A Night with the Stars

MattC59

Anyone watching Brian Cox's "A Night with the Stars' on BBC2 at the moment ?

Marvellous !!!!

Barely scratched the surface of quantum physics, but good stuff, never the less !!

15peter20

MattC59

Yeah, but we all know how you like Trolling.
:roll:

wiffachip

who was the bloke with the weird haircut, the one in the audience not the presenter ?

a daft wife poured some sand through some slits, two blokes played with a skipping rope.

poor

MattC59

Paul Foot (A commedian apparently)

why was it poor ?

wiffachip

cos the entertainment value was zero and the diamond didn't jump out of the box at the end

just realised the wife with the sand is a sandancer, suspect that was lost on plastic face though

was Paul Foot in the Vapors ?

MattC59

Double post

MattC59

wiffachip wrote:

cos the entertainment value was zero and the diamond didn't jump out of the box at the end
just realised the wife with the sand is a sandancer, suspect that was lost on plastic face though

was Paul Foot in the Vapors ?

Other than the section in bold, above (and he did explain why), I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

BigG67

I loved it. I don't care if he's an arse (and that's up for debate) it was a really compelling way to present physics. I fancy that those who turn there nose up at "populous" science are the same types that don't like newbies on "their" forums.

Only complaint.....on too late for kind. Bless Sky+...

Yossie

Agree that it was a very good way of presenting physics to the public massif, but he is an arse: very full of and fancies himself . I was prepared to let him off until the end sequence with the cameras following following him out of the building like he was on his way to Spartacus with some surrender treaty.

I think he's basically trying to do what anyone would do in his position- create a USP and therefore be more marketable. You can't blame him (tv presenting definitly pays more that lecturing), and at the end of the day, you'll always get a arse/he's really good split.

Looking forward to the Christmas lectures though - always a good excuse to drink and edukate myself: like being back at University in the good old days, but less poor and cold.

jim453

I thought it was crap.

The Royal Institution have been doing this a million times better for close on to two hundred years at the Christmas Lectures.

bianchimoon

as you say barely scratched the surface, but to get a prog about quantum physics on BBC at primetime is a great step in the right direction to balance the sh1te that primetime normally attracts. Hopefully some kids will have been watching clandestinely in the bedroom whilst mum and dad were watching some dodgy reality show on E4.

ddraver

I thought it was great, I ve got a lot of time for him, I think he explains things very well. (I ve never understood the whole particle/wave thing before, the double split demonstrations were like a lightbulb going on for me).

I understand why physicists don't find him too interesting, but funnily enough what with me being a geologist, i don't tend to find the geology/Earth history programs too enlightening. (I'm adult enough to repect the scottish guy that does present them though as I'm aware that no one is going to watch a program on the actual cutting edge of geology, in the same way that a full on lecture on quantum theory would baffle most of us).

Infinite Monkey cage is a well put together show, with a good balance of funnies and science and is the only rational/skeptic show broadcast in the UK.

I don't think people give him enough credit for his main work. Put simply, you don't get a job at CERN because you re a celebrity, they don't need them.

Cleat Eastwood

jim453 wrote:

The Royal Institution have been doing this a million times better for close on to two hundred years at the Christmas Lectures.

I only caught the end of it - and totally agree - the xmas lectures are far more engaging and fun. I think Cox's problem is that he is seen as the popular face of science and hence has to find a way to popularise it - but given that even Horizon has dumbed down it coverage of cutting edge scientific knowledge then anything is better than nothing - and hasnt he changed since he starred in Manhunter.

ddraver

^What would you have done differently?

Cleat Eastwood

1. I'd have had it on a different channel

2. I'd have had it on a different subject.

3. I'd have had a different presenter.

4. More large breasted bipeds in nurses costumes.

TheStone

Just watched it now. Thought it was quite good.

Similar to the RI christmas lectures that have been on TV for years .... with a few stars thrown in.

