:: gia’s blog ::

Whenever Brian is on telly he gets inundated with emails from every type of whackjob imaginable. There are the people with bizarre theories about some scientific topic or another - they are never scientists, just people with bizarre theories. Then there are the typical anti-science or religious people who scream at him that he’s evil and he’s going to destroy the planet/universe/Europe. There are the New Age people who tell him he’s evil because he refuted their claims that their necklace/magic box/cream can protect people from electromagnetic radiation. There are the unthinking people who tell him he’s evil because he supports nuclear power and knows that their beliefs don’t stand up to fact. He’s had everything from common abuse to threats of lawsuits.

He shows me only a few of them cos, well, I get upset. How would you feel if someone said shitty things about someone you loved? “I think your mother/girlfriend/son is EVIL!!” You’d kinda want to tear them apart, right? Well, that’s me with Brian. I’m a fricken lioness protecting my family.

Then there are the emails from people who are pro-science but HATE the fact that he’s working to popularise it in order to inspire the population generally and younger people specifically in order to get more people ‘doing’ science. These people are never working scientists. They tend to be ‘older’ - if not biologically, then psychologically (ie dull as hell). They seem to hate the general public. Some even sign their emails with their qualifications ie Joe Bloggs, BSc., Dr. Joseph Bloggs (retired)- They always complain about how simplistic the programme was, how Brian’s an idiot for ‘dumbing down’ science, how he has no right to explain things in a way that a non-scientist can understand.

They seem to want science to remain ‘complicated’, ‘difficult’ and ‘mysterious’. They don’t WANT the average person to understand it. They believe because they understand it, they are part of an exclusive club which is somehow more important than the rest and that Brian is bashing down the door to that club and letting just any old person in. Which, of course, is exactly what he’s trying to do.

Again, Brian tends not to show me many of these, nor does he answer these people that often. Sometimes, however- when he’s not too busy with his actual job of BEING A SCIENTIST - he’ll engage them in a discussion about why people need to learn more about and understand science. They tend to just slip away or back down within an email or two.

Fine.

Last night, after a fab night out when Sizemore and LondonFilmGeek, Claire and her friend Bruce, Charlie, ‘Annie Mole’ and I were out at the Coach and Horses, both Brian and I received the following email, yet it was addressed only to me:

Subject: Worst Horizon Program For Years

Gia:

Your comments are typical of the lightweight epidemic which demands that Science should be dumbed down to look cool for media types who have absolute-zero attention spans. Maybe that explains why the “Sunshine” film was such a load of parp. Science is about dedication, not limelight. Please stay away until you understand this!

The Horizon program with Brian Cox was largely bloody awful and seemed at times more about showing a road trip and teaching baby physics, rather than taking it as read that those who have watched Horizon for over 20 years, watch it because they are beyond the basic baby-book science. 40 mins before it even got close to the real cutting edge. Sadly, I never thought I would see a Horizon program so suitable for broadcasting on CBBC.

I have no idea who Brian Cox is, but it seems we should be impressed by his media background. WTF?

One of my old friends is a CERN scientist, and I should think he would find the program laughable too.

If Dr Cox is as intelligent as I am sure we are to believe, he has done nothing to assure his credibility - so, on the undertsanding that paradox has not escaped you, just what are we to believe?

(name deleted)

First off I have to say that I was castigated by Ralph in the comments for outing the (vague) location of a commenter - I accepted his criticism and removed my comment. Ralph and Jim have been unfortunate victims of my lack of patience with the willfully ignorant. It’s not their fault that I don’t have patience for those types of people any more and they probably think I’m a bitch. Whatever. It *is* their fault, however, that they choose to remain ignorant. (*ahem*)… I understand that the above is an email sent to me and that the sender’s details *should* remain private, but I am THIS CLOSE to publishing his name, company details, phone number and email address. He is the president of a company which works with very high profile blue-chip companies and I feel he should EITHER be far more grown up than to send petty and abusive emails to the WIFE of the presenter of a programme he didn’t like OR he should be able to publicly take responsibility for the abusive remarks he makes whilst signing off his emails with his title and company details from his work email address. I am using ALL of my willpower to not type his name…D. E. N… Ok. I can control myself… *and breathe*

Now, Brian is my husband, the man I love and want to be with for the rest of my life. The man who makes my heart swell when I look at him even after 7 years together. We’ve seen each other at our best and our worst- happy, sad, angry, excited, with messy morning hair and bad morning breath, laughing til we cry with friends, vomiting in the toilet after drinking too much beer… We’ve had screaming rows and delicious make-ups. And I love him more and more as the days and weeks and years go by and hope that love continues to grow until we are old, gray and rickety. He. Is. My. Husband.

