Horizon "moon" programme

Heaven help us all.

newshound wrote:

Heaven help us all.

Not a chance
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00xxgbn
What Is Reality

--
zaax

wrote in message ...
newshound wrote:

Heaven help us all.

Not a chance
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00xxgbn
What Is Reality

--
zaax

ROFL :-)

"Hils" wrote in message
...
newshound wrote:
Heaven help us all.

Do tell. I stopped watching TV altogether nearly two years ago: has it
become worse than ever? What have I missed. Feel free to express yourself.
:-)

It would take too long. I always loved Alan Bennet's description of how he
would listen to Any Answers so that he could sit and "fume in impotent
liberal rage".

There was "tides are caused by a bulge towards the moon" (so why are there
two per day?)

The spin rate of the earth is reducing. So, by Newton's second law something
must be speeding up. The moon is speeding up and getting further away.

And she designs satellites!

Then there was all the Goldilocks stuff, isn't it lucky that geology plus
celestial mechanics ensures that all these life forms have niches which are
just right for them.

In message , newshound
writes


"Hils" wrote in message
...
newshound wrote:
Heaven help us all.

Do tell. I stopped watching TV altogether nearly two years ago: has
it become worse than ever? What have I missed. Feel free to express
yourself.
:-)

It would take too long. I always loved Alan Bennet's description of how
he would listen to Any Answers so that he could sit and "fume in
impotent liberal rage".


Hi newshound,

Are you sure it's a Horizon programme? I couldn't find any recent
Horizon programmes about the Earth's Moon. There is this:

"Do We Really Need the Moon?" presented by Dr Maggie Aderin-Pocock and a
BBC / Discovery Channel co-production for BBC Scotland.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00yb5jp

I haven't watched that, but it looks as though it could fit the bill...

The recent re-run of the series "The Planets" also featured the Earth's
Moon in its own episode. I thought that was excellent, although slightly
dated, so I doubt that's what you are referring to.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00xyv72
--
David Entwistle

"David Entwistle" wrote in message
...
In message , newshound
writes


"Hils" wrote in message
...
newshound wrote:
Heaven help us all.

Do tell. I stopped watching TV altogether nearly two years ago: has it
become worse than ever? What have I missed. Feel free to express
yourself.
:-)

It would take too long. I always loved Alan Bennet's description of how he
would listen to Any Answers so that he could sit and "fume in impotent
liberal rage".


Hi newshound,

Are you sure it's a Horizon programme? I couldn't find any recent Horizon
programmes about the Earth's Moon. There is this:

"Do We Really Need the Moon?" presented by Dr Maggie Aderin-Pocock and a
BBC / Discovery Channel co-production for BBC Scotland.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00yb5jp

I haven't watched that, but it looks as though it could fit the bill...

The recent re-run of the series "The Planets" also featured the Earth's
Moon in its own episode. I thought that was excellent, although slightly
dated, so I doubt that's what you are referring to.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00xyv72
--
David Entwistle

My mistake, but yes, the first is the one I mean

On Feb 4, 10:56*am, "newshound" wrote:
"Hils" wrote in message

...

newshound wrote:
Heaven help us all.

Do tell. I stopped watching TV altogether nearly two years ago: has it
become worse than ever? What have I missed. Feel free to express yourself.
:-)

It would take too long. I always loved Alan Bennet's description of how he
would listen to Any Answers so that he could sit and "fume in impotent
liberal rage".

There was "tides are caused by a bulge towards the moon" (so why are there
two per day?)


Read a good book instead of the modern junk and especially those works
which exist before Newton's toxic strain of empiricism -

http://books.google.com/books?id=RyB...page&q&f=false

That was written in 1666 when men could actually discuss things and
think things through by themselves and that type of empiricism where
there were interpretative buffers between experiment and
experience,for instance,these guys use analogies to explain the tides
but do not impose the analogies directly to planetary dynamics whereas
Isaac distorted things to make it appear that analogies shade off into
'Universal laws'.Pity,he ruined a perfectly good approach to the links
between terrestrial effects and astronomical causes.



The spin rate of the earth is reducing. So, by Newton's second law something
must be speeding up. The moon is speeding up and getting further away.

And she designs satellites!

Then there was all the Goldilocks stuff, isn't it lucky that geology plus
celestial mechanics ensures that all these life forms have niches which are
just right for them.

Down to the usual standard then. I certainly recall being inspired in
the 1970s and early 1980s by programmes such as Horizon or The world about
us. It would be interesting to see some of them again to see if they still
stand up to scrutiny.

A kindred spirit! Except that I go back to the 50's and remember being
directed by TV into seeing Sputniks 2 and 3, and the Arend Roland and Mrkos
comets.

Some of the older TV does stand up, though, and to be fair I thought the
recent Horizon programme on the Deepwater rig was far fairer than most. In
the 50's and 60's there was a real enthusiasm and respect for science and
technology, but of course a lot of people had first hand experience of how
it contributed to surviving WW2.

I have a theory as to why so many PMs and cabinet ministers now come from
Eton (not unrelated to the loss of grammar schools). Unfortunately this
margin is too small to contain it......

Read a good book instead of the modern junk and especially those works
which exist before Newton's toxic strain of empiricism -

http://books.google.com/books?id=RyB...page&q&f=false

That was written in 1666 when men could actually discuss things and
think things through by themselves and that type of empiricism where
there were interpretative buffers between experiment and
experience,for instance,these guys use analogies to explain the tides
but do not impose the analogies directly to planetary dynamics whereas
Isaac distorted things to make it appear that analogies shade off into
'Universal laws'.Pity,he ruined a perfectly good approach to the links
between terrestrial effects and astronomical causes.



A fascinating read, thanks! It's making my brain hurt tonight, but I will
try again later