🚀 go-pugleaf

>
>
>Philip Morrison is best known to me as Scientific American's excellent
>book reviewer, though I know there are other things I should know him for.
>Of course, we can't tell from this what level the show will be pitched at--
>but I intend to watch at least the first one and find out.

Philip Morrison worked on the Manhattan Project, which - if I remember 
correctly - has a profound effect on him. In recent years, besides
making important contribution to Astro-physics, Prof. Morrison has spent
much time working on ethical issues of world peace and nuclear armament.
In addition, he has appeared on Nova and other PBS series to make the joy
of Physics available to laymen. As you pointed out also, he writes book
review for Scientific American (Where does he find time). Every few years
(or is it every year?), he will teach undergraduate first-year physics.
He also teaches grad classes, holds regular seminars and supervises 
graduate students. Truely a giant.

In article <1987Oct13.230923.20975@sq.uucp> msb@sq.uucp (Mark Brader) writes:
>
>#  Tuesday, October 20
>#  9 pm: RING OF TRUTH -- Science; 60 min.

	I desperately hope that this series will not be as bad as another
science program that PBS showed recently.  I do not remember the exact title
but the program attempted to show some theories on the various fundamental
forces in the Universe.  It had the narrator climbing up a light tower
and opening windows when explaining the march back in time to the beginning
of the Universe.

	The show lacked any depth for those who were Physics majors or
were knowledgeable about the field of quantum physics, and was bery confusing
for those who were not.  Either way, you lost out.

	Now, this is not an attack on PBS (I love them!) but just a hopeful
prayer that this series will offer something to at least the layman or
the knowledgeble person, or perhaps to both.

	I loved the BBC production of the _Adventure of Sherlock Holmes_!
I can't get over the fact that Jeremy Brett is THE most suitable actor
for the role of Holmes!  Arghhh!!  He's vonderfull!  <Excuse me for my sudden
outburst>.

						-AG Hirai
-- 
Eiji "A.G." Hirai @ Swarthmore College, Swarthmore PA 19081 | Tel. 215-543-9855
UUCP:   {seismo, rutgers, ihnp4}!bpa!swatsun!hirai |  "All Cretans are liars."
ARPA:   cbmvax!swatsun!hirai@rutgers.rutgers.edu   |       -Epimenides
Bitnet: vu-vlsi!swatsun!hirai@psuvax1.bitnet       |        of Cnossus, Crete

In article <1336@ilium.swatsun.UUCP> hirai@swatsun.UUCP (Eiji "A.G." Hirai) writes:

>>#  9 pm: RING OF TRUTH -- Science; 60 min.
>
>	I desperately hope that this series will not be as bad as another
>science program that PBS showed recently...
>
>	Now, this is not an attack on PBS (I love them!)...
>
>	I loved the BBC production of the _Adventure of Sherlock Holmes_!
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

...Except that this was an _ITV_ production!  Nowadays the BBC tends to
show boring sitcoms and American soaps, with the ironic result that most
PBS imports from the UK are from England's _commercial_ network.

In article <1336@ilium.swatsun.UUCP> hirai@swatsun.UUCP (Eiji "A.G." Hirai) writes:
>	I desperately hope that this series will not be as bad as another
>science program that PBS showed recently.  I do not remember the exact title
>but the program attempted to show some theories on the various fundamental
>forces in the Universe.  It had the narrator climbing up a light tower
>and opening windows when explaining the march back in time to the beginning
>of the Universe.
>
>	The show lacked any depth for those who were Physics majors or
>were knowledgeable about the field of quantum physics, and was bery confusing
>for those who were not.  Either way, you lost out.
>
>						-AG Hirai

I beg to differ.  I expect that the PBS show to which you refer was called
something like "The Origin of the Universe".  (Perhaps it wasn't, in
which case ignore this!)  The show has been around for several years,
and I seem to recall it being broadcast again recently.  (I taped
the program, and have watched it 3 times!  I also sent for the transcript.)

While I am sure that Physics majors, etc., weren't going to learn a lot
from the program, I don't understand your criticism that it was
confusing to others.  In my opinion, the program presented complicated
theories about complicated stuff in a manner to which the people could
relate.