Why the fuck does that idiot think that it is remotely appropriate to send that email to me? Seriously. Brian wrote and presented a programme that this person didn’t like. That’s it. I mean, why does he feel the correct thing to do after watching a programme he didn’t like is to send an insulting email to the wife of the person in that programme?! Seriously. As he so eruditely said: WTF?

My first thought was that perhaps he didn’t realise that Brian and I are married and that he was just being a wanker with an opinion…but then he CCed Brian on the email! Surely, he would only do that if he realised there was some kind of connection and wanted Brian to see his remarks, right? He went through the process of finding both of us on the web, getting our email addresses and writing a nasty email directed to me about my husband.

Then I wondered why the hell he felt the need to say anything to either of us at all? What kind of tiny little man must he be?

Anyway, Brian wrote a short and snarky reply back to him and he’s replied back. Just like all of these science fundie wankers, he’s backed down really quickly and is trying to be reasonable. Backtracking like a weaselly little fool.

He says in his second email: “Science is not politically correct or a democracy. It has no friends. Only devotees. To such extent, Science-discovery demands a apartheid in favour of those who understand this. Touchy feely types should keep out.” Which put his “Sunshine was parp” comment into context. I’m afraid I worked out long ago that anyone who professes an interest in science and doesn’t like ‘Sunshine’ is, in reality, a dull, tiny-minded and emotionless twat.

I am now holding myself back from sending *my* reply to him.

Paul Olding, the director of ‘What On Earth Is Wrong With Gravity?’, has put up some unused clips from the programme.

Dr. Brian Cox explains the Holographic Principle in a very nice vineyard in California.

Brian and Leonard Susskind on String Theory

Brian talks with Leonard Susskind about Extra Dimensions.

For those of you in the UK who missed Brian’s ‘Horizon’ - ‘What On Earth Is Wrong With Gravity?’ - it’s available to view on the BBC’s iPlayer.

**UPDATE** More on Brian’s Horizon ‘Do You Know What Time It Is?’ here.

Brian was on BBC Breakfast this morning to talk about his Horizon (tonight BBC2 9pm) ‘What On Earth Is Wrong With Gravity?“. Click the image to watch the video.

Watch Video

It’s been getting lots of good reviews. The only criticisms are about the ’style’ of the programme- it’s beautifully shot and edited. I suspect the criticisms come because the reviewers can’t see science as part of popular culture. It’s perfectly acceptable to have ’stylish’ programmes about music, films, books, etc… but science?! Well, why not?

The Guardian
In an effort to explain the essentially inexplicable nature of gravity, Dr Brian Cox heads to America, where the boffins are bountiful and the astrophysical anomalies are served with fries. It’s a game attempt to de-ice several brain- freezing concepts (Einstein’s theory of relativity, Newton’s doofer, something about “gravity waves”), though efforts to further invigorate the venture via scenes of crew-based japery merely remind us why boom operators should never be allowed in front of the camera.

The Telegraph
The BBC’s flagship science series continues as dishy particle physicist (and how often can one say that?) Dr Brian Cox asks: just what is gravity? Newton predicted its effects and Einstein thought he knew how it worked but Cox thinks there’s more to gravity than even these two giants worked out. Despite some annoyingly modern editing (the programme jumps around all over the place), the arguments are reassuringly intelligent, yet still accessible to novices. AG

You can watch outtakes and clips from the programme, as well as read more about it on the BBC’s ‘Horizon’ site.

A very special thanks to Hugh for Twittering about Brian’s programme.

The Maya of ancient Mexico had very advanced concepts of mathematics, astronomy and Time. They kept track of solar and lunar years, eclipses and the cycles of visible planets. To carry out their calendric and astronomical calculations they developed a sophisticated mathematical system where units are written with dots and bars are used to represent five units. They also developed a vigesimal (20 base) positioning system, similar to the decimal positioning system we use today.

Today’s date written according to the Mayan calendar

The Maya’s sacred book, the Popol Vuh, explains the creation of the Universe - with all the usual gods and goddesses, a Plumed Serpent and a Flood. According to their beliefs, Creation happened after Tepeu, the Sky God, and Gukumatz, the Plumed Serpent (or plain old Snake God, depending on which interpretation you follow) decided that they needed to be worshipped. Why is it that these all-powerful beings are always so damned insecure? Anyway, it took the Maya Creation Gods several attempts to create Human Beings who would worship them (a bit like God’s first attempt at creating Woman). First, they created animals who didn’t worship them, so they banished them to the forest. Next, they created Man out of mud, but soon they just washed away (there’s a lesson for you, Yaweh). Next, they created Man out of wood, but they were pretty rubbish at ‘worshipping’ so the Gods got angry and Flooded the place to get rid of them. Finally, Worshipful Man was made out of Maize.

