Astronomy and Empire - In Our Time (BBC Radio 4) - Melvyn Bragg

Подписаться 6 тыс.

Просмотров 22 тыс.

50% 1

One of my favorite episodes of In Our Time, from May 4, 2006. Guests are Simon Schaffer, Kristen Lippincott, and Allan Chapman. Thank you to user @omniraptorr who wrote to inform that the last question was answered by the statement that colonialism spread a great deal of very useful information around the globe. Sir Melvyn signs off right after that. The last few seconds were cut off inadvertently during the upload.

Развлечения

Опубликовано:

22 сен 2015

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 10

@corinneromabiles2410 Год назад

I loved this! Great guests Sir Melvyn!

@Ekvitarius 6 лет назад

One of my favorite episodes.

@oldmanfromscenetwentyfour8164 7 лет назад

Very informative and enjoyable.

@gitanjalikarki4249 5 лет назад

wonderful

@inhighspeed 9 месяцев назад

The last few seconds were cut off inadvertently. Thank you to user @omniraptorr who wrote to inform that the last question was answered by the statement that colonialism spread a great deal of very useful information around the globe. Sir Melvyn signs off right after that.

@c.l.severson449 5 лет назад

It gets cut off at the very end when one of them has a brilliant thought: was colonialism actually a bad thing!?!

@Omniraptorr 9 месяцев назад

checked the full version from the BBC website and he answers his own question, saying only that it spread a great deal of very useful information around the globe. sir melvyn signs off right after. 😐

@inhighspeed 9 месяцев назад

@@Omniraptorr Thank you. I don't know how it happened that it got cut off like that. Thank you for the info, I had also failed to answer the op's question, which was an oversight on my part.

@SlipshodResearch Год назад

Wow.

@susanmcdonald9088 Год назад

Light rays bending did NOT prove Einsteins theory! That's a logical fallacy! At least deductively, that every schoolchild used to be taught, Aristotle's fallacy of confirming the antecedent if P, then Q is true. Can't go backwards, if Q is true, proves P is true, nope.