A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

Horizon disappointing



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 11th 15, 11:02 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
David Woolley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 550
Default Horizon disappointing

On 10/09/15 15:25, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Bob Latham
wrote:



Now to a thicky like me that begs a question. If everything came from a
singularity big bang and then flew out into space how can it possibly be
so far away that light hasn't reached us yet when matter cannot get
anywhere near the speed of light?



IIRC the conventional answer is along the lines of; "Inflation. During a
short time after the 'big bang' the universe expanded its size so rapidly
that the distances grew more quickly than light could cover the changes in
distance. Hence various bits are now 'over the horizon' from others."


The other factor is that I think the general belief is that it was a
density singularity, not just a mass singularity, i.e. the big bang
focus was itself infinite in size, and therefore there is no centre of
the universe.

Ads
  #22  
Old September 11th 15, 12:13 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Ian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,707
Default Horizon disappointing

In message , Jim Lesurf
writes
In article , Brian Mc
wrote:
Brian-Gaff wrote:
: Last night there was supposed to be a Horizon talking about the
: universes dark ages and all that stuff. The actual content could have
: been dealt with in about 15 minutes. Instead it rambled on for almost
: an hour going over the same stuff apparently with some arty farty
: pointless animations and lots of choral singing and people who
: sounded like they were talking down drainpipes.


: What a mess.


They did EXACTLY the same, I thought, last week with the "Multiple
Parallel Universes" edition. Lots of nice music, balloons floating on
lakes, etc. etc. - no real science!


Worse than that. They proceeded to muddle up quite different uses of the
term "many universes". So any innocent viewer would have understood even
*less* than before about the topics (allegedly) covered.

You reminded me of this, from the programme,

"...think that our Universe is not alone.
Its just one of an infinite number of weird and wonderful worlds."

It was also pretty obviously aimed at a USA audience. Dominated by
academics working in the USA, etc. I think they also used some common
American english terms for some things as well. But I've now forgotten the
details as I found the results so tedious. I looked at a recording and
started skipping chunks looking for any real meat. None I could find.

Jim


--
Ian
  #23  
Old September 11th 15, 01:05 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Roderick Stewart[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,246
Default Horizon disappointing

On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:28:53 +0100, "Brian-Gaff"
wrote:

Say what you like about Bryan Cox, at least he does try to explain things,
but one gets the distinct impression of late that he is at odds with the
producers of some shows.


One of the most memorable scenes in any of his broadcasts was where he
was explaining the retrograde motions of the planets by scratching
lines in the dirt with a stick, and using pebbles to represent the
planets. I thought "At last! somebody actually understands what a
proper explanation of something requires". It was almost as good as a
revival of Patrick Moore's cardboard captions. Unfortunately, I
haven't seen him do anything like it since. I expect the producers
were horrorstruck at the thought of being unable to justify their
obscene production budgets should he be allowed to continue.

Rod.
  #24  
Old September 11th 15, 01:41 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Jim Lesurf[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,326
Default Horizon disappointing

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:


IIRC the conventional answer is along the lines of; "Inflation. During
a short time after the 'big bang' the universe expanded its size so
rapidly that the distances grew more quickly than light could cover
the changes in distance. Hence various bits are now 'over the horizon'
from others."


Is that the answer he gives?


I think he remarks that it isn't matter travelling through space at all.
It is space itself that expands and it can expand faster than light.


The problem is that the theories and ideas tend to use terms like 'space'
in ways that aren't part of our everyday grasp of what is meant.

At this point the usual analogy is something like drawing a set of dots on
a balloon to represent various places. Then to rapidly inflate the balloon.
But of course this is just an analogy which in itself can mislead in other
ways.

So my next question is what is space? This stuff that can expand faster
than light? Can you expand "nothing"?


Ah, well, 'space' isn't 'nothing'. 8-] Its (arguably) packed full of
something. You will also come across ideas like 'zero point energy' and
Dirac's sea of virtual 'stuff' which packs it.

As I've said before, I'm no physicist but I'm still entitled to an
opinion and I think...


Inflation Dark Matter Dark Energy Dark flow


Are all descriptions of where understood physics stops explaining things
and they are descriptions of a problem with the theory, not answers.


I'm inclined to agree. :-)

They are attempts to explain how what we do think we understand can explain
or tie together some of the odder things we observe. My own feeling as I
said previously is that they may simply all be apparent facets of some
general underlaying behaviour we haven't twigged.

Personally I'm quite happy with the idea that there *are* things (however
you want to describe them) that can cheerfully act at a distance faster
than light. Accepting that demolishes a lot of the worries of the current
ideas. e.g. No more problem with QM 'spooky actions' or 'spawning new
universes'. No more problem with why they're struggling to detect gravity
waves. No more problems with superluminal inflation of 'space', and so on.
probably no more problems trying to reconcile gravity with the other
forces.

Also likely to be very handy to find that:

A) we can communicate/travel FTL

B) Lots of energy density to make use of whereever we are.

We just need to find a suitable handle.

But all that's just my feeling seeing the knots the theory boys tie
themselves into and try to hide under baffling maths. May be a case of
Baloney Baffles Brains. 8-]

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

  #25  
Old September 11th 15, 01:46 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Jim Lesurf[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,326
Default Horizon disappointing

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article , David Woolley
wrote:


The other factor is that I think the general belief is that it was a
density singularity, not just a mass singularity, i.e. the big bang
focus was itself infinite in size, and therefore there is no centre of
the universe.


