Horizon BBC2 tonight

[naomi24]

Fascinating! Did anyone watch it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00rgg31

Your thoughts?

[Quizmonster]

Content - at least as much of it as I understood! - was fascinating but presentation was appalling! How many times did we see the big bang and the expanding balloon?

[naomi24]

I agree the constant images of the balloon and the explosion did become very tedious, but fascinating content nevertheless. It demonstrated just how much we have still to learn and to understand.

[vascop]

I agree Quizmonster - the presentation was appalling and over the top, but very interesting. I am reading "The Road to Reality" at the moment and it fits in well with that

[ann_h]

I love the quote from the lady cosmologist re dark matter "I don't like it and I wish it would go away"

[R1Geezer]

Yes fascinating. The presentation is indicative of this "constant reminder" tendency that all programs are using these days. It may be necessary in "sun, sea and a&E" but Horizon viewers don't need a big balloon being pumped up 25 times to demonstrate "inflation"! I have a reasonable understanding of Dark matter/energy and was looking forward to learning about Dark flow but they spent about 5 minutes on that and the rest on stuff I was already familiar with, still good program none the less.

[chakka35]

This was the worst type of television 'documentary'. Instead of consulting all the expertsand then writing a shooting script so that film-makers know exactly how each point will be illustrated visually, they just hose-pipe a lot of expert talking heads and a few vague pictures of maths on a chalkboard , shove it together in the editing-suite with a voice-over and then wonder how to fill in the visual gaps - last night with endless shots of that wretched balloon.

Appalling amateurism. Had I ever made even one of my films like that I'd have been fired.

[heathfield]

This was an hour-long programme that contained perhaps 10 to 15 minutes of actual information. And do we really need constant reminders on what a programme is about, and what has been covered up to this point? These last two features are occurring more and more in documentaries. Do they think we have such a low attention span that we simply can't remember what we're watching?

[rov1200]

I thought that when they said the edge of the universe was accelerating and it did not fit in with the curve they had proved there were multi-universes. Instead like that deflating balloon it all led to nothing and we finished where we started with the standard model.

This is not science as I know it. Dark matter equations have been added to the model to make it work and when that is not complete add another part of the equation to cater for dark energy and when that don't fit in add another bit for dark flow.

Sometimes the sum of the parts do not equal the final result as they may be contradictory or irrelevent.

[bibblebub]

not a mention of M-theory

[jake-the-peg]

Thing is Rov Astronomy is a special science - you don't get to run experiments

You only get to look at observations and try to make the theory fit what you see.

You then hope you get other predictions that you may or may not be able to observe.

Astronomy is special

And yes Biblebub - string theory is a bit like that too

[naomi24]

Yes, the programme was poorly made, but the question really referred to the subject matter which I found intriguing.

[chakka35]

Yes, naomi, you'r right. But, as heathfield says, the subject matter would have been still more intriguing had it been presented properly, with more substance and less desperate padding.

[Old_Geezer]

Presentation of science programmes on TV have dropped dramatically over the years. These days they seem to want to turn it into 'informal chat with scientist' programmes, rather than explain the theories properly. All a bit dumbed down. But one dare not complain or they'll take off the few that's left to show more "reality" TV, soaps, and "talent" contests.

[Old_Geezer]

You know ? I looked at that link, and could swear it said "boring" :-)
But looking again, it is obviously a Star Trek link.

[naomi24]

Chakka, I find the programme makers do that with practically everything of interest now. Documentaries on the Science and History channels are made the same way. After every break they recount what has gone before - as though the audience is too stupid to remember what happened during the previous 15 minutes! In fact I was watching something a day or two back, and became so frustrated with the continual repetition, I gave up and switched it off. Old Geezer is right - these types of programmes are dumbed down - and that's sad.

[Backdrifter]

Totally agree. I'm long enough in the tooth to remember some superb editions of Horizon from the 70s and 80s and what we get now bears little resemblance to the quality of those years. I will never forget the time they interviewed and forensically took apart Erich von Daineken and his preposterous theories, piece by piece. Anyway - yes, it is a fascinating subject, and although poorly presented perhaps it might inspire some of us to look further into the subject.

[naomi24]

Backdrifter, I don't believe his basic theories are preposterous at all - but that's another story.

[ellette]

^Except they are.

[ellette]

and he lied about a lot of them

[naomi24]

ellie, 'Except they are' - 'and he lied about a lot of them'. Now there's a contradiction if I ever heard one. Initially you state that his theories are preposterous - but then go on to say he lied about 'a lot' of them. If you claim them to be preposterous, why not say he lied about all of them? - but then you can't do that, can you, because since no one knows whether or not there could be some truth in his theories, you can't back such a statement up.