The program was lively, entertaining, informative, visually stimulating, 
thought provoking, and featured great music (including stuff from 
Brian Eno's "Before and After Science", if memory serves).  The 
narrator was very well spoken.  I would recommend it without 
reservation to anyone!


Dick Locke					Paradyne Corporation
{gatech,codas,ucf-cs}!usfvax2!pdn!locke		Mail stop LF-207
Phone: (813) 530-8241				P.O. Box 2826
						Largo, FL  33649-2826

In article <1336@ilium.swatsun.UUCP>, hirai@swatsun (Eiji "A.G." Hirai) writes:
> In article <1987Oct13.230923.20975@sq.uucp> msb@sq.uucp (Mark Brader) writes:
> >
> >#  Tuesday, October 20
> >#  9 pm: RING OF TRUTH -- Science; 60 min.
> 
> 	I desperately hope that this series will not be as bad as another
> science program that PBS showed recently.  I do not remember the exact title
> but the program attempted to show some theories on the various fundamental
> forces in the Universe.  It had the narrator climbing up a light tower
> and opening windows when explaining the march back in time to the beginning
> of the Universe.
The show was called "Creation of the Universe".  I thought it was not all 
that bad esp. since the subject really hadn't been approached in an hour
T.V. show before.  I don't think it was intended for the heavy weights of
physics but as a layperson I thought it was reasonable alternative from
the normal bull on network T.V.  I'm happy that these subjects are being
addressed.  Things like Cosmos, Nova, and various other science productions via
PBS are absolutely great.  
> 
> 	The show lacked any depth for those who were Physics majors or
> were knowledgeable about the field of quantum physics, and was bery confusing
> for those who were not.  Either way, you lost out.
See the above.
> 
> 	Now, this is not an attack on PBS (I love them!) but just a hopeful
> prayer that this series will offer something to at least the layman or
> the knowledgeble person, or perhaps to both.
Shows like the Creation of the Universe are not very easy to do But they
are relative easy to get funding for.  There is not a lot of experience in
the production of these type of shows. Unlike the Soaps, Sitcoms, and stuff
like that.  I am sure you would be an excellent candidate to produce a 
original and decent science show.  I know I am gonna give it a try. By
the way, I missed "The Ring of Truth.  Hopefully, I'll get a chance to see
it.

In article <1612@pdn.UUCP>, locke@pdn.UUCP (Richard Locke) writes:
> In article <1336@ilium.swatsun.UUCP> hirai@swatsun.UUCP (Eiji "A.G." Hirai) writes:
> >	I desperately hope that this series will not be as bad as another
> >science program that PBS showed recently.  I do not remember the exact title
> >but the program attempted to show some theories on the various fundamental
> >forces in the Universe.  It had the narrator climbing up a light tower
> >and opening windows when explaining the march back in time to the beginning
> >of the Universe.
> >
> >	The show lacked any depth for those who were Physics majors or
> >were knowledgeable about the field of quantum physics, and was bery confusing
> >for those who were not.  Either way, you lost out.
> >
> >						-AG Hirai
> 
> I beg to differ.  I expect that the PBS show to which you refer was called
> something like "The Origin of the Universe".  (Perhaps it wasn't, in
> which case ignore this!)  The show has been around for several years,
> and I seem to recall it being broadcast again recently.  (I taped
> the program, and have watched it 3 times!  I also sent for the transcript.)
> 
> While I am sure that Physics majors, etc., weren't going to learn a lot
> from the program, I don't understand your criticism that it was
> confusing to others.  In my opinion, the program presented complicated
> theories about complicated stuff in a manner to which the people could
> relate.
> 
> The program was lively, entertaining, informative, visually stimulating, 
> thought provoking, and featured great music (including stuff from 
> Brian Eno's "Before and After Science", if memory serves).  The 
> narrator was very well spoken.  I would recommend it without 
> reservation to anyone!
> 
I forgot about the score.  Brian Eno's "Before and After Science" huh, 
I'll have to make a note of that.  

