EDIT: i originally made a blog post about this but the documentary is just too amazing and deserves its own post, enjoy
the documentary is basicly as if your sitting inside a car while driving around the universe, they start off by examining our solar system, then our galaxy and then go into intergalactic space(outside our galaxy), everything is done as if its from your P.O.V
some of the topics you can find in it(apart from the recreations of beautiful satellite images that you get to see): descriptions of planets within our solar system(with a few of theyre moons), various different solar systems and stars, different galaxys, the search for life within the universe, the creation of stars, death of stars, supernovas, blacks holes, white dwarfs etc. etc., theres far too much to name but you probably get the picture, we're just moving across the universe until we reach the edge of it(as we move further and further its like as if we go back in time so at the end they show the origins of the universe)
the whole thing lasted 2 hours, they split it up into numerous parts on youtube
also, there seems to be 2 versions of the documentary, one is done by national geographics and the other by discovery(im pretty sure theyre both the same documentary but different narrators), i saw was the discovery channel one(i posted both versions)
What really distinguishes this documentary is the rather spectacular visual quality. I enjoyed it very much when you posted it in your blog, thank you!
On July 25 2009 18:12 SearingShadow wrote: Should I watch the National Geographic or Discovery Channel version?
Depends on who's voice you think is sexier.
I'm really glad they took the time to make something brilliant like this. Here's to hoping they'll do the same with objects at an atomic level and smaller.
On July 26 2009 03:51 Dr. Tran wrote: Our universe is so big, that we humans literally do not have the brainpower to fathom the size of something so gargantuan. Trippy thought, eh?
What is the literal relationship between brainpower, and maximum size of fathomable universe?
I would have no problem with a statement like "The universe is so big that it's extremely difficult for humans to fathom it.
Oh, what I mean is that humans, can't ever truly comprehend how big the universe because we (in our everyday lives) think on a microcosmic scale. We only have Earthen environments to gauge what is big and what is small. I.E Niagra falls is huge, and an ant is small. But in comparison to a celestial body like Jupiter (I'm starting out small here) all we know is absolutely minuscule. And this is only because we've never dealt with, firsthand, anything as large (as Jupiter or any other giant solar mass)
On July 26 2009 04:02 HuskyTheHusky wrote: To think that we're born in a time where we are stuck on our tiny planet while those born in the future will be able to travel the stars
We also are born in a time where we aren't all dying of horrible diseases and/or predators... so don't be too picky. Beggars can't be choosers.
Also, I wouldn't be too confident in the claim that we will be able to travel the stars. It's a nice goal but certainly no guarantee.
[/QUOTE] We also are born in a time where we aren't all dying of horrible diseases and/or predators... so don't be too picky. Beggars can't be choosers. [/QUOTE]
Since we're getting so nit-picky here, I don't think there was ever a time (save for maybe the neanderthal days) that we've ever been dying (largely) of predators. Horrible diseases I'll accept though. Very glad we have modern day health care.
lol did anyone pick up the part where the narrator was saying based on an equation there should be millions of advanced civilizations in our galaxy alone?
On July 26 2009 04:35 iamtt1 wrote: lol did anyone pick up the part where the narrator was saying based on an equation there should be millions of advanced civilizations in our galaxy alone?
N is the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible; and R* is the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets ne is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets fℓ is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point fi is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life fc is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.[2]
Considerable disagreement on the values of most of these parameters exists, but the values used by Drake and his colleagues in 1961 were: R* = 10/year (10 stars formed per year, on the average over the life of the galaxy) fp = 0.5 (half of all stars formed will have planets) ne = 2 (stars with planets will have 2 planets capable of supporting life) fl = 1 (100% of these planets will develop life) fi = 0.01 (1% of which will be intelligent life) fc = 0.01 (1% of which will be able to communicate) L = 10,000 years (which will last 10,000 years)
Obviously, I think the equation is okay, but the numbers they used are so bias'd towards proving life that its is hilarious. Right off the bat they assume that one out of 2 starts will have planets, and of those, 1 will have a planet capable of supporting life which is complete bull.
On July 26 2009 06:27 BalliSLife wrote: how do we manage to get our satellites light years away and actually send commands from that far? and how do they manage not to melt near the sun?
Who said anything about having any close to the sun? We really don't. Voyager never went that close to the sun, it was intended for outer solar system exploration
Picture a hotdog bun, then take all the stars, the hundreds of stars that there are in the universe and put them into a bag and put the universe into a bag... Seriously this is pretty great. I love documentaries.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/8/4/7/847914dec26cc45ac2957da0054683de.png)
