Talk:Brian Cox (physicist)

criticism: against the nihilogony of Brian Cox (include the topic; it's of core importance)

Brian Cox erroneously claims (on BBC 4 for example - Human Universe | Episode 2 | Why Are We Here? | BBC Studios) that all physical theories of cosmogony are nihilogonous/nihilogonies. see: nihilogony: The claim that nothingness (which isn't the void) is a potential state of matter which occasionally becomes materialized. But actually that's not in the math. Max Tegmark's struogony is the claim that the hypernym of the universe is the multiverse and spacetime which are eternal simply because they are mathematically correct thus according to solvogony, ANY correct algorithm of topological algebra which can describe a universe, NECESSARILY exists; not because nothingness is a potential state of matter, but because ANY hypernymous brane-spacetime (ontic renormalization/self-interactive multilayer of causality), NECESSARILY exists if it is mathematically correct. Solvogony being nonanthropocentric doesn't require a human hand to solve the equations of the infinite spacetimes. It simply requires correct relationships which self-exist due to a multilayered ontic (not merely calculational) renormalization of variable probability contributions per layer (self-interaction multilayering of infinite hypernymous "spacetime states"); the higher the degree of hypernymy/superordinance the lower its contribution; see the Russian doll example).

OK. Brian Cox is not "the enemy of the people". He is alive and he can correct himself, or if not at least acknowledge that the majority of the precosmic state (create the missing page) theories aren't nihilogonous (they are misinterpreted by some as nihilogonous but do not include nihilogony). Don't cover the issue. Brian Cox is a good physicist. This is an issue of core importance. True nihilogonists do exist (they are few); in order to be a "true" one you're supposed to provide mathematical mechanisms; not merely rhetorical misinterpretations of things not included in the formulas.

note: Nothing/nothingness isn't the void = empty spacetime seething with virtual particles (and actually with some materialized ones and radiation, because the ideal void is impossible due to quantum jittering and insulation limitations). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410F:FBB9:2554:E4B4:AF7C:7841 (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Can we insert this about Cox saying phases of Moon caused by Earth's shadow?

http://www.skepticcanary.com/2012/02/22/professor-brian-cox-stands-up-for-science/:

Sven Hargroth

March 11, 2012 at 11:26 pm

The phases of the Moon are caused by the Earth’s shadow:

Brian Cox wrote, “I apparently said in a radio interview that the phases of the Moon are caused by the Earth’s shadow, which is clearly bollocks! Unless I was talking about a lunar eclipse, I can’t understand what I must have been thinking. Probably the end of a long day.” [37] Steve C wrote, “Here’s a fact for you: Brian Cox believes that the phases of the Moon are caused by the shadow of the Earth falling on the surface of the Moon. This was broadcast on BBC Radio Wales on 19th January 2012. I have the recording if anyone wants it, and I have been trying to ‘undo’ this damage in conversation with people for weeks since. For me, any suggestion of scientific credibility he held prior to this collapsed in on itself instantly.” [38] Trailer for a radio programme on BBC Radio Wales this morning. It’s a phone-in item for programme guest Prof. Brian Cox. Little kid (sounded 5 or 6 years old) asks: Why is the moon sometime round and sometimes looks like a banana. Prof Cox: “That’s the shadow of the earth.”[39]

81.154.168.149 (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Professor of what?

This is being fought out in the article's change history, which is clearly the wrong place for it.

How about discussing it here and reaching a consensus?

Nick Levine (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Levine: the department of Physics and Astronomy at Manchester University refer to Cox only as "Royal Society Professor for Public Engagement in Science" in their online staff list [1]. There's no mention at the moment of him also being a professor of particle physics there. Do you think we should amend the lead of the article in line with this? Neiltonks (talk) 10:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Neiltonks: it’s tempting. But two editors do not a consensus make. Give it a couple of weeks, see if anyone objects? Nick Levine (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I cannot find a current reference that lists him with a different title. Clearly he was a professor of particle physics a few years ago. The Royal Society listed him as a professor of particle physics as recently as 2016 https://royalsociety.org/people/brian-cox-12855/, but that is the most recent source I found with that title. Allecher (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

We can eliminate "Professor of Earth's Shadow" Clean Arlene (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

"Brian Cox (physicist" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Brian Cox (physicist and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 27#Brian Cox (physicist until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)