Curiosity
Have you ever wondered what it would be like if you could live forever? What would happen if aliens attacked? Why sex is fun? Welcome to Curiosity.
More than just a landmark television series, Curiosity is an adventure of discovery, an expedition to uncover the truths behind life's most challenging questions. With an insatiable thirst for answers and experiences, we're prepared to do anything, go anywhere and ask anyone to get to the heart of the matter.
Whether it's jumping out of an airplane to confront fear, having neuroscientists implant false memories, or donating tissue to test the possibility of regeneration, there is nothing stopping us as we embark on a global journey of learning and surprises.
Curiosity asks and answers the most fundamental questions facing the world today. Each episode of Curiosity will focus on a single enduring question in science, technology, and society. As is always the case, one single question cascades into several more, making each episode of Curiosity a rich and textured experience.
From the micro to the macro, we tackle provocative and insightful questions. Is there a Creator? Is it likely there's an alternate universe? Could you find out exactly how you are going to die and would you want to know? Are some people genetically prone to violence? Is time travel really possible? Why is it that we dream? What don't we know about gravity and does it hold the secret for exploring the universe?
oh, come on! it was all episodes and now its just a preview :S
ufo episode is BULL**** !!
everyone who's thinking about God and Hawking please imagine Q showing up and curing Hawking
az
I try and i try but i can't help myself and think that the voice of Hawking has been abducted by high power. Wouldn't that be the perfect guinea pig (victim)?
I know ....bring it on...i promise, i am fighting the thought.
az
TIME IS A MEASURE OF CHANGE NOTHING ELSE, IF EVERYTHING SUDDENLY FROZE AROUND U WOULD THINK THAT TIME STOPPED ETC. TIME NEVER EXISTED AND NEVER WILL ITS JUST SOMETHING WE INVENTED. AND TO USE THE TERM TIME TO EXPLAIN THE BEGGING OF D UNIVERSE IS A WRONG APPROACH.
this is very good for the easy minded .a quick snoop into interesting topics.
Just a thought I had this morning... What if the universe Isn't still accelerating outward. After all, the light we are using to measure that expansion is just arriving to us after billions of years, beginning its journey possibly when it still was expanding faster !?
Yet another documentary with Michio Kaku. are there only 5 people they rotate in all of these science documentaries? Maybe I should just be thankful. At least it's not Neil deGrasse Tyson, whew.
Lars the Horny keeps his trap shut while eyeballing the solar eclipse with his buddies, but thinks, "This whole 'wolf swallows fire' thing is just a load of bollocks," and exchanges a covert look with Brunhilde of the Brass Balls, who sheaths his sword numerous times later on that night amid the nocturnal grunts and farts, swaddled in bearskins. Fifty generations later, their descendents preside over the inaugural class of the Nobel Prize...
Point is, how many of our ancestors never did buy into the myths they were told, even if they didn't have the vocabulary that would constitute dissent, or any kind of methodology to back it up, while having the good sense to know how to avoid the rack? I think it's easy to forget sometimes how sophisticated, if unschooled, and modern, if ancient, a larger percentage of our ancestors were than many would suppose.
Doubt, in other words, is certainly not a recent invention, even if it's now distributed wholesale. And while Power has always put its foot on the throat of doubt, it has failed to take note of the spear in its back.
We enjoyed the first episode but thought the Alien Attack scenario to be weak and didn't watch further.
Sweet dreams guys x
pretty much recycled information in this series, usa-centristic and sometimes plain wrong ex: i thought atlantis was supposed to be beyond hercules' pillars
and the parts that involve god are pure commercial stuff; michio kaku said it right: "even in a thousand years we won't know if god exists" even if there isn't an entity that created the entire universe there should be things that appeared latter and would seem like gods to us, q from star trek for example should play a trick on humans by showing up and pretending to be the creator of the universe haha who would dare to challenge that assumption?
az
I noticed a conversation below about the difference between scientific theory and fact, very interesting debate guys. I can see both points of view, a scientific theory is certainly much more than a guess, but I don't think most scientists would feel comfortable defining scientific theory as "fact". When does a theory become a fact? It’s actually very hard to say; one reason being that the concept of "fact" is still, philosophically speaking, very ambiguous. Mankind does not yet agree on what constitutes truth, what constitutes knowing, what exactly we mean by "fact". Does it merely mean universal agreement, if so we could all agree on anything and then it would become "fact". That’s not a very satisfying answer though; it doesn't feel tied to what we call reality. Does it mean direct, repeatable observation? If so then many of the theories we use and take for granted as fact everyday are not really fact, as they cannot be observed directly by their very nature. Is it a test of time? If so exactly how much time, evolution has withstood all scientific challenges for over one hundred and fifty years, the principles of evolution are used every day in genetics labs all over the world to gain accurate predictable results, but we still call it a theory. When does theory become "fact"?
