Wonders of the Universe: Destiny

  • More Options

VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
Rating: 8.2/10 (65 votes cast)
Is This Documentary Broken?
(Click Here To Let Us Know)

Destiny

Having explored the wonders of the solar system, Professor Brian Cox steps boldly on to an even bigger stage – the universe.

Who are we? Where do we come from? For thousands of years humanity has turned to religion and myth for answers to these enduring questions. But in this series, Brian presents a different set of answers – answers provided by science.

In this episode, Brian seeks to understand the nature of time and its role in creating both the universe and ourselves. From an extraordinary calendar built into the landscape of Peru to the beaches of Costa Rica, Brian explores the cycles of time which define our experience of life on Earth. But even the most epic cycles of life can’t begin to compare to the vast expanse of cosmic time.

For instance, just as the Earth orbits the Sun, the solar system orbits the entire Milky Way galaxy. This orbit takes a staggering 250 million years to complete.

Ultimately, Brian discovers that time is not characterised by repetition but by irreversible change. From the relentless march of a glacier, to the decay of an old mining town, the ravaging effects of time are all around us. The vast universe is subject to these same laws of change. As we look out to the cosmos, we can see the story of its evolution unfold, from the death of the first stars to the birth of the youngest. This journey from birth to death will ultimately lead to the destruction not just of our planet, but also the entire universe, and with it the end of time itself.

Yet without this inevitable destruction, the universe would be without what is perhaps the greatest wonder of all; the brief moment in time in which life can exist.

Wonders of the Universe: Destiny, 8.2 out of 10 based on 65 ratings

Related Documentaries

From The Web

  • Brevan

    8/10
    - Large variety of footage, from ruins of civilization to computer animations of cosmic events.
    - Information was light in weight and depth, but specific to the themes of time and “Destiny” (this episode’s title).
    - Reasonable explanations of the current scientific theories of Time, referring to 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy increases), and predicting future events of the Universe.
    - Should be pretty easy to understand by anyone above elementary school education, i.e. simple words and phrases, some repetition of ideas, some observable examples.
    - Brian Cox’s speaking quality is a little underaverage. It’s relatively hard for me to specify, but I think his speaking tempo (slowed) and pitch (raised) are more suited for beseeching rather than explaining. His narration off-camera is better.

    • Johnny

      Oh, finally some discussion. Howdy. :)

      “- Large variety of footage, from ruins of civilization to computer animations of cosmic events.
      - Information was light in weight and depth, but specific to the themes of time and “Destiny” (this episode’s title).”

      Agreed on both counts, though I do feel too much focus is placed on the notion of ‘time’ as a physical concept when it is a purely derived dimension(a product of general motion, velocity and relativity).

      But he at least alluded to that fact if not outright mentioned it(I recall something on that, but I am not 100% sure ATM as I watched this yesterday) so I can’t be too critical on that point.

      “- Reasonable explanations of the current scientific theories of Time, referring to 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy increases), and predicting future events of the Universe.”

      Well in a few cases I may disagree on how ‘reasonable’ they are but as far as the establishment (consensus peer-review) views go yes they are well laid out.

      Though I would argue there have been very few accurate predictions made by any modern theory in the last 80 years or so, usually when you hear ‘it was predicted’ it means that they discovered an actual phenomenon or object that did not conform to their existing theory so then they tweaked their theory to make it fit, and once tweaked they ran the simulations and theoretically it worked.

      If a theory can be ‘tweaked’ to incorporate a new discovery then it is said to have ‘predicted it’, but that is far from true in most cases.

      See the CMB “predictions” of the Big Bang Theory for example – at the time of the actual discovery of the CMB the Big Bang predictions were some of the least accurate out of all the competing models, but afterwards they ‘tweaked’ their equations to make them fit the answers and claimed they had ‘predicted’ it most accurately based on those ad-hoc fixes.

      Some even claim the simple prediction of there being a CMB as evidence of the Big Bang Theory’s validity and yet almost all models existing at the time also predicted it’s existence, and far more accurately so in the actual pre-discovery true prediction phase.

      Ad-hoc fixes or ‘tweaks’ are not accurate predictions.

      Actual real confirmed predictions are like those made by Electric Universe advocates in regard to the ‘electric comet’ structure that were empirically observed to be confirmed by the ‘Deep Impact’ missions.

      More importantly at this time none of the EU predictions in that regard have been falsified by the comet missions/experiments so far, whereas the conventional views led to ‘shock and surprise’ and having to ‘go back to the drawing board’ among the scientists witnessing the EU naturally expected events.

      see – http://thunderbolts.info/predictions.htm

      Note – this isn’t about promoting the EU view here, just pointing out the difference between real empirical predictions and the ad-hoc ‘tweaked’ mathematical predictions common in the mainstream community.

