hifly 925 Posted October 26, 2014 Report Share Posted October 26, 2014 Tonight on BBC2 were two programmes that justify the licence fee alone. Prof Brian Cox's Human Universe where he suggests that we haven't detected alien life in the universe because, as with all civilisations they have either become extinct or have not evolved sufficiently to give us a bell. Immediately following that was a docu called Wonders of the Monsoon about the impact the monsoon rains have on humanity and the natural world. The animals in the natural world, some of which, like a leech unique to Borneo, hunts and sucks in a 70 centimetre earthworm almost beggars belief. These programmes may have been co-produced with commercial channels, but it makes me proud we have an institution that is not driven by commercial interests. Long Live the BBC. After all, they gave us Basil Fawlty. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
jaydor 345 Posted October 26, 2014 Report Share Posted October 26, 2014 I bet that Leech would love Heinz spaghetti? 1 Link to post Share on other sites
ddavid 149 Posted October 27, 2014 Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 I love young Brian - he's so unequivocal: And I think it was Fred Hoyle who said that the reason we hadn't been visited by aliens was that we lived too far away. Cheers - Dai. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
MartinW 0 Posted October 30, 2014 Report Share Posted October 30, 2014 Tonight on BBC2 were two programmes that justify the licence fee alone. Prof Brian Cox's Human Universe where he suggests that we haven't detected alien life in the universe because, as with all civilisations they have either become extinct or have not evolved sufficiently to give us a bell. Check out the Fermi paradox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox By the way, I think you are watching the repeats. Human Universe is on Tuesday BBC2 HD. Brian Cox seems to be of the opinion that we could well be the only advanced civilisation in the galaxy. Not the universe of course, as modern science tells us that the universe is flat rather than curved, thus probably infinite. So in an infinite universe any possibility that doesn't contravene the immutable laws of physics should occur. Thus many civilisations. Brian Cox's reasoning seems to be that if there were indeed advanced civilisations in our galaxy, then we would have certainly detected evidence of colonisation by Von Neumann self-replicating probes. Quite what sort of evidence he means I'm not sure, but if he means radio frequency communication he may be being a tad naïve. In my opinion, there would be a very small window in which a civilisation would use radio waves to communicate. Something tells me that an advanced species, capable of creating Von Neumann probes and colonising the galaxy with them, would be using a means of communication far more sophisticated, perhaps utilising principles of physics we are yet to discover. Even we humans, on this planet, are gradually reducing the amount of radio frequency leakage into outer space, as a result of directed communication, fibre optics etc. Link to post Share on other sites
hifly 925 Posted October 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2014 Oh! Martin, you're still around. Been on your intergalactic trails? Yep, I don't agree with Prof Cox's theory that we've missed or been missed by alien civilisations because we're in the wrong place and especially at the wrong time. He says that civilisations flourish and die which is true on this planet but a more advanced civilisation might have overcome the reasons why they die off here. Maybe if he had watched the following programme, Monsoon, he would have appreciated that nature and life will fill any niche it can find either on Earth or anywhere else in the universe. Though the question remains, if there are more advanced civilisations out there, why hasn't there been contact? Maybe they've taken a look at us and thought, Hmm let's wait until they are properly civilised, or they're listening to Chuck Berry's Rock Around the Clock from the disc on Voyager and trying to make a clock. Just my Link to post Share on other sites
brett 2,316 Posted October 30, 2014 Report Share Posted October 30, 2014 It's definitely flat and not round or curved? I feel like I have heard that before and with time was disproved. Without proof everything is just a guess or theory, that includes ET's. One thing that does give me pause on life being elsewhere in the universe is the overwhelming amount of sightings. These sightings were happening before we even invented radio waves too. Do I believe in aliens, not yet, do I think there could be a real possibility, yes. Do I think the government is covering up possible evidence, absolutely. Link to post Share on other sites
MartinW 0 Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 Oh! Martin, you're still around. Been on your intergalactic trails? Something like that, been busy with my daughter Katy decorating the house, need her help due to dodgy back. Lots to do, including using special Jedi mind tricks to encourage a carpenter to actually turn up and repair my roof fascia corners. Yes, I have been naughty and not cleaned out my gutters, thus water overflowing and rotting corners. Have to put the house on the market you see, terms of the divorce agreement and all that stuff. Irony is, we may end up with a better house than this. But hey, you know me, if it's science I annoyingly arrive. Though the question remains, if there are more advanced civilisations out there, why hasn't there been contact? A number of possibilities have been suggested... Read from "Explaining the Paradox Hypothetically". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox Link to post Share on other sites
