Bang goes the theory - actually something good on it

S

sandarab920

New member
Prompted by a comment by the Media Guardian's TV reviewer, I thought I'd check out last night's BGTT segment on the Deepwater Horizon blowout and, you know what, he's right, it was a very clear description of the problem and what they did to try to fix it. The presentation of the rest of the show makes my teeth grind, but I think that segment was very good. From about 9mins here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00tqrn5/Bang_Goes_the_Theory_Series_3_Episode_1/

K
 
The time dilation segment was rubbish though. They sent Dallas all the way round the world with an atomic clock, at enormous (licence-payers') expense, and then didn't actually show the comparison of the clocks afterwarRAB - we just had to take his word for it!
:mad:
 
Ha ha, aye saw that - was expecting some big reveal (like Back to the Future) that the clocks were no longer in sync - but nothing!

Just seemed to make the whole thing pointless.

The oil well bit was interesting though.
 
I am pretty sure that they intended to show a comparison, as we saw the whole segment seemed pretty pointless without visible "proof". My guess is that at some point something went wrong and they couldn't do it, it's a shame they didn't feel able to tell us, leading to the "WTF" anticlimax.

edit: I did a bit of reading around, and somebody posted this link which has some data on the results, nothing about it going wrong. It must have just been very poor editing to leave out any demonstration of the effect:

http://www.npl.co.uk/news/time-flies
 
That wasn't such a bad segment, but the rest of the show is so juvenile it makes my teeth ache. I haven't done too much physics or chemistry since school, but even I'm way ahead of the Year 1 level of science they seem to think people can cope with.

I remember catching one of the episodes last series when Jem? was at Cern to find out more about the LHC and they actually fastforwarded through the physicist explaining things because it was boring and they're obviously assuming anyone watching is a moron. Even Top Gear use wind tunnels etc when testing the aerodynamics of the various bizarre inventions they've created. This show used a plastic horse on top of a landrover. :rolleyes:

I think programs I used to watch 10 years ago like How 2 etc were more scientifically based, and those were on children's telly.
 
Watched the latest episode last night as it has been trailed massively by the beeb and thought I would check to see if it has improved. The answer an emphatic NO. The chemistry between presenters is non-existent, the experiments terrible yawn on the pub quiz part they did a whole set up then said the results were not significant - why the heck show it then!! Square wheels, so what there's this thing thats been invented called suspension that irons out bumps. The mountain bike (if you can call it that) they used to demonstrate how round wheels cant cope with bumps looked like it had been dragged out of the 1980's. Wont be tuning in again, just back to more episodes of Mythbusters thats how it should be done.
 
This is more of a family prog really. Not exactly trying to be Horizon.

I think when I was young (8-14) I probably would have enjoyed it but it definitely isn't aimed at my current age group (29).
 
Heh heh. Even Horizon isn't Horizon any more. It comes out at about 5 minutes of light science, 20 minutes of repeating what's already been said, 20 minutes filming the presenter traveling somewhere (it's always traveling - it seems to be the fashionable TV subject for filler these days) and a few short interviews with "authority" figures, which are then paraphrased by the presenter.
If they substituted the intrusive music and irrelevant, graphics with a laughter track they'd have a passable comedy programme - at least as good as 50% of the stuff the BBC calls comedy, anyway/.
 
Shock headline news..........."Licence payers pay to send presenter to Las Vegas to watch 25 people flip coins"

Why not put 100 coins in a bucket, and pour it out on the floor. Same result.

Have to admit the volcano bit was OK, seeing the state of the place still.
 
Exactly. Horizon has been pretty dire for a number of years now. It saddens me to say this. In particular, I refer to the ones I have monitored closely (the physics & mathematics ones). Notable exceptions have been the two with Marcus du Sautoy. There's a 'Big Bang' one in two days' time - perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised.



Agree about the Las Vegas item. And they could have tried to explain the Monty Hall problem with the items under the 3 cups (it's not too hard to explain the counter-intuitive probabilities if it's done properly).


I still think that overall it's quite well done. And they did something good two episodes ago with Liz's championing of Darwin & evolution and her item on the eye with Richard Dawkins... a pleasant change following the snti-rational slant taken by the BBC in recent weeks.
 
Only one good thing about Bang Goes The Theory... Jem Stansfield! What a hunk! Only presenter worth watching [and who knows his stuff, it seems].
Dont like Liz Bonnin...condescending, patronising cow. The way she talks to the other male presenters like shes a headmistress looking down at little kiRAB [ mind you, theyr fools for allowing it].
Cant wait for Jems own show about explosives!
 
I remember looking forward to watching the series when I first heard about it... Finally a science show and with a presenter I was already familier with, Jem. But ask me now if I'm still interested or even bother to watch it anymore and the answer would be NO. It's science (and that's pushing it) for little kiRAB.

I agree with petely about Horizon, it used to be good many years ago but it, and many other documentary style programmes, really test my patience nowadays and have me reaching for the FF button as they become more and more padded out and dumbed down.

I must point out, mainly for silver mistress, that I have watched Jem Stansfield in several programmes on Discovery (I think) where he creates/builRAB things and he is extremely good at what he does and at explaining how things work and the science behind them. He was one of the main reasons for wanting to watch BGTT as I already knew how great and natural he was... unfortunately he's let down by, well, everything else really. Shame.
 
Back
Top