      “- Should be pretty easy to understand by anyone above elementary school education, i.e. simple words and phrases, some repetition of ideas, some observable examples.”

      Agreed here as well, it certainly has a good production value all around.

      “- Brian Cox’s speaking quality is a little underaverage. It’s relatively hard for me to specify, but I think his speaking tempo (slowed) and pitch (raised) are more suited for beseeching rather than explaining. His narration off-camera is better.”

      I think I get what you mean but I honestly didn’t mind that at all, but something about his body movements did bother me, they just seem ‘artificial’ almost at times.

      Not that it affects the film in any credible way, just for some reason it unnerves me a (very) little watching him. Probably that’s just me though, I naturally pay very close attention to body language.

      So anyways ultimately going from a mainstream POV I’d have to agree with your 8/10 rating.

      From a more ‘holistic’ and ‘alternative’ POV I’d give it a 6/10, but barely. Maybe 5.5/10.

      At the very least it’s a good source to find out what the mainstream views are so you can debate them… lol.

      Cheers.

      • Johnny

        A note for clarification in regards to the Big Bang CMB part of my post –

        There was a period between the discovery of the existence of the CMB and the measuring of it’s temperature during which time all of the existing competing models made predictions on what the temperature should be.

        The Big Bang was one of the furthest off from the observed reality, until the mathematical equations were tweaked to make it fit the observations after the fact.

        An accurate prediction is one where the observations fit the theory without requiring any tweaking of either the theory or the observations(if you analyze the data in this particular way it works…).

        The EU’s ‘Deep Impact’ mission predictions were made long before the mission itself and were confirmed by direct observations without any ‘tweaking’ required anywhere in the process.

        Two entirely different types of ‘accurate predictions’.

      • Johnny

        A note for clarification in regards to the Big Bang CMB part of my post –

        There was a period between the discovery of the existence of the CMB and the measuring of it’s temperature during which time all of the existing competing models made predictions on what the temperature should be.

        The Big Bang was one of the furthest off from the observed reality, until the mathematical equations were tweaked to make it fit the observations after the fact.

        An accurate prediction is one where the observations fit the theory without requiring any tweaking of either the theory or the observations(if you analyze the data in this particular way it works…).

        The EU’s ‘Deep Impact’ mission predictions were made long before the mission itself and were confirmed by direct observations without any ‘tweaking’ required anywhere in the process.

        Two entirely different types of ‘accurate predictions’.

  • wut

    Not something that should be watched stone, or perhaps it was, cant take a stand right now.

  • DISAPPOINTED!!!

    This is Bullsht!!! “…This video contains content from BBC Worldwide, who has blocked it on copyright grounds…”  Well WTF is the point of having this video option if you can’t even fckn watch it??!! You know , I’m starting to get really disappointed and pissed off with this documentary heaven site!!! So far %50 of the videos I have wanted to watch have had this kind of bullshit trouble!!! You get all excited and then…Sorry too bad.. What a waste of time!!!

  • roeland velde

    Good presenter if you ask me.

    Talks very soothing and clear. 

  • SRAPIDAS

    Brian Cox quite boring presentations.  Funny accent, though.  There’s plenty of other really amusing science documentaries on the internet these days.

  • https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ryuus-Wardrobe/189604487801509 Andrea E.

    I love this guy lol 

  • Brian

    @DISAPPOINTED!!!
    You could try a VPN … very useful for accessing content that is blocked based on geographical location. Downside is it will probably cost. There are freebie options but I neither trust them nor do they work sufficiently well to be useful. I can vouch for proXPN.

  • miike

    might be an idea not to feature a documentary that takes so long to buffer that by the time you’ve finished watching it the science is completely out of date :-),,,,, not wanting to sound ungrateful obviously :-)

  • Keeko

    Brian Cox is tube

  • Stevethedoctor

    what the hell all i get is redirected to advert pages, 

  • Robert Duhamel

    I could’nt endure more than 18 minutes !!!

    Nothing new.. just a rich young guy (Professor Brian Cox..) who smiles for the camera in all the corners of the world… plus bits of other documentaries on space, weather, nature etc that have been used for where flight companies don’t go .. pfff !

    You don’t NEED that, unless you don’t know yet that fishes swim and birds fly or you’re a little girl looking for a new crush !

    RE-AL-LY  BO-RING !

    • Anonymous

      Just a rich young guy that probably knows a LOT more about physics and astronomy that some random punk like you who cant stand someone being smarter than you

      • Ben

        I totally agree with Robert Duhamel. And what has his comment about the programme have anything to do with his knowledge of physics?