The Maya used several calendars simultaneously - one was 13 days long, another was 20 days long, they had one which covered 260 days and another covering 365 days. They even had calendars covering much longer periods of Time. One of these called the ‘Long Count’, and is a continuous record of days from the ‘Zero date’ beginning of the Worshipful Man- which according to the Maya’s detailed calendars happened at Long Count 0.0.0.0.0. This date is thought to correspond to August 12th or 13th, 3114 BCE in the Gregorian calendar. According to the Maya, the current Long Count will finish on 13.0.0.0.0 or on the 21st or 23rd of December 2012 CE.

The alautun: The Maya’s longest named period of Time representing approximately 63 million years.

Some people – whacky New Agers and many people who should know better – have taken this to mean that the world will end. The fact that the end of the Mayan Long count ends on or near the Winter Solstice adds much more significance to people who seem to think there’s some kind of ‘supernatural magic’ in the revolution of the Earth around the Sun.

What I can’t understand is why people think the Maya had more of an ability to see into the future than any one else. The Unarians thought aliens would invade Earth in 2001. Didn’t happen. The Concerned Christians cult believed an earthquake would wipe Denver off the map in 1998. Didn’t happen. The Third Reich was supposed to have lasted 1,000 years. Didn’t happen…

Or why not believe the Lord’s Witnesses who believe the world will end on the 21st of March this year? Some guy named Harold Camping has written a book which clearly states that the Bible predicts the end of the world to be in 2011. Why not believe him? Why not believe that the end of the world will happen sometime between the first of March and the first of April THIS YEAR, when the world’s population reaches 6.66 billion??!

When it’s pointed out to believers in Mayan prophecy that they sound ‘whacky’ they will often say, ‘It won’t be the end of the whole world, just a monumental change!’ I’d say that there have have been all kinds of monumental changes recently - the discovery of penecillin was pretty world changing. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was pretty monumental. The Moon landings were one small step off our planet for the very first time. I’d say that changed things pretty significantly. Hell, even Live Aid changed the way we think about the less fortunate in the world!

Between the end of the Mayan civilization and now there have been HUNDREDS of massively monumental changes- wars, disasters, famines which have wiped out millions upon millions of people… still the world goes on and those events purely become our history. Nothing more, nothing less.

Why would the Mayan calendar have any more significance than this graphic from the Long Now Foundation?

Do you think in just under 8,000 years from now some people will find this and predict the “end of the world” in the year 12,000 CE because of the “mysteries of the Long Now chart”? Think scholars will talk about how the Long Now believed the beginning of Our Time was 8,000 BCE and that the world would end after 20,000 years? Why wouldn’t they? It states that pretty clearly, doesn’t it?

I’m afraid that anyone who believes there is any deep significance in Mayan Prophecy is quite clearly incapable of finding joy and wonder in the real world and instead insists on creating stories which are based on fear, negativity, insecurity and self-loathing. Seriously, you can’t predict the end of the world *and* love Yourself, Humanity and the Universe, can you?

Sad really.

(Note: I must thank Adrian Pegg for inspiring the title of this post. :)

**EDIT** 31.08.08
Here is my husband talking about this whilst filming his new documentary on Time.

Finally, the BBC agreed to allow more clips to be released online. Which is nice of them. Considering that Brian’s programme *isn’t* going to get any advertising or marketing at all from the BBC. They choose about three Horizons in a year to publicise… hmmmm…

Anyway, these are pretty funny.

One thing to know about Brian is that he’s afraid of spiders and creepy crawlies. What a wuss.

On the way to the GPS Headquarters.

Here Brian gets angry with director Paul Olding whilst trying to explain gravity waves.

Brian refuses to even mention that some people think the Moon landings were faked.

I was talking to Brian last night about my thoughts about ‘truth’. I’ve realised that we most often use or hear the word ‘truth’ when talking about ‘non-facts’. For example, “The Truth About the Moon Landings” is inevitably about some ridiculous conspiracy which ends up talking about UFOs or the Illuminati or both. As Brian said, questioning the Moon landings is as crazy as questioning the discovery of penicillin. You don’t have to scream about “the truth”. It happened, end of.