Has anyone tried his new book? Is it worth getting?

plowmar

Re book it's supposed to be quite accademic rather than populous. So from that I take it that you will need a more than basic knowledge to be worth it. So if you have then could be a good buy.

izza

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

1. I'd have had it on a different channel

2. I'd have had it on a different subject.

3. I'd have had a different presenter.

4. More large breasted bipeds in nurses costumes.

+1 (or given point 4. should that be +2)

Turned off after skipping rope bit as he was boring me to tears.

MattC59

TheStone wrote:

Just watched it now. Thought it was quite good.

Similar to the RI christmas lectures that have been on TV for years .... with a few stars thrown in.

Has anyone tried his new book? Is it worth getting?

Which one ? I've read "E=MC2 and why chould we care" and it's a good read. (If you like that sort of thing).
It's not as overly simplified as the tv show was the other night, but takes you from first principals to the above mentioned equation.

Cleat Eastwood

MattC59 wrote:

TheStone wrote:

Just watched it now. Thought it was quite good.

Similar to the RI christmas lectures that have been on TV for years .... with a few stars thrown in.

Has anyone tried his new book? Is it worth getting?

Which one ? I've read "E=MC2 and why chould we care" and it's a good read. (If you like that sort of thing).
It's not as overly simplified as the tv show was the other night, but takes you from first principals to the above mentioned equation.

Ha ha brilliant young Matthew, how is that for a stroke of luck, - thats the book my bro wants for xmas and he all could remember was it had e=mc2 in the title - I'll be off to waterstones tomoz.

jimmcdonnell

The RI Christmas Lectures WERE great, they've been a spent force for years, only good for the 30-second-attention-span generations. Look back at some of the great past (but relatively recent) lectures, like David Attenborough in '73, Prof Eric Laithwate in '74 (the Engineer Through the Looking Glass, still a favourite childhood memory) or Carl Sagan in '77 (Carl Sagan!), when they were more didactic and information-heavy. The Lectures used to be something I eagerly anticipated at Xmas, now I just watch and go all Victor Meldrew over them. The year they removed the famous lecture hall desk was the death of them for me. I was lucky enough to go to one in the late 90s, that was still pretty special even if the Lecture wasn't.

But then that's me and my age speaking, I can't get on with current info-lite science tv (a trap which museums are falling into as well, alas).

I thought Cox's lecture was ok, he was clearly trying to channel the spirit of the RI Lectures, as well as (as usual, and no bad thing) Feynman and Sagan but he needs to tone down the grinning rock star thing or it's going to devalue his very real explanatory and communicative abilities.

His recent Quantum book was pretty good, clear and enthusiastic - didn't need any greater levels of knowledge and understanding than other similar pop-science books.

kentphil

I thought A Night with the stars was very good. It put complex subjects across in an easy to understand way. I can't understand why all the negative comments? It was a prime time show after all. if you want more in depth understanding there are plenty of books to read on the subjects covered.

alanp23

I missed the start, but quite enjoyed it. I thought the hydrogen in soap bubbles explosion was good.

I'm still not convinced by the explanations to the double slit experiment though.

Stewie Griffin

alanp23 wrote:

I missed the start, but quite enjoyed it. I thought the hydrogen in soap bubbles explosion was good.

I still don't understand the explanations to the double slit experiment though.

:P

Cleat Eastwood

alanp23 wrote:

I missed the start, but quite enjoyed it. I thought the hydrogen in soap bubbles explosion was good.

I'm still not convinced by the explanations to the double slit experiment though.

double slit--mmmm-- <dreams>Claire Balding</dreams>

MattC59

alanp23 wrote:

I missed the start, but quite enjoyed it. I thought the hydrogen in soap bubbles explosion was good.

I'm still not convinced by the explanations to the double slit experiment though.

Let me tell you a story about the twins at Frank the Tank's local !!!

mr_goo

Whatever you may think of Prof Brian Cox, you must admit that he does endeavour to explain things on a level that the 'average joe' can understand. I thought the programme was good, would have been excellent if the participating audience were just ordinary public and not 'celebs' trying to come across as having some mild interest in the sciences.

Engaging scientists like Brian Cox and Michio Kaku have made the world of physics very popular for kids at school. I understand that Physics degree courses are now over subscribed along with the other sciences. Cannot be a bad thing, surely?