In article <1336@ilium.swatsun.UUCP>, hirai@swatsun (Eiji "A.G." Hirai)writes:
>In article <1987Oct13.230923.20975@sq.uucp> msb@sq.uucp (Mark Brader) writes:
>>#  Tuesday, October 20
>>#  9 pm: RING OF TRUTH -- Science; 60 min.
> 	I desperately hope that this series will not be as bad as another
> science program that PBS showed recently.  I do not remember the exact title
> but the program attempted to show some theories on the various fundamental
> forces in the Universe.  It had the narrator climbing up a light tower
> and opening windows when explaining the march back in time to the beginning
> of the Universe.

I remember that show, I don't remember what I thought of it.  Generally,
science shows intended for non-scientists tend to be flat for scientists (or
even "scientist-wanna-bes" like myself*), partly because they have to simplify
things in order to convey quickly the gist of stuff that would take years to
teach in detail, and partly because of a (slightly) mistaken notion that
without gimmicks and fancy effects, no one will pay attention.

Having said that, I want to state that I enjoyed the first show of The Ring
immensely.  Even if you "know" everything that he says, it is still enjoyable
to be caught up in his joy of exploring and explaining the Universe.  I think
he conveys the facts and the feelings very well.

(To someone who wondered:  I don't think he teaches Freshman physics, but he
does give one lecture a year to the MIT Freshman physics course; a fascinating
experience that is, too!)

* B.S. Physics, B.S. EECS, both from MIT.  I barely squeaked though Quantum
Mechanics, so now I are a programmer :-).

--
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu

"Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity.  It
eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the
business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation."
		-- Johnny Hart

In article <1832@homxc.UUCP> marcula@homxc.UUCP (Mars Blackmon) writes:
>The show was called "Creation of the Universe".  I thought it was not all 
>that bad esp.

I didn't think it was too bad either, but I could be wrong.  What
surprised me was how difficult to was for Hawking (visiting Caltech at
the time) to communicate [I don't really have time to read popular books
like his bio] we are fortunate to have his intellect.

>Things like Cosmos, Nova, and various other science productions via
>PBS are absolutely great.  

Oh! Don't use that word "absolutely."  If you learn one thing from
those shows, they try to avoid it.  See the episode on "Knowledge or
Certainly" on the "Ascent of Man."

>Shows like the Creation of the Universe are not very easy to do But they
>are relative easy to get funding for.

I have a friend who produces documentaries.  If you know how to get easy
money, he would like to know.  The PBS money has largely dried up.  Yes
you can solicit money for large companies, but this is time and resource
consuming to an extreme, only the largest stations can do it.  There is
also pressure against some science shows which may depict views or
opinions contrary to established organizations.

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene

In article <1880@frog.UUCP> john@frog.UUCP (John Woods, Software) writes:
>Having said that, I want to state that I enjoyed the first show of The Ring
>immensely.  Even if you "know" everything that he says, it is still enjoyable
>to be caught up in his joy of exploring and explaining the Universe.  I think
>he conveys the facts and the feelings very well.

I dunno; I watched it and found pace slo-o-o-o-w and boring, even in
comparison to sloth-speed presentations such as Sagan's.  He makes a
few good points, but takes so long in doing so that I wound up using the
fast forward control on my VCR several times during the show.  On the
other hand, this show is clearly aimed at non-scientists, and so I'm
not part of the target audience.  Personally, I prefer 'Connections'
and 'The Day the Universe Changed'.
-- 
Rich Kulawiec, rsk@s.cc.purdue.edu, s.cc.purdue.edu!rsk

->I dunno; I watched it and found pace slo-o-o-o-w and boring, even in
->comparison to sloth-speed presentations such as Sagan's.  He makes a
->few good points, but takes so long in doing so that I wound up using the
->fast forward control on my VCR several times during the show.  On the
->other hand, this show is clearly aimed at non-scientists, and so I'm
->not part of the target audience.  Personally, I prefer 'Connections'
->and 'The Day the Universe Changed'.

Strange. It seemed to me that he was making subtle but interesting
points all through the program. I like 'Connections' and 'TDTUC'
but 'Ring of Truth' was much more subtle and profound.