        That rich dude is pretentious and annoying as hell. Total egomaniac who is clearly too much in love with himself.

        Why would anyone want to see that?

    • Anonymous

      Maybe your aomeone that studies physics and you already know about this, but this series is made for all sorts of people who know and dont know about this

  • hm.

    i’ll say it. narrator is sexy and has a very soothing voice. 

  • Foolwhoplaysitcool

    Good documentary but should of been more science and less shots of the scott

  • Ben

    The most drawn out documentary with the most poser host I have ever watched.

    I mean, why does he have to pose and talk nonsense all the time? Kept repeating “amazing, brilliant, magnificent” – yeah, I get it – you like turtles. And kept reusing verbal cliches like “testament of time” or “the moon conspires to create the perfect tide”. What is that crap? Why are you trying so hard? Where is the actual content?

    He spends five minutes about what the 24 hours, one month, and 365 days mean and where that comes from. Thanks for that reminder, I had no idea.

    Offered nothing new, no new perspectives, no interesting presentation – quite the opposite in fact. Felt like he kept posing for the camera because he thinks he is really pretty or something. The focus was on the host, not on the actual topic.
    In short: pretty boy makes a dull and thin documentary in which he finds any and all opportunity to pose on top of some rock.
    Really annoying and a useless waste of time. That guy should be sacked and banned from TV for life.

    • memoiandi

      “That guy should be sacked and banned from TV for life.”?? OK, you can have your opinion but let’s put this in context: take away TV and he’ll be just fine. Why? Because he has a PhD in physics and works at CERN. (Have you sent them your resume lately?) Also, he doesn’t think he is any sort of “pretty boy”. In short, you might not like the style in which the producers (not him) decided to present the information but make no mistake, he knows what he talks about and should be shown respect.

      To be honest, your posts hint at jealousy. (and there’s nothing wrong with that)

      • Ben

        Dude, what are you even talking about. I don’t care what he does with his life, as long as he doesn’t do any of it front of a camera.

      • Ben

        @memoiandi It’s really interesting the way you responded to my original comment, the way you engaged in ad hominem…truly a desperate attempt by someone of inferior intelligence. It really made me think. Thank you for that.

        And then I realised a couple of things:
        1. There are only two types of comments about this doco: either sarcastic and/or negative about how the presenter is a pretty boy that offers nothing new OR comments defending him, usually in the form of saying he’s got a PhD, CERN, etc.
        2. Most of the comments defending the presenter have a common theme.

        And then I realised: all of these comments defending that clown are either from the clown himself, or one of his boyfriends. Because, why else in the world would you ever defend such a rubbish production?

        I mean, there is no doubt there are a tonne of excellent documentaries on this website. All done by people with similar credentials to the pretty boy here, yet profoundly different. And they are different in that they are smart and offer incredible insights and ideas. Pretty boy here on the other hand, simply pollutes the ether with this crap.

        So that made me come to the conclusion that completely fits with the personality profile of the clown in this documentary: incredibly self-centered, underachiever, with academic credentials that – while fully credible in their own right – clearly haven’t helped this pretty boy with coming up with an original idea.

        Which begs the question: what’s the matter pretty boy? Can’t take some constructive criticism? Have to call in your boyfriends to defend you? Boo hoo, go cry in the corner about your doco.

        Which is precisely my point. This guy is an insecure clown that makes it all about him, his qualifications, his credentials, his job. But guess what, those credentials mean shit if you cannot engage an audience. You can’t buy an audience with credentials. So get lost. And never get in front of a camera again.

        Memoandi – instead of attacking me personally and my qualifications (of which you know nothing), I challenge you to instead offer a proper objective academic critique of this crap documentary. If you have the capacity of course. Don’t want to give you a headache.

        • Jabba

          the bottom line is that he is one of the most liked presenters of all things cosmological on the planet today.
          When you you emerge from the “that’s so gay” pit and start thrusting your “I am so above the the rest of you” stance” , that’s your problem and yours alone, the rest of don’t want hear your hissyfits.

        • circleandsquares

          Look boys and girls, a man showing off over the internet because he thinks he is much more intellectual than everyone else! Maybe people have a different opinion as him?! But noooooo he must be right, and everyone else is so wrong!

        • circleandsquares

          Look boys and girls, a man showing off over the internet because he thinks he is much more intellectual than everyone else! Maybe people have a different opinion as him?! But noooooo he must be right, and everyone else is so wrong!

          • Hastein

            You autistic or something? Its people like you why we can’t have nice things.

          • Hastein

            And looks like I don’t know how to computer. I was mocking Ben, not you :)

        • Tom.

          Correction. This is the best comment I’ve ever seen LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL x2

    • Tom.

