So, I'm watching Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freemen on the Science Channel.
This particular episode is about whether or not there is an edge to the universe and what it might look like and how we might one day find it.
I really enjoy the pattern of some of these shows, particularly those dealing with astrophysics, theoretical physics, and the like.
So they'll show some smarter than fuck scientist prattling on about some particular theory, and then the smarter than fuck scientist pulls out a toy to explain it to the dummies.
So far I've seen scientists play with drums, bubbles, and croquet sets in attempts to get non-astrophysicists to understand the junk they are attempting to explain. Stuff, of course, which may end up being a bunch of horseshit anyway.
Anyway, this amused me and I thought I'd share. Feel free to add any similar observations you might have on the topic.
Or go play some badminton, know however, every time you swing a racket, you are simulating the expansion-wobble-rotation of the gamma-y quadrants.
I've seen Brian Greene do the same sort of thing with metaphor, and yes, it does seem a bit stupid.
I prefer Feynman's method of explanation. Instead of saying something is /like/ something else, just communicate what it actually is in the simplest way possible. If I can't explain it that way, then I don't actually understand it myself.
Anyone who is watching these shows for more than a few minutes is probably a bit smarter than they give them credit for. Sure, not many people have years of formal education on these topics, but I'm not sure they need to dumb the concepts down quite as far as they do. What bugs me is they'll spend all this time oversimplifying their theories, and practically no time on background and basics.
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on May 01, 2012, 02:55:59 AM
I've seen Brian Greene do the same sort of thing with metaphor, and yes, it does seem a bit stupid.
I prefer Feynman's method of explanation. Instead of saying something is /like/ something else, just communicate what it actually is in the simplest way possible. If I can't explain it that way, then I don't actually understand it myself.
Exactly!
Though, I would find it absurdly amusing if someday we were able to discover the true nature of the universe and we really were just living in a gigantic toy box.
May 12th the Science Channel is having a special Space & Sex marathon. Daytime is gonna be a marathon of all their space shows and prime time is all of their science of sex shows. The promos are kinda funny.
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on May 01, 2012, 12:52:07 PMThough, I would find it absurdly amusing if someday we were able to discover the true nature of the universe and we really were just living in a gigantic toy box.
That's why I'm getting all my astrophysics knowledge from Dr Who and Douglas Adams.
I get mine from Dr. Seuss and Sam Adams.
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on May 01, 2012, 02:46:10 AM
So, I'm watching Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freemen on the Science Channel.
This particular episode is about whether or not there is an edge to the universe and what it might look like and how we might one day find it.
I really enjoy the pattern of some of these shows, particularly those dealing with astrophysics, theoretical physics, and the like.
So they'll show some smarter than fuck scientist prattling on about some particular theory, and then the smarter than fuck scientist pulls out a toy to explain it to the dummies.
So far I've seen scientists play with drums, bubbles, and croquet sets in attempts to get non-astrophysicists to understand the junk they are attempting to explain. Stuff, of course, which may end up being a bunch of horseshit anyway.
Anyway, this amused me and I thought I'd share. Feel free to add any similar observations you might have on the topic.
Or go play some badminton, know however, every time you swing a racket, you are simulating the expansion-wobble-rotation of the gamma-y quadrants.
I saw this one too. I liked how in one it was described as a soccer ball, and if you try to leave the universe on one pentagon you end up on the corresponding pentagon on the opposite side. Reminded me of some old arcade games.
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on May 01, 2012, 07:16:36 PM
I get mine from Dr. Seuss and Sam Adams.
Literally arguing the barstool! I do find it easier to understand some concepts after ingesting a small amount of beer.
Quote from: The Twiddlerat0r on May 01, 2012, 07:21:45 PM
I saw this one too. I liked how in one it was described as a soccer ball, and if you try to leave the universe on one pentagon you end up on the corresponding pentagon on the opposite side. Reminded me of some old arcade games.
Yup, it's exactly like those old arcade games. Games like Pac-Man where moving off one side takes you to the opposite side are topologically a torus - shaped like a donut. Even weirder, for Pac-Man and the world maps on most RPGs, which have a squarish aspect ratio, it's a torus that can't actually be embedded in 3-space without distortions or intersecting itself.
So yeah, you have a 2D game that needs 4D for the game world to actually exist.