Well David thanks for the input but to be honest that muddies the waters
even more, what on earth does that mean?


The prof mentioned that the big bang happened everywhere. Is that
similar to what you are saying?


Everywhere was the same place as there was no distance between them. That's
the argument anyway.


So at the big bang 'everywhere' is small, the universe is small. Then
inflation expands the universe at greater than the speed of light.


So what was outside of the universe at that time? Why was that not
"space"?


Back to the balloon analogy. :-) If you live on the surface of a balloon
and have no way to 'see' anywhere that isn't on its surface you can walk
along its surface forever and never find its 'end' or a 'beyond'. Space may
simply curve back on itself like that and we can't (yet) detect the added
'directions'. You may be able to deduce these from seeing the effects of
the curvature, and so invent special relativity, but still can't see or
access them.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

  #26  
Old September 11th 15, 01:55 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Jim Lesurf[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,326
Default Horizon disappointing

In article , Ian
wrote:
Worse than that. They proceeded to muddle up quite different uses of
the term "many universes". So any innocent viewer would have understood
even *less* than before about the topics (allegedly) covered.

You reminded me of this, from the programme,


"...think that our Universe is not alone. Its just one of an infinite
number of weird and wonderful worlds."


I felt it was a pity they didn't look back at the history of cosmology at
an example which may be instructive. If you real old enough books you find
that...

About a century ago we had no real idea that we were in a 'galaxy' that
*wasn't* just the same thing as what we called the 'universe'. It was
assumed that the (limited) space was filled fairly uniformly with stars.

Then people started to twig that we were in a body of stars rotating in
some sort of elliptical or spiral distribution and some of the fuzzy blobs
were other similar distributions that were vastly more distant than we'd
realised.

For a time some books then described what we now call 'galaxies' as 'other
universes'. In the end the meanings of the words adjusted to the more
modern practice. So we now have 'galaxies' scatterred across a 'universe'.
Again it was assumed the galaxies were uniformly scatterred... until we
found that they aren't... heads were duly scratched in puzzlement...

Maybe we're just doing that again here. But on an even grander scale.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

  #27  
Old September 11th 15, 06:54 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
tony sayer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,001
Default Horizon disappointing

In article , Bob Latham [email protected]
of-spam.invalid scribeth thus
In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:

IIRC the conventional answer is along the lines of; "Inflation. During a
short time after the 'big bang' the universe expanded its size so
rapidly that the distances grew more quickly than light could cover the
changes in distance. Hence various bits are now 'over the horizon' from
others."


Is that the answer he gives?


I think he remarks that it isn't matter travelling through space at all.
It is space itself that expands and it can expand faster than light.

So my next question is what is space? This stuff that can expand faster
than light? Can you expand "nothing"?

As I've said before, I'm no physicist but I'm still entitled to an opinion
and I think...

Inflation
Dark Matter
Dark Energy
Dark flow

Are all descriptions of where understood physics stops explaining things
and they are descriptions of a problem with the theory, not answers.

Bob.


Include in that women won't you?, after all Stephen Hawking said a while
ago he is understanding more re the cosmos but he'd never understand
women;!...

--
Tony Sayer



  #28  
Old September 12th 15, 10:37 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Brian-Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 576
Default Horizon disappointing

By the way, I note that Nature has a Youtube channel, and I often listen to
their audio podcasts. Many of these seem far more concise and understandable
to me than any recent Horizon on the same subjects. Its surely, therefore,
wrong to say scientists are not getting better at communicating with the
public, and there is no need for these dumbed down versions of it all.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Indy Jess John" wrote in message
...
On 10/09/2015 10:15, Brian-Gaff wrote:
Last night there was supposed to be a Horizon talking about the
universes
dark ages and all that stuff.
What a mess.


Thanks for the tip Brian. I was out last night and had planned to watch
it on iPlayer this evening. I won't bother now.

Jim



  #29  
Old September 12th 15, 06:03 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
John Hall[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 265
Default Horizon disappointing

In message , Brian-Gaff
writes
By the way, I note that Nature has a Youtube channel, and I often
listen to their audio podcasts. Many of these seem far more concise and
understandable to me than any recent Horizon on the same subjects. Its
surely, therefore, wrong to say scientists are not getting better at
communicating with the public, and there is no need for these dumbed
down versions of it all.


There are also some good science programmes on Radio 4 from time to
time.
--
John Hall
"Honest criticism is hard to take,
particularly from a relative, a friend,
an acquaintance, or a stranger." Franklin P Jones
  #30  
Old September 13th 15, 08:50 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Java Jive[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,774
Default Horizon disappointing

The great advantage of downloading is that you can then play back
programmes like Horizon at fast speed. I don't think I miss much, if
anything at all ...

On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 10:15:28 +0100, "Brian-Gaff"
wrote:

Talk about stringing it out. There was nothing new in it over what I could
have read five years ago, and apart from the bloke and his aussie aerial
array, which could have been explained in more detail, it was just
scientists that sound like scientists with dodgy accents and a few Aussies.

--
================================================== ======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2020 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.