Skip to main content

Inflight Science making a Discovery

Even those who knock the BBC (take note, Dr G. of Cromer) would acknowledge that the World Service is a good thing. In fact, I gather quite a few people in the UK are surprised to discover that they are, indeed, part of the world and can listen to it.

I'm delighted to say that the World Service's flagship science programme, Discovery has dedicated a show to Inflight Science. During this week (commencing 9 May) you can hear it live most days, or play it using the Listen Again facility - but don't worry if you come to this later, as it is also available as a podcast either by clicking that link or through iTunes.

Here's their bumf:
Physicist and science writer Brian Clegg guides Jon Stewart on a journey though the science of aeroplane flight. The whole experience of flying is filled with scientific discoveries – starting with how huge, heavy jumbo jets manage to get off the ground, how they navigate and why, unlike in Hollywood movies, it’s practically impossible to open the door mid flight?
Labels:

Comments

  1. Sue Guiney10 May 2011 at 09:41

    Woo hoo! fantastic! btw, did I tell you I bought myself a copy of the ebook, forgot, and then bought a paperback version? How's that for support? :-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg10 May 2011 at 16:28

    Thanks, Sue! I think everyone should by both, just on principle. (The principle being I make more money. Rubs hands and cackles a la Mr Burns.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brian Clegg10 May 2011 at 16:29

    It probably also says something deep and meaningful about ebooks that I may have to blog about. Would you ever do that with a paper book? I've bought the same book again by accident many years later, but not within a few weeks...

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...
118 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...
6 comments
Read more