Just Googling “the Truth” brings up pages like The Truth Seeker - “Behind the headlines - conspiracies, cover-ups, ancient mysteries and more. Real news and perspectives that you won’t find in the mainstream media.“- Jah- The Truth About…- “The absolute Truth about an expanse of different subjects, from princess Diana’s death, to Genetic Terminator-Seeds and the New World Order conspiracy.“. Just throw ‘911′ into your search and a whole host of sites pop up which will dull Occam’s Razor simply by clicking on one of the links.

Far too often people confuse the word “truth” with “fact”. Sure, in some instances “truth” can mean fact - ie True or False: 2+2=4- but more often than not people use it in place of words such as “belief” “feeling” “hypothesis”. I understand and accept that certain things can be “true” within a particular belief structure - “women are inferior” is true to misogynistic men, “children should be beaten” is true to people who believe in corporal punishment, “the world is run by reptilian aliens who take the form of humans” is true to people who are functioning-insane. There is, however, no inherent truth in any of those statements. They are merely “beliefs” and our differences would be based on our particular belief structures.

If, however, one is talking about the Moon landings with someone who believes they were faked then that is a different kettle of fish altogether. I would be talking about ‘facts’ and they would be talking about ‘belief’. Now if that person didn’t know much at all about the Moon landings other than what they’ve heard from conspiracy theorists, yet they were open to the facts, then it would take about 5 minutes’ explanation to make them see how wrong the conspiracy theorists actually are (visit Bad Astronomy for facts refuting some claims).

If the person is a fervent conspiracy theory believer, however, they won’t listen. Much in the same way that a religious person refuses to accept that isn’t really an image of the Virgin Mary in a tortilla, a conspiracy theorist is incapable of seeing the apophenic illusion of reality they’ve constructed as anything other than “the truth”.

Why is it that some people find it impossible to accept ‘facts’? Why is it that some people who are intelligent and skeptical in every other aspect of their lives are happy to throw out rational thought when it comes to things like the Moon landings? Why on the one hand will they question everything the government, scientists and business state, but they happily accept without question the “evidence” spewed out by people who can find a link back to the ‘Illuminati’ in everything? They will happily claim that the sky is pink despite all evidence to the contrary. And, inevitably for these people, a ‘pink sky’ means doom, gloom and death for everyone on the planet and will go on about the “truth” about how the ‘establishment’ is purposely trying to make the sky pinker.

Just like with “feelings”, no one’s “opinion” is wrong. “I love New York.” “I hate New York.” “John Lennon was the best Beatle.” “Paul McCartney was the best Beatle.” “Abortion should be legal.” “Abortion should be illegal.” You can back up your opinions with statements of fact (”New York has less green space than London.” “Paul McCartney’s post-Beatles career was more successful” “The number of abortions in countries where it is restricted or illegal is almost exactly the same as the number in countries where it is readily available, but the death rate from illegal abortions is hundreds of times higher.”) but when it comes down to it, your disagreement will be entirely based on your differing belief structures, so in your own ways, you will both be right. (I will say, however, that attempting to inflict a belief structure on other people which prevents them from living their own lives within their own belief structure is flat out wrong.)

Statements like “New York is the headquarters of the Jew World Order.” “Paul McCartney had John Lennon killed” “Abortion is murder”, however, cannot be questioned and discussed properly without having to discuss the topics on which those statements are built, namely the whole concept of the Jewish Conspiracy, the reasons why Paul McCartney would have John Lennon killed, and the belief about what makes up a ‘human being’. The disagreement then isn’t about New York, Paul McCartney or abortion, it’s about some *other* belief structure. And on and on it goes. Eventually, however, you will end up at ‘facts’.

When you and another person are disagreeing about “facts”, then one of you will be wrong. It is not possible for both 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 to be truthful statements. Sure, 2+2=5 could be the more “surprising” or “interesting” statement, but that doesn’t make it “true”. To state that 2+2=5 is “the truth” is not only wrong, but to continue to spread it as “truth” despite being told the facts, is irresponsible. End of discussion.

I don’t trust people who don’t know where their knowledge about a particular topic ends and where their belief begins. I don’t trust people who confuse ‘belief’ with ‘truth’. I trust people who admit to not knowing something. That is what I called ‘the honesty of cluelessness’. Whether it is admitting that they don’t know the first thing about the Moon landings to owning up to the fact that they don’t know how to do a particular task at work, being honest about what they don’t know is something I value highly in another person… and in myself.

Brian appeared on NorthWest Tonight, er, tonight with a report on the physics funding crisis in the UK.

Click to watch