Pet Peeves About Documentaries

[Airbrush]

Here are 2 of my pet peeves about astronomy documentaries, or in this case the series "How the Universe Works" on the Science channel. I love programs about astronomy and cosmology, that is the biggest picture of all. Today is Tuesday and Science channel is showing "How the Universe Works" all day. I will probably watch several for the 2nd or 3rd time. Don't get me wrong, I love the series "How the Universe Works" but occasionally I hear something that hurts my ears.

 

Michio Kaku made the statement that our galaxy and Andromeda galaxy are racing towards each other at "a quarter of a million miles per hour". I have no reason to doubt the speed, but the way he said it is stupid as hell. Why not make it easy for the listener to visualize what you are saying? Why not say the 2 galaxies are closing at the speed of about 70 miles per second? That is easy to visualize. One second is very easy to grasp that short period of time. One minute is beyond most peoples immediate ability to visualize, and certainly one hour is way beyond the human ability to visualize. So saying something is moving millions of miles per HOUR is a dumb way to communicate with the average person. Humans are a combination of genius and stupidity and there is still plenty of stupidity in charge. For example it is common to discuss revolutions per minute, even at very high revolutions. Humans do not grasp one minute, only one second. So why not say something is revolving at 100 revolutions per second, rather than the more complex way as 6000 rpms? Same for rounds per minute in machine guns. Say the MG42 machine gun of WWII fired up to 1500 rounds per minute is not as easy to visualize as 25 rounds per second.

 

Next pet peeve. They say dark energy is driving the galaxies appart, it is not. It is only driving superclusters of galaxies apart. In the distant future all superclusters of galaxies will merge into one giant eliptical galaxy, but they cannot say that because it looks like they want to confuse us. Of course they don't want to, they are just a little stupid.

 

This one is about programs about UFOs. If an intelligent ET was able to cross such great distances to come here to earth, why would their spaceships, or flying saucers, have lights on the outside of their craft as if to attract attention to themselves? I have never heard anyone wonder why a spaceship would have lights on the outside. All I can think of is there is a reason, to attract our attention for an unknown reason, maybe because they want to distract us from what is happening in the sky nearby? Or as proposed in the last edition of "X Files" that some UFOs are humans that have ET technology to play with?

 

These are only 3 pet peeves I can think of right now, maybe more later. But please list your own pet peeves about science programs that you love to watch, but occasionally "hurts your ears".

Edited March 8, 2016 by Airbrush

[dimreepr]

I doubt anyone could perceive such speeds, I can only perceive 175 miles per hour maybe 250 as I once did 175, just outside Cheltenham, at the same time as someone overtook a car at, guessing 80 or 90 MPH in the opposite direction (I very nearly shat myself); we have the same problem when it comes to scale, for instance I can see a millimetre but how can I possibly see/imagine a yoctometre?

[Airbrush]

Here is another of my pet peeves about cosmology. The big bang model says nothing about how it can be that the universe of infinite size and mass could come out of the big bang. Nobody has determined that the universe is finite in size and mass, so it is possibly infinite in size and mass. If the universe is indeed infinite in size and mass, then the very moment of the bang the universe started out also infinite in size and mass, which seems preposterous. All that talk about the observable portion of the universe being smaller than a proton at the moment of bang is hot air.

[dimreepr]

It’s probable that the mass, of the universe, is finite and at the same time the universes size is infinite.

Edited March 11, 2016 by dimreepr

[Airbrush]

It’s probable that the mass, of the universe, is finite and at the same time the universes size is infinite.

 

That sounds reasonable to me. It's hard to imagine an infinite amount of mass, but empty space can stretch out forever. Our big bang is all we know about and there could be other big bangs that are so far away that we would never know about them. But then there could be an infinite number of big bangs and that means infinite amount of mass in the multiverse of an infinite number of big bangs.

Edited March 12, 2016 by Airbrush

[dimreepr]

My point is that in all iterations the mass/energy is finite whilst space doesn’t have to be, so mass will always be finite however many universes.

[Airbrush]

An infinite number of universes within a multiverse, means an infinite amount of mass in the multiverse.

[shmengie]

I think it's pretty bogus that they always iterate the lambda-cdm as if it's the way it is. They really should indicate that its the most accepted group of postulations.

 

Cosmological redshift is the only evidence for "dark energy" They don't come out and say it that way, but in truth, that's the only evidence indicating an expanding universe.

 

There are other flaws with big bang, such as everything originating from a infinitely small point, but figuring out a viable alternative is pretty tough, I get a little stumped in contemplating it. Steady state is the only competing postulation, but it seems evident stuff in the universe doesn't sit still, which makes BB more the defacto standard, not necessarily more plausible, IMO.

 

Seems the only thing about the whole big bang rendition I personally agree with is when matter, time and gravity all took hold, the universe was probably nothing more than a giant cloud everywhere. Everything stated, prior to that beginning point, can only be postulated or speculated. Corroborating evidence doesn't exist. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation could be that temp for any number of reasons. Inflationary temperature prediction doesn't quite make concrete evidence. Its suggestive, not concrete. Although I get totally lost trying to follow the calculations... I can't help but think there could be more than one reason for CMBR to be 2.7k.

Edited March 22, 2016 by shmengie

[Airbrush]

"...the universe was probably nothing more than a giant cloud everywhere. Everything stated, prior to that beginning point, can only be postulated or speculated. Corroborating evidence doesn't exist."

 

What does "everywhere" mean? Why not other big bangs far away from us? If one big bang then why not an infinite number?