Wonders of the Universe

[wreckedit]

I was quite interested in what Brian Cox was explaining about the Universe but he completely lost me at the end when he showed the photograph of the earth from loads of billions of kms away.

How does the earth show up as a bright spot of light when it doesn't generate light? What a load of bullshyte that was. Somebody must have coloured it in.

 

[Biguns]

The moon doesn't generate light either. It reflects it

 

[raebhoop]

The moon doesn't generate light either. It reflects it

Wreckedit's point being that planets don't glow at billions of miles...only suns.

 

[Norcon]

Wouldn't our star be lighting it up though as a reflection?

What I found mind boggling was when he explained all the atoms in the universe would make a up a smaller number than space time in years.
Since the big bang presumably until the last black hole is history.

 

[raebhoop]

Wouldn't our star be lighting it up though as a reflection?

Not at that distance...I'm no expert but I believe the only reason we know of the existence of planets surrounding distant stars.Is that the star tends to wobble very very slightly because of the gravity from the nearby planets.

 

[merlin50]

Brian Cox is living in his own world, he makes as much sense as the bible

 

[gregers]

i like his programs,even if i dont understand them all,but he does have a face i like to smack,always seems to have a smug grin on his boat

the glacier bit was fascinating.

 

[Deluks]

Brian Cox is living in his own world, he makes as much sense as the bible

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhn8j7S4uKU

 

[Space cat]

I'm no expert but I believe the only reason we know of the existence of planets surrounding distant stars.Is that the star tends to wobble very very slightly because of the gravity from the nearby planets.

That's true, but the nearest star is 4.2 light years away. That's about 40,000,000,000,000 km in more familiar units. The Voyager picture was a close-up from a mere 6,000,000,000 km.

It was also a fiddle in as much as the six visible planets and the Sun were taken as seven separate photos, each one optimized in its own right. Mercury was too close to the Sun to be seen and Mars was also lost in solar glare. I don't know what happened to Pluto.

On a slightly different subject, I wasn't particularly impressed with the programme as a whole. His explanation of the second law of thermodynamics was woolly - I could have done a better job with a glass jar full of red and white balls - and he glossed over the rather tenuous claim that matter can simply disappear. He also completely ignored the alternative ending of a Big Crunch.

Despite all this, I'll probably watch the next episode.

 

[noseall]

How does the earth show up as a bright spot of light when it doesn't generate light? What a load of bullshyte that was. Somebody must have coloured it in

Maybe it has summat to do with the fact that we are surrounded by very reflective water.

i like his programs,even if i dont understand them all,but he does have a face i like to smack,always seems to have a smug grin on his boat.

Supercilious grin is what i would call it.

He also completely ignored the alternative ending of a Big Crunch.

As in le crunch or a Big Apple?

 

[wreckedit]

Don't you think the sun would have showed up more? It looked like a photoshop job had been done on it.

 

[Mickymoody]

I was lost in parts, then brought back, then lost again...too heavy.

 

[JohnD]

the man needs a haircut.

 

[Space cat]

Maybe it has summat to do with the fact that we are surrounded by very reflective water.

Earth does reflect quite well, though maybe not as well as Venus. It's as much to do with clouds as water. Next time there's a crescent moon, see if you can spot the rest of it faintly lit up. That's light from a 'full Earth' (well almost full) reflecting back to us.

 

[Nige F]

The moon doesn't generate light either. It reflects it

Wreckedit's point being that planets don't glow at billions of miles...only suns.

and Uranus