      Best comment I’ve ever seen LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

  • josh

    BBC is just trying to get people back into science if you ask me. The show might not be for the minds that have interest in the particular subject, but it will surely draw new people into the discussion.

  • Gerry

    For a layman like me, I absolutely loved it. If your looking for new perspectives of the universe why don’t you read a scientific journal or go to the library instead of watching a BBC programme which isn’t aimed at academic folks like yourselves. I love this show

  • Britt

    I had to stop watching – The narrator dude was getting on my nerves. :/

  • Jasper

    Inspired me to join uni studying Astro Physics. I might wanna lay off the smoke, but this episode is one of the best things iv’e seen. Ever. Thank you Brian Cox! :)

  • testing

    testing comment

  • Physics junky

    @Ben 1# This is meant to be popular science. If you really want science, go read a scientific report, and then come back and explain it to us like we where a bunch of average joes. Me for one find Brian Cox a super narrator. I actually get chills when he brings out the photo of GRB 090423. Think Ben, he actually presents you a photo of the oldest object in the universe. For me that leaves me in awe, of how AMAZING, BRILLIANT, and MAGNIFICENT our universe is. Wether you are highly intelligent or not, Im not in position to say, but you might come across to others as a not so intelligent with your remarks. And to me it seems you are looking for a confirmation of your intellect.

    That all said
    I love this doc. I have allways been drawn towards science, the big questions, and the understanding of physics, the universe, and the big why`s. And if you really listen, and really get emerged in the episod, some big questions might come to you, as it did with me the first time i watched it. For example: if you look at the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy is just a part of that law, but when you think about how low value energy comes out of high value energy, and combine it with the fact that nothing can ever disappear, and nothing can ever come of nothing. Then think about the fact that energy will never disappear, but the universe will eventually become a whole black empty VAST VAST space. then you will see the value of this doc. cause it actually makes you think. why? how? when? will the universe be a big space of nothing? but nothing can ever disappear.

    I miss more shows like this. BBC you hear! I WANT MORE!!!

  • Physics junky

    I also want to comment that physics are not like this on a daily level. Physics are based on a mathematical approache, most of the laws of physic are based on mathematical models for predicitions of events. I am at the moment studying engineering, and the undergraduat program require a “physics 101″ course beyond your high school level physics. Its almost only math… Nothing like this doc. This doc, gives you a physics in work approach. Which I think is good for the young viewers, to catch the attention of our childeren, who nowadays only watch shit shows, and play computergames.

  • Pingback: Documentary Heaven – En hemsida som lever upp till sitt namn | Filmälskare.se

  • Dustin

    pff dont listen to Bens comment below… The documentary may be slightly drawn out, not a ton of information is presented “per minute”, although it is very well done, and enjoyable to watch. It’s the introduction video to a great series. The documentary is great for what it is, and doesn’t claim to be anything it isn’t. Unless you’re Albert Einstein or “Ben”, it’s a very enjoyable video…

    This is coming from someone who struggles to find new videos to watch on the entire internet regarding space.

  • http://DeathoftheSun Luke

    The sun will Burn Out in this Lifetime Science has been wrong about the death of the sun and science has made an error I have recently Discovered that the sun will Burn out in this Lifetime at some point From the Proof I have I have Predicted this I bet I will be correct from the Proof I have

    • MrBull

      Bullshit

    • http://dfsdf.com fgdfg

      Luke, you are retarded, just shut the fuck up.

  • Pingback: Documentary Heaven – En hemsida som lever upp till sitt namn | Sara.PM

  • http://northface-outletstore.net northface-outletstore.net

    Do you have a spam problem on this blog; I also am a blogger, and I was wondering your situation; we have developed some nice procedures and we are looking to swap methods with other folks, please shoot me an e-mail if interested.
    northface-outletstore.net http://www.northface-outletstore.net

  • http://SusanE.Wood Susan E. Wood

    It certainly is mostly close to impossible to find well-informed users on this niche, but you look like you be aware of the things that you’re posting on! Regards
    Susan E. Wood http://www.harkincapital.com

  • http://MaryD.Boyd Mary D. Boyd

    I merely have to notify you in which I’m just raw to putting up a blog and undeniably enjoyed your website. Likely I am inclined to store your site post . You truly have fabulous article content. Acknowledge it for expressing with us your domain report.

  • http://EleanorD.Beres Eleanor D. Beres

    I see there are several junk on this web site. You happen to be intending to clean it up. Might Be I could help to implement?

  • http://DanielW.Moran Daniel W. Moran

    Turned Out To Be examining throughout . I’m keen on your stuff. Do publish a little more of this topic ok. Thank you so much