I think he maybe means the time as far as the light itself is concerned which is zero. Or maybe not.:)
Thanks bobcar you explained so much better than I ever could.. And yes the CERN scientists didn't accelerate neutrinos I just oversimplified it.. Bt thanks again for answering.. It still really impossible to get my head round these theories.. Quantum mechanics and string theories are amazing... I wish I was born in this decade or maybe in ten years time...
Does anyone know when or what channel the programme about what the future holds with Stephen hawking is gonna be on TV??
He has the strange ability to be extremely intelligent but sound extremely thick. When he's on something for the weekend with Dim Lovejoy I feel like I'm watching Beavis and Butthead.
Yeah. He sucks. Don't you just, like, hate things that suck.
And its kind of strange all the :)Cheshire Cat :)grinning he does all the time. I suppose though, that when you stop for a moment to contemplate it, that's when you realise it's all part of the format of the programme.:)
Yeah. He sucks. Don't you just, like, hate things that suck.
And its kind of strange all the :)Cheshire Cat :)grinning he does all the time. I suppose though, that when you stop for a moment to contemplate it, that's when you realise it's all part of the format of the programme.:)
So he might not be able to smile any other way? I have problems forcing smiles. Do you hate me too?
He bores me rigid. I turn over after about five mins. His programs ascribe to the fact the public does not have an attention span of more than five minutes without having to see pretty pictures. However his programs ARE aimed at people with little science background and that is a good thing. I thought 'Beyond The Speed of Light' was great, because they assumed some pre understanding there of the Special Theory of Relativity.
I know why E=mc(squared). I had to derive it from first principles in my exam.
I think BC is starting to believe his own publicity too much.
And surely that is the point of his programmes?
I see little point in producing programmes to a mass audience when, within 5 minutes, the presenter has gone completely over their heads.
You might be able to derive E=MC(squared) from first principles, but for the majority who drop Science as soon as they choose their options @ 13, that is far beyond what they are able to do. Although I believe now you have to take at least one Science-based subject, but that certainly never used to be the case.
I am sure the education authorities would say if one of his programmes encourages a single 13 year old to look towards science as a potential career he has achieved the purpose of the programmes.
As for the use of graphics? Why not? I would rather see that than watch some dusty old professor in a brown corduroy jacket with leather elbow patches droning on endlessly - that would be guaranteed to get me reaching for the off button..
He's bloomin clever bloke, only have to read some of his research papers to appreciate that one.
I don't think he's pretentious or up his own backside at all. I see a bloke fascinated with the universe around him and is passionate about exploring that. I felt a bit sorry for him that the beeb have turned him into a character of ridicule for the vast expense that the 'Wonders' programs obviously must've cost. He's there to provide the human touch in conveying complex scientific discoveries and concepts for people that have little or no grounding in science. There's a reason why his programs are on BBC1 and other more technical programs (ie the recent speed of light program) are on BBC4. I doubt he sets the travel budget and compiles the flasy animations.
As for saying billions and billions etc.....I don't think most people understand orders of magnitude if they don't use them or have even heard of them. It's hard to convey large numbers such as 3.0x10^24 if you have no concept how big that actually is, and if you do then it's likely that most of the programs will wash over you anyway.
Not that I profess to know him personally. However his delivery on TV does come across in a sort of mildly irritated smug condescending manner.
I just get the feeling from his showmanship of him always having in the back of his mind.
“Now I am doing this, I don’t expect you to understand viewer and I may be wasting mine and your time in doing this but. Alas it’s my job tonight is to throw pearls amongst swine.
I am sure some of the things he extrapolates on is very interesting such as the 3rd law of thermodynamics etc I found interesting. On the lecture circuit he’s probably quite interesting, but alas he’s just here at the right time to fill a gap in the viewing market.
However his delivery is neither a dry Open University Lecture, Nor a Carl Sagan this is so wonderful.
As for his tosser comment about ghosts believers I cannot comment on as I don’t believe they exist either, however that remark was the remark of a person with little or no ability in tact and diplomacy. And like many a tv showperson I am sure he will end up just another one who becomes a caricature of himself.
Comments
Whichever way you look at it I think it's all mindbendingly wonderful.
Thanks bobcar you explained so much better than I ever could.. And yes the CERN scientists didn't accelerate neutrinos I just oversimplified it.. Bt thanks again for answering.. It still really impossible to get my head round these theories.. Quantum mechanics and string theories are amazing... I wish I was born in this decade or maybe in ten years time...
Does anyone know when or what channel the programme about what the future holds with Stephen hawking is gonna be on TV??
Yeah. He sucks. Don't you just, like, hate things that suck.
And its kind of strange all the :)Cheshire Cat :)grinning he does all the time. I suppose though, that when you stop for a moment to contemplate it,
And surely that is the point of his programmes?
I see little point in producing programmes to a mass audience when, within 5 minutes, the presenter has gone completely over their heads.
You might be able to derive E=MC(squared) from first principles, but for the majority who drop Science as soon as they choose their options @ 13, that is far beyond what they are able to do. Although I believe now you have to take at least one Science-based subject, but that certainly never used to be the case.
I am sure the education authorities would say if one of his programmes encourages a single 13 year old to look towards science as a potential career he has achieved the purpose of the programmes.
As for the use of graphics? Why not? I would rather see that than watch some dusty old professor in a brown corduroy jacket with leather elbow patches droning on endlessly - that would be guaranteed to get me reaching for the off button..
No but you might be.
I don't think he's pretentious or up his own backside at all. I see a bloke fascinated with the universe around him and is passionate about exploring that. I felt a bit sorry for him that the beeb have turned him into a character of ridicule for the vast expense that the 'Wonders' programs obviously must've cost. He's there to provide the human touch in conveying complex scientific discoveries and concepts for people that have little or no grounding in science. There's a reason why his programs are on BBC1 and other more technical programs (ie the recent speed of light program) are on BBC4. I doubt he sets the travel budget and compiles the flasy animations.
As for saying billions and billions etc.....I don't think most people understand orders of magnitude if they don't use them or have even heard of them. It's hard to convey large numbers such as 3.0x10^24 if you have no concept how big that actually is, and if you do then it's likely that most of the programs will wash over you anyway.
Yes
I just get the feeling from his showmanship of him always having in the back of his mind.
“Now I am doing this, I don’t expect you to understand viewer and I may be wasting mine and your time in doing this but. Alas it’s my job tonight is to throw pearls amongst swine.
I am sure some of the things he extrapolates on is very interesting such as the 3rd law of thermodynamics etc I found interesting. On the lecture circuit he’s probably quite interesting, but alas he’s just here at the right time to fill a gap in the viewing market.
However his delivery is neither a dry Open University Lecture, Nor a Carl Sagan this is so wonderful.
As for his tosser comment about ghosts believers I cannot comment on as I don’t believe they exist either, however that remark was the remark of a person with little or no ability in tact and diplomacy. And like many a tv showperson I am sure he will end up just another one who becomes a caricature of himself.