MartinW 0 Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 It's definitely flat and not round or curved? I feel like I have heard that before and with time was disproved. Without proof everything is just a guess or theory, that includes ET's. Apologies Brett, I shouldn't have been so definitive. I wouldn't say it's 100% definitive, it's still debated. However, It's looking very likely. When I say flat or curved [as you probably know] I'm referring to the geometry of space time. For example, in a curved universe, if you happened to be in possession of a super powerful laser beam, that stopped for nothing and you shot the devilish machine into the void, it would curve all the way around the universe and hit you in the back of the head. Thus the universe is curved, and thus finite. Conversely, in a flat universe, the laser beam would carry on for ever, thus the universe is flat, thus possibly infinite. The WMAP spacecraft can measure the basic parameters of the Big Bang theory including the geometry of the universe. If the universe were flat, the brightest microwave background fluctuations (or "spots") would be about one degree across. If the universe were open, the spots would be less than one degree across. If the universe were closed, the brightest spots would be greater than one degree across. Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html It could be of course, that the universe is curved, and thus finite, but so huge that our measurements can't detect the curve. One thing that does give me pause on life being elsewhere in the universe is the overwhelming amount of sightings. These sightings were happening before we even invented radio waves too. Do I believe in aliens, not yet, do I think there could be a real possibility, yes. Do I think the government is covering up possible evidence, absolutely. I had a father that loved to read the Adamski books, so I guess I grew up with this stuff. 99% of UFO sightings are explainable as natural pehomonon, secret X planes etc. However, there does seem to be a small number of sightings that are very hard to explain, very mysterious indeed. Unlikely I would say, but who knows, it could be that there are advanced civilisations out there that have developed the technology to traverse the huge distances involved, maybe even inter dimensional travel. As I said, unlikely but fun to speculate. Einstein told us that nothing can travel faster than light. However, it may be possible to cheat. We know that space itself is capable of traveling faster than light speed. In fact if the theory of inflation is correct that's what space-time actually did shortly after the universe's birth. An Alcubieree drive, or warp drive, would enable us to do just that, move space-time itself rather than the space ship and thus overcome the light speed limitation. Here's an interesting thought. Human beings have developed meta-material cloaking devices. Currently they only work with certain frequencies, they don't yet work with visible light. Now imagine an alien technology 1000 years more advanced than ours.You can pretty much guarantee that they would have the technology to render a space ship invisible. A mother ship could be hovering above us right now and we would never know. And who knows, next time you visit Sainsbury's, there could be a cloaked alien standing next to you at the checkout. Link to post Share on other sites
ddavid 149 Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 Ah - the hypothesis (not theory) of the inflationary epoch. Ha! Let's bring Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle into cosmology - it can explain anything. And, let's put a few mono-poles in, as well, for good measure. Not that any of the Big Bang hypotheses are measurable. Let's face it, a singularity is only defined in mathematics and, however beautifully aesthetic your hypotheses are, they remain just that - hypothetical. As you can infer from the above, I'm not a cold dark matter sort of person... Adios Amigos! Cheers - Dai. Link to post Share on other sites
MartinW 0 Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 Well. we are still waiting to see if BICEP2's data was valid or not. Polarisation of the CMB seemed to confirm inflation. Dust may have been underestimated though. If confirmed, it would add considerable weight to the inflation theory, and suggest that multiple dimensions are a reality. Ha! Let's bring Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle into cosmology Uncertainty principle relates to the subatomic, cosmology to the macroscopic. So not sure Heisenberg can help us there. Not that any of the Big Bang hypotheses are measurable. It's the big bang theory though. Not hypothesis, so much is measurable yes. Scientists are quite clear in regard to what is hypothesised and what they regard as theory. It depends how certain you want to be. Nothing is 100% certain, that kind of certainty doesn't exist. We could be all living in a virtual reality created by aliens, all of which we experience, what we regard as the immutable laws of physics may have been created to fool us. Extremely unlikely of course, but you get the picture. a singularity is only defined in mathematics I'm afraid what we regard as the laws of physics brake down in a singularity. We have no physics to describe such a realm. Link to post Share on other sites
MartinW 0 Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 Tonight on BBC2 were two programmes that justify the licence fee alone. Prof Brian Cox's Human Universe where he suggests that we haven't detected alien life in the universe because, as with all civilisations they have either become extinct or have not evolved sufficiently to give us a bell. Don't forget David Attenborough's Life Story Geoff. Stunning photography, if it doesn't win a BAFTA I will eat Mutley's underpants. Link to post Share on other sites
mutley 4,498 Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 if it doesn't win a BAFTA I will eat Mutley's underpants. Just frying them up now uncle Martin! (although I agree with you ) 1 Link to post Share on other sites
