibit a spectral redshift in proportion to their distance by no means logically entails that they are receding from us. What is undeniable is that the light from any body receding from us is red-shifted, also that galaxies are red-shifted in proportion to their estimated distance, as Hubble and Slipher have ascertained. But to say that this means that just because those galaxies are redshifted they are flying away from us is like saying that because all Irishmen are human beings, all human beings are Irish. (All receding bodies are redshifted, so all redshifted bodies are receding.) Besides, there are explanations of the Hubble redshift which are perfectly adequate, without that extravagant assumption of galactic recession and its associated 'Big Bang'beginning. Why, then don't we see these explanations in the media? It's not because they are wrong but simply because, being more commonplace and sensible, they aren't exciting enough to capture the attention of the media in the way the more gimmicky theories and their proponents are.
Consider also the recent furore about ‘gravity’. Is it ‘gravity that holds everything in the universe together, that makes planets, stars, and galaxies orbit one another with completely invisible forces acting in the vacuum? As most scientists well know,‘Gravity’ is a fictitious force invented by Newton. He surmised, with no evidence for it whatsoever, that bodies moving freely in space,travel in absolutely straight lines in space. But the plain fact is that nowhere are freely moving bodies, such as the sun, moon, and the stars in galaxies observed to move in that assumed way. This Newton explained by inventing a new law of ‘universal gravitation’ whereby all bodies exert on one another an invisible ‘force of gravity’ which prevents them from travelling in straight lines and makes them orbit one another instead. All this can be dispensed with at a stroke. This is by adding to Newton’s rectilinear momentum mv just one other parameter, r by which straight-line momentum becomes curved angular momentum mvr, where m and v are mass and velocity and r is the distance between bodies. What was it, then, that made Newton’s apple fall to the ground? It was not some mysterious 'force of gravity’ acting in space, as Newton supposed,it was simply that the angular momentum which the apple receives from the earth’s motion was not sufficiently large for it to orbit at that distance from the earth’s centre of mass. If the earth, with the same mass that it normally has, were much smaller – say the size of an orange – then calculation reveals that with that small amount of angular momentum the apple had, due to its diurnal rotation, it would orbit that centre with an orbital radius which is a very small fraction of the earth’s normal surface radius. But since the earth’s solid surface prevents the apple from following that natural force-free orbit, when the apple strikes the ground the force of reaction that the earth’s surface exerts on it, by Newton’s Second Law of action-reaction is the force that we normally think of as ‘weight’. In this way, the phenomenon of ‘weight’ is an actual, measurable force measured on the earth, not a realforce acting in the vacuum or void between the apple and the earth. In its state of free-fall, there is no force acting on the apple whatsoever.
All this is explained in detail in a new book entitled Light-Speed, Gravitation and Quantum Instantaneity, by A. D. Osborne and N. V. Pope. This book presents a theoretically clean-shaven version of relativistic quantum physics known as POAMS (the Pope-Osborne Angular Momentum Synthesis). This presents not another theory to add to the general theoretical confusion. It is an anti-theory, obtained by shaving off the hoary theoretical accretion to reveal the barest of the relevant observational facts (This is the principle of science known as Ocham's Razor). This new philosophical approach to physics begins in a short correspondence between Pope and Albert Einstein in 1954, just four years prior to Einstein’s death. That new approach is known as Normal Realism, which is a modern development of the empiricist philosophy of Ernst Mach. The book is now available on Amazon Books at wewbsite
Its spelt "Occams razor" you muppet. As for "Normal Realism", it sounds like physics for hippies. Does the book come with free crystals and and money off chakra candles?
Originally posted by poams: What does it mean, ayway, to talk aut the size of the universe? What can this possibly mean? the ‘universe’ is everything there is. Outside it there is, by definition, nothing – not even empty space. There is no time, no volume, no anything. In that case, what can it mean that the universe is ‘expanding’, ‘contracting’ or whatever? Against what can that ‘expansion’ or ‘contraction’ possibly be measured?
The speed of light.
quote:
Besides, there are explanations of the Hubble redshift which are perfectly adequate, without that extravagant assumption of galactic recession and its associated 'Big Bang'beginning. Why, then don't we see these explanations in the media?
What is this website if not part of the media? You wrote a lot there and you could have given your non-extravagant explanation for the galactic red-shifts but you chose not to.
Just for the record, I'm for 'steady state theory'.
Best regards, suricat.
Even ignoring the expansion of the universe the steady state theory has to square the finite lifespan of stars with the fact that any still exist (which if the universe had been around forever they would have long since vanished). Old Fred Hoyle gave some hand waving guff about new matter spontaniously being created. Well so far no one has spotted this. Perhaps its all invisible? And lets not forget it must be in perfect balance with the matter than would be slowly disappearing otherwise again the universe by now would be almost empty or full to the brim with matter. Sorry , but the steady state theory is intellectually bankrupt.
I can't begin to imagine the quantity of mass 'stuck' in 'black holes'. These atom grinders throw out a lot of mass in the neutrinos that we 'are' able to observe. What else do they 'spew out' that we 'can't' observe and why can't we observe the actual 'black holes' themselves? How long does it take for light to emerge from the core of a new sun and doesn't this depend on its total mass?
quote:
Sorry , but the steady state theory is intellectually bankrupt.
I wouldn't imagine this for one minute. Impossible to observe with current science and a short time-span, perhaps, but not intellectually bankrupt (unless you are describing research money).
Muf, that was my 100th post to you and I messed it up (don't know what happened). This is what I meant!
quote:
Don't forget SOM, you can measure both temperature and time and neither of them exist
Muf I thought you understood 'ratios'! It's a proportionality thing (ratio-metric). Wink
Best regards, suricat.
You know something suricat, in your 100th post to me, you reminded me of the reason I joined this forum, and though I've been side-tracked by global warming, theoretical physics is still my first love, so I apologize for making light of this thread. Stephen Hawking in the header made me think this was 'junk science' and I submitted to my base instincts
I had a quick look at the poams website - an interesting idea but they have a lot of explaining to do. Things like light being bent by a gravitational field / the curved spacetime that Einstein predicted and was confirmed by observation to a remarkable degree of accuracy.
Additionally to make new predictions they need to demonstrate a mathematical theory that differs from the classical Einstein GR ie not just a reformulation using a transformation that embeds 'C' someway but that predicts the same results (as that would).
So how does their mathematical theory differ? Do they disagree with the Equivalence Principle (see Wiki)?
Are they adding /removing quantities from Einsteins tensor formulation of GR? Or suggesting a tensor formulation is inappropriate? I could go on...but won't.
You know something suricat, in your 100th post to me, you reminded me of the reason I joined this forum, and though I've been side-tracked by global warming, theoretical physics is still my first love, so I apologize for making light of this thread.
No probs muf. It's mine too!
Why don't you start your own thread on the theoretical physics of your choice? Though global warming 'is' mostly 'theoretical'. That's why I post so much, because it would be nice to have a 'clearer' definition anyway.
Like I said , for ths steady state theory to work the amount of matter spontanoiusly created would have to EXACTLY balance
So what if it was like a cosmic conservation of energy + matter law where total energy+matter is constant, there is an event horizon and once over the event horizon (energy/matter) is recycled in the observed universe. De Sitter had steady state solutions for Einstein's equations. Red shift can be obtained by including the cosmological constant in Einstein's equations. So over any length of time the universe would have the same character. Black holes could still exist along with all the quantum physics. And maybe background microwave radiation, instead of being a remnant of the big bang is a product of the recycling process.
