>> ^ajkido:

Note: this playlist starts from the part 2/3!


You are right, I've fixed it, should be okay now, but youll need to do a complete reload of the page (or just skip one back)

Pretty sure this should have been Brian Cox narrating.

>> ^Raigen:

Brian Cox! What's he doing on that show!
/swoon for that physicist


that's what i was gonna say. seems a tad out of place there.

Brian Cox! What's he doing on that show!
/swoon for that physicist

Your video, Brian Cox: Why we need explorers, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'brian cox, science, explorers, stars' to 'brian cox, science, explorers, stars, TED, ted talks' - edited by gwiz665

>> ^Farhad2000:

The problem is you can't do that. You can't quantify that at all.
It's like Big Pharam, you spend billions of dollars in R&D to find the next possible pill to alleviate heart problems and suddenly you create Viagra.
>> ^chilaxe:
I was hoping for more analysis of the quantifiable return on investment in the sciences... like the Apollo program yielding $14 for every $1 (over an unspecified period of time).
Talking about a sense of wonder and possibility is great for the culture, but to really get the machine of capital and policy rolling, you have to speak the language of profit and self-interest.



Exactly. his entire point is that we need explorers precisely because we dont know what they'll find out, thats what exploration is. It is a widely believed myth that the people who were against Columbus' attempt to sail around the world to reach India(which was the original plan for the exploration) all thought the earth was flat, they didnt actually think so, their main argument was that the distance would be too great, and as such they were completely right, not only did they figure that Columbus wouldnt make it, so the investment in the ship would be wasted, but even if he DID make it all the way to India, the distance would still make commercial traffic unfeasible. And they were actually right on all points. The entire beauty and nature of exploration, however, is that you can bump into America on the way over there, and there is no way to tell you this in advance. To tell you in advance what the return on the investment in exploring is, we need to explore.. well, you get the point.

The problem is you can't do that. You can't quantify that at all.

It's like Big Pharam, you spend billions of dollars in R&D to find the next possible pill to alleviate heart problems and suddenly you create Viagra.

>> ^chilaxe:

I was hoping for more analysis of the quantifiable return on investment in the sciences... like the Apollo program yielding $14 for every $1 (over an unspecified period of time).
Talking about a sense of wonder and possibility is great for the culture, but to really get the machine of capital and policy rolling, you have to speak the language of profit and self-interest.

Your video, Five Minutes With: Professor Brian Cox, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'brian cox, wonders of the solar system, line of sight, orbit, overtaking, bbc' to 'brian cox, retrograde motion, wonders of the solar system, line of sight, orbit, bbc' - edited by schmawy

Don't forget to vote for your own video, buddy:

http://videosift.com/video/Five-Minutes-With-Professor-Brian-Cox

It may seem weird, but that's how we do things here. Nice first video, BTW.

>> ^Drax:
I'm not sure how many people know this in general, but if you go to imdb and look under the trivia section for this movie you can read the entire theory the dieing sun and how they're using a bomb to restart it plotline was based on. It's pretty cool actually.
It was an interesting move by the director to not make even the slightest hint of any of it in the movie.


Brian Cox was a scientific consultant in the movie, and he mentions that in the director's commentary, but how many people actually watch a movie with commentaries on? I don't, but I do sometimes re-watch a scene with the commentary. There was a scene I wanted to know something about, so I put on the commentary and re-watched that scene. It was so interesting, the next thing I know, I'd watched from that scene to the end of the movie with the commentary on, so I restarted the movie with commentary on and re-watched it back to that scene.

There were several scenes where they had to be unscientific to meet the expectations of the audience and for cinematic effect.

Your video, Brian Cox on The Colbert Report, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^Kreegath:
The way he emphasizes his speech is also annoying, how it appears that he thinks every single thing he says is some kind of fundamental truth no matter how mundane a topic or point he brings up..


Well, just about everything he ever talks about is some kind of fundamental truth about the world we live in, I can sympathize with your objection to how he talks, but if you can stand it, or ignore its peculiarity, I strongly recommend his TEDtalks lecture on the Large Hadron Collider , one of the best presentations I have ever seen. Enjoy, if you can

>> ^Kreegath:
The way he emphasizes his speech is also annoying, how it appears that he thinks every single thing he says is some kind of fundamental truth no matter how mundane a topic or point he brings up..


Well, just about everything he ever talks about is some kind of fundamental truth about the world we live in, I can sympathize with your objection to how he talks, but if you can stand it, or ignore its peculiarity, I strongly recommend his TEDtalks lecture on the Large Hadron Collider , one of the best presentations I have ever seen. Enjoy, if you can