brett 2,316 Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 When it comes down to it the only realm I am concerned with is if I can pay my bills this month. Link to post Share on other sites
ddavid 149 Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 C'mon Marty, cosmology isn't a science, it's a belief system. Once you've bought into Le Maitre's conclusion that running Hubble's distance/velocity relationship backwards towards a starting point (big bang), you're on a roller coaster of concepts that belong more to the genre of science fiction than fact. By the way, you'll need Heisenberg for vacuum energy, the force behind the accelerating expansion of the universe - and a few type 1a supernovae! Great to talk about a non-political subject that really gets my enzymes working... Cheers - Dai. Link to post Share on other sites
MartinW 0 Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 C'mon Marty, cosmology isn't a science, it's a belief system. Once you've bought into Le Maitre's conclusion that running Hubble's distance/velocity relationship backwards towards a starting point (big bang), you're on a roller coaster of concepts that belong more to the genre of science fiction than fact. Interesting opinion. Why science fiction? isn't it logical that an expanding [and accelerating] universe was once less expansive? Isn't it logical to infer that the ultimate conclusion of running time backward is a singularity? If the metric expansion of space doesn't imply a singularity in it's past, what does it imply? You tell me? If it's not logical tell me why? I don't think Carl Sagan would have been very happy if you told him he wasn't a scientist because Cosmology isn't a science. last time I looked at the definition of a science, Cosmolgy fit the bill. "The scientific study of large scale properties of the universe as a whole". By the way, you'll need Heisenberg for vacuum energy, the force behind the accelerating expansion of the universe - and a few type 1a supernovae! True, but that's a specific field namely quantum Cosmology. Not run of the mill cosmology, but I see your point. Cosmolgy [not quantum cosmology] is... "the scientific study of large scale properties of the universe as a whole". I guess you could invoke quantum physics in regard to anything. Quantum processes at the heart of our very thoughts, superposition, nonlocality entanglement and tunnelling in quantum biology for example. Link to post Share on other sites
dodgy-alan 1,587 Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 Link to post Share on other sites
hifly 925 Posted October 31, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 The mark of true civilisation is having a media channel like the BBC, unhindered by commercial or political influence. Well... to a point. Our ex colonial friends might think it strange that to own a television, one must have a licence under pain of prosecution. But, (trumpet fanfare) I will crawl across the barren political landscape, swim the shark infested oceans of bland commercialism to stand high on the mountain of free speech and then nip off to the Post Office to pay the bloody licence fee. BTW Martin and Dai, this is all way above my head but enjoyable. Prof Brain Brian Cox has some serious competition here. Link to post Share on other sites
markhudson6 13 Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 I agree with you Geoff that the BBC's documentaries are fantastic (loving Cox's new one) but as for the rest of it, news output for example, I find it pretty shocking. They've been pulled well into line with the ever present threat of privatisation, like the sword of Damocles, hanging over its head. Regards, M. Link to post Share on other sites
hifly 925 Posted October 31, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 Well hello Mark and may I be the first to give you a warm to Mutley's. The JF forum was getting a bit bland so I defica defected over here. You'll find them a friendly and bigot big hearted bunch. And yes there is a lot of tosh on the box on any channel except at late at night and way past my cocoa and bedtime. That's why I'm either here or flying. Our Best to you and yours, G 1 Link to post Share on other sites
markhudson6 13 Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 Thank you Geoff for the warm welcome and I hope you and yours are well I've dropped in here from time to time for years and I was sure I had an account but I was rejected. I noticed you watched Wonders of the Monsoon. Loved how they filmed the shrew pooping in that pitcher plant, I was watching through splayed fingers knowing what our pitcher in the kitchen does to flies. A happier ending for the shrew thank goodness. Regards, M. Link to post Share on other sites
hifly 925 Posted October 31, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 Thank you Geoff for the warm welcome and I hope you and yours are well I've dropped in here from time to time for years and I was sure I had an account but I was rejected. I noticed you watched Wonders of the Monsoon. Loved how they filmed the shrew pooping in that pitcher plant, I was watching through splayed fingers knowing what our pitcher in the kitchen does to flies. A happier ending for the shrew thank goodness. Regards, M. Us too, a butt clenching moment but these small mammals are pretty shrewd. Sorry. Link to post Share on other sites
markhudson6 13 Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 Geoff, you really are the master of the pun. Regards, M. Link to post Share on other sites
MartinW 0 Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 If it aint punny, it aint funny. Link to post Share on other sites
brett 2,316 Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 Geoff, you really are the master of the pun. Regards, M. +1 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now