So, how do we settle this issue, science after all must produce real world results, while at the same time avoiding the concept of absolute "fact", and that is an awfully subtle and difficult line to walk. Solution, avoid the concept of absolute facts altogether. Agree that no matter how much evidence you have that this appears to be the facts, no matter how many times you employ the theory and get accurate real world results, no matter how long the theory with stands true scientific scrutiny and challenge, you will not call it nor conceive of it as being absolute, end of discussion, fact. Agree that instead you will think of it as being the best explanation we currently have based on the available data. Turns out not only does this get rid of the whole issue of calling something fact or theory, it also tends to leave things open ended enough to inspire new scientists to keep pondering the question and trying to come up with better theories. This way we don’t close any line of inquiry off and our understanding of the universe continues to sharpen.
Now once you look at scientific theory in this light the argument that “well, this is only a theory”, just doesn't hold water. The word "fact" doesn't apply, not because we are uncertain, but because the word fact doesn't work in scientific dialogue in a general sense. To be honest there is more empirical support for say the big bang "theory" or evolution than there is for many of the things the average person calls "fact" everyday. Quantum mechanics is the most accurate "theory" ever produced by science, it consistently produces the most reliable predictions of any theory of reality- yet, to understand it we must trade the word "fact" for "probability", which is a much less ambiguous concept in the end. However, with all of this said, for many reasons, we should not and do not call theory fact. My point is that one of those reasons isn’t that we are uncertain, we are more certain of these theories than we are of much of what we think of as fact every day.
Sorry for the lengthy post, this subject happens to be one I am currently researching, so I had to pitch in my two cents. It really is a fascinating question.
How can Mr Hawkins say that the laws of the universe or "nature" are unchangeable and fixed when particle theory states that these laws only exist when they are being measured. How can both be true and accepted claims. I think the church had it right in opposing science, now thanks to science the human race has the ability to wipe out the entire planet seven times over maybe they foreseen something others at that time did not. lol
If God created the laws of nature, then who created God? LOL
@ Az - you said, 'You seem to have skipped the best part...the part on the female orgasims. Or are you just shy?'
Well - Shy? Pas moi mon cher. I watched that episode, very informative for sure.The reason I did not comment is I was curious to see if you would pick up on my omission. Well done. lol
Oh - whereas, Self-conscious? Very much so - for it is my life-blood as I continually explore my surroundings. (Take care)
Aristarchus must have been as far above his contemporaries as a man is above a chimp. It only took, what, 17 centuries to catch up with him? I imagine he must've felt quite lonely at times, when he wasn't able to cradle his head in the arms of the cosmos.
(It would also seem that those Revered Elders, the Immutable Laws of Gravity, are not without an ironical sense of humor.)
" But 'curing' female patients manually could be lengthy and labor intensive..."
Yes. Indeed. This has, fortunately, been my experience with them, as well.
Skipping ahead to ' Why Sex Is Fun,' for some reason.
if everything we seen her it is groin and to happen Wat is the since t
Wat about god who create them and us don't you think he is slipping
somewhere we can not say wen god nos only thank you
Thank you for opening some of fundamental peoples mind, thanks to science!
God doesn't need time.
I hate how Hawking act as if the universe coming from nothing is a complete fact, which leads me to think that he is a complete ***hole
Loving this doc btw, Hawking is a real hero.
There is no such thing as a fact, there are only theories and their lesser untested cousins hypotheses. Fact is a description of certainty that is unachievable apart from in a very limited sense - while it might hold true under certain local idealised conditions, in reality conditions are very rarely and/or very briefly ideal, or localised.
Theories are as close to facts as we are able to get, and should be treated as the best guess so far - until such times as we become aware of further intricacies of conditions, places outside of the local boundaries, scale or resolution of the theory.
You think the theory of gravity can be trusted completely here and now? Step outside of the local conditions however and something changes. Galaxies do not appear to move as they are expected according to their mass. similarly on the quantum scale, gravity does not appear to exist at all. No theory can ever be truly 'complete' as it would have to describe every condition, every locality and every scale, for all time. it would in fact :) have to be an equation that described the entirety of existense